Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Precolonial barangay
View on Wikipedia
| Part of a series on the |
| Pre-colonial history of the Philippines |
|---|
| See also: History of the Philippines |
| History of the Philippines |
|---|
| Timeline |
|
|
In early Philippine history, barangay is the term historically used by scholars[1] to describe the complex sociopolitical units[2]: 4–6 that were the dominant organizational pattern among the various peoples of the Philippine archipelago[3] in the period immediately before the arrival of European colonizers.[4] Academics refer to these settlements using the technical term "polity",[3][5] but they are usually simply called "barangays".[4][2][page needed]
Most barangays were independent villages consisting of thirty to a hundred households.[4][page needed][6][7] Other barangays — most notably those in Maynila, Tondo, Panay,[8] Pangasinan, Caboloan, Cebu, Bohol, Butuan, Cotabato, and Sulu[5][9] — were large cosmopolitan polities.[2][page needed]
The term originally referred to both a house on land and a boat on water, containing families, friends and dependents.[10][11]
Anthropologist F. Landa Jocano defines this period of the barangay states' dominance — approximately the 14th to the 16th centuries — as the "Barangic Phase" of early Philippine history.[4] The Barangic Phase of Philippine history can be noted for its highly mobile nature, with barangays transforming from being settlements and turning into fleets and vice versa, with the wood constantly re-purposed according to the situation.[12]
Some scholars such as Damon Woods, however, have recently challenged the use of the term barangay to describe the Philippines' various indigenous polities, citing a lack of linguistic evidence and the fact that all of the primary references suggesting that use of the term can be traced to just a single source - Juan de Plascencia's 1589 report Las costumbres de los indios Tagalos de Filipinas. Instead, Woods argues that this use of the term barangay reflected what was merely an attempt by the Spanish to reconstructing pre-conquest Tagalog society.[13]
The term has since been adapted as the name of the basic political unit of the Philippines.[10] So historical barangays should not be confused with present-day Philippine barrios, which were officially renamed barangays by the Philippine Local Government Code of 1991 as a reference to historical barangays.
Origins and etymology
[edit]Theories, as well as local oral traditions,[14] say that the original "barangays" were coastal settlements formed as a result of the migration of Austronesian people, who came to the archipelago by boat from Taiwan initially, and stayed in the archipelago to create a thalassocratic and highly sea dependent civilization based on outrigger boats, catamarans and stilt houses. This became the mainstays of the Austronesian speaking populations through the expansion from Maritime Southeast Asia out into the Pacific.
Noting the mobile and maritime nature of Austronesian culture, these ancient barangays were coastal or riverine in nature. This was because most of the people relied on fishing for their supply of protein and livelihoods. They also travelled mostly by water up and down rivers, and along the coasts.
Trails always followed river systems, which were also a major source of water for bathing, washing, and drinking. Early chroniclers record that the name, also spelled balangay, originally referred to a plank boat widely used by various cultures of the Philippine archipelago prior to the arrival of European colonizers; in essence a barangay or balangay is a ship or a fleet of ships and its crew or crews, and also a house or a settlement.[15][2][page needed][3]
Description
[edit]Historically, the first barangays started as relatively small communities of around 30 to 100 families, with a population that varies from one hundred to five hundred persons. When the Spaniards came, they found communities with only twenty to thirty people, as well as large and prestigious principalities.
The coastal villages were more accessible to trade with foreigners. These were ideal places for economic activity to develop. Business with traders from other Countries also meant contact with other cultures and civilizations, such as those of Japan, Han Chinese, Indian people, and Arabs.[16]
In time, these coastal communities acquired more advanced cultures, with developed social structures (sovereign principalities), ruled by established royalties and nobilities.[17]
Smaller barangay settlements
[edit]The smallest barangays were communities of around 30 to 100 households,[4] led by a Datu,[6] or a leader with an equivalent title. This was the typical size of inland settlements by the time the Spanish colonizers arrived in the late 1500s, whereas larger, more cosmopolitan polities dominated the coasts, particularly river deltas.[9][3]
Barangays as apex city states
[edit]When barangays grew larger, as was the case in Ma-i, Maynila, Tondo, Madja-as of Panay, Pangasinan, Caboloan, Cebu, Bohol, Butuan, Sanmalan, Cotabato, Sulu, and Lanao,[9] among others, they took on a more complex social organization. Several barangays, consisting of households loyal to a datu, Rajah or Sultan banded together to form larger cosmopolitan polities as an apex city states.[7] The rulers of these barangays would then select the most senior or most respected among them to serve as a paramount datu. These polities sometimes had other names (such as bayan in the Tagalog regions[2][page needed][4][6]) but since the terminology varies from case to case, scholars such as Jocano[4] and Scott[2][page needed] simply refer to them as "larger" barangays.
Grace Odal-Devora traces the etymology of the term bayan to the word bahayan, meaning a "community", or literally "a place with many households (bahay)."[18] The majority of these early "bayan" were economically complex communities situated river deltas where rivers exit out into the ocean, and featured a compact community layout which distinguished them from inland communities, thus the name.[5]
Odal-Devors notes that bayan's root word, Ba-y or Ba-i, is linguistically related to other Philippine words for shoreline and perimeter (both baybay), woman (babai or the Visayan term ba-i "great lady"), friend (the Visayan term bay), and writing (baybayin).[18] She also notes that these terms are the basis for many place-names in the Philippines, such as Bay, Laguna and Laguna de Bay, and Baybay.[18]
The earliest documentation of the term "Bayan" was done by early Spanish missionaries who came up with local language dictionaries to facilitate the conversion of the peoples of the Philippine archipelago to Roman Catholicism. Among the most significant of these dictionaries was the Vocabulario de la lengua tagala by the Augustinian missionary Fray Pedro de San Buenaventura, who described it as a large town with four to ten datu lived with their followers, called dulohan or barangay.[19][page needed]
After the various polities of the Philippine archipelago were united into a single political entity during colonial times, the term gradually lost its original specific meaning, and took on more generic, descriptive denotations: population center (poblacion) or capital (cabisera); municipality; or in the broadest sense, "country".[Notes 1] Among the most prominent of these bayan entities were those in Maynila, Tondo, Pangasinan, Caboloan, Cebu, Bohol, Butuan, Cotabato, and Sulu.[9][2][page needed]
Although popular portrayals and early nationalist historical texts sometimes depict Philippine paramount rulers as having broad sovereign powers and holding vast territories, critical historiographers such as Jocano,[4]: 160–161 Scott,[2][page needed] and Junker[5] explain that historical sources clearly show paramount leaders exercised only a limited degree of influence, which did not include claims over the barangays and territories of less-senior datus. For example, F. Landa Jocano, in his seminal work Filipino Prehistory: Rediscovering Precolonial Heritage, notes:
Even if different Barangays entered into alliances with one another, there was no sovereign datu over them. Each datu ruled his barangay independently. The alliances were limited to mutual protection and assistance in times of need. It did not entail permanent allegiance. The grouping was based on consensus. Whoever was chosen by the groups as their leader exercised leadership and asserted authority over them. It was a living democracy...Barangay alliances were loosely defined. These were often based on kinship and marriage. Each Barangay remained independent and enjoyed freedom from external control. That was why Lapulapu resisted the attempt of Magellan to make him acknowledge the lordship of Humabon. The same was true of the other datus who resisted coercive efforts of the Spaniards to make them subservient to other Datus.[4]: 160–161
Keifer compares this situation to similarly-structured African polities where "component units of the political structure consist of functionally and structurally equivalent segments integrated only loosely by a centralized authority dependent on the consensual delegation of power upwards (sic) through the system."[20][page needed] Junker, expounding further on Keifer's work, notes:
While political leadership followed an explicitly symbolized hierarchy (sic) of rank [...] this leadership hierarchy (sic) did not (sic) constitute an institutionalized chain of command from center to periphery. Political allegiance was given only to the leader immediately above an individual with whom a kin group had personal ties of economic reciprocity and loyalty.[5]
This explanation of the limited powers of a paramount leader in cultures throughout the Philippine archipelago explains the confusion experienced by Martin de Goiti during the first Spanish forays into Bulacan and Pampanga in late 1571.[21] Until that point, Spanish chroniclers continued to use the terms "king" and "kingdom" to describe the polities of Tondo and Maynila, but Goiti was surprised when Lakandula explained there was "no single king over these lands",[21][2][page needed] and that the leadership of Tondo and Maynila over the Kapampangan polities did not include either territorial claim or absolute command.[2][page needed] Antonio de Morga, in his work Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas, expounds:
There were no kings or lords throughout these islands who ruled over them as in the manner of our kingdoms and provinces; but in every island, and in each province of it, many chiefs were recognized by the natives themselves. Some were more powerful than others, and each one had his followers and subjects, by districts and families; and these obeyed and respected the chief. Some chiefs had friendship and communication with others, and at times wars and quarrels. These principalities and lordships were inherited in the male line and by succession of father and son and their descendants. If these were lacking, then their brothers and collateral relatives succeeded... When any of these chiefs was more courageous than others in war and upon other occasions, such a one enjoyed more followers and men; and the others were under his leadership, even if they were chiefs. These latter retained to themselves the lordship and particular government of their own following, which is called barangay among them. They had datos and other special leaders [mandadores] who attended to the interests of the barangay.[22][page needed]
Titles of rulers
[edit]Because the peoples of the Philippine archipelago had different languages, the highest ranking political authorities in the largest historical barangay polities went by different titles. The titles of the paramount datu also changed from case to case, including: Sultan in the most Islamized areas of Mindanao;[2][page needed] lakan among the Tagalogs;[2][page needed] Thimuay Labi among the Subanen; rajah in polities which traded extensively with Indonesia and Malaysia; or simply Datu in some areas of Mindanao and the Visayas.[5]
In communities which historically had strong political or trade connections with Indianized polities in Indonesia and Malaysia,[23] the Paramount Ruler was called a rajah.[23][2][page needed] Among the Subanon people of the Zamboanga Peninsula, a settlement's datus answer to a thimuay, and some thimuays are sometimes additionally referred to as thimuay labi,[24] or as sulotan in more Islamized Subanon communities.[25] In some other portions of the Visayas and Mindanao, there was no separate name for the most senior ruler, so the Paramount ruler was simply called a datu,[23][2][page needed] although one datu was identifiable as the most senior.[4][26]
Alliance groups among paramount rulers
[edit]Often, these paramount datus, rajahs and sultans formed ritual alliances with the leaders of nearby polities,[2][page needed] and these "alliance groups"[5] spread their political influence (but not their territorial claims[2][page needed][9]) across an even larger geographic area. One prominent example was the case of the paramount rulers of Maynila and Tondo, who were said to have political sway among the peoples of Bulacan and Pampanga[21] before the arrival of the Spanish.[2][page needed]
Social organization and stratification
[edit]The barangays in some coastal places in Panay,[27] Manila, Cebu, Jolo, and Butuan, with cosmopolitan cultures and trade relations with other countries in Asia, were already established Principalities before the coming of the Spaniards. In these regions, even though the majority of these barangays were not large settlements, yet they had organized societies dominated by the same type of recognized aristocracy (with birthright claim to allegiance from followers), as those found in established principalities.
The aristocratic group in these pre-colonial societies was called the datu class. Its members were presumably the descendants of the first settlers on the land or, in the case of later arrivals, of those who were datus at the time of migration or conquest. Some of these principalities have remained, even until the present, in unhispanized[28] and mostly Islamized parts of the Philippines, in Mindanao.[29]
| Class | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
Raja, Lakan |
Paramount Leader of the confederacy of Barangay states. In a confederacy forged by alliances among polities, the datu would convene to choose a paramount chief from among themselves; their communal decision would be based on a datu's prowess in battle, leadership, and network of allegiances. | |
Datu |
Datus were maginoo with personal followings (dulohan or barangay). His responsibilities include: governing his people, leading them in war, protecting them from enemies and settling disputes. He received agricultural produce and services from his people, and distributed irrigated land among his barangay with right of usufruct. | |
Maginoo |
Maginoo comprised the ruling class of Tagalogs, Ginoo was both honorific for both men and women.
Panginoon were maginoo with many slaves and other valuable property like houses and boats. Lineage was emphasized over wealth; the nouveau riche were derogatorily referred to as maygintawo (fellow with a lot of riches). Members included: those who could claim noble lineage, members of the datu's family. | |
| Powerful governor of a province within the caliphate or dynasties of Islamic regions. Their position was inherited by a direct descent in a royal bloodline who could claim the allegiances of the datu. Sultans took on foreign relations with other states, and could declare war or allow subordinate datus to declare war if need be. The sultan had his court, a prime minister (gugu), an heir to the throne (Rajah Muda or crown prince), a third-ranking dignitary (Rajah Laut, or sea lord) and advisers (pandita). | ||
| Timawa and Maharlika (middle class and freemen) | Timawa |
Non-slaves who can attached themselves to the Datu of their choice. They could use and bequeath a portion of barangay land.
In Luzon, their main responsibility to the datu was agricultural labor, but they could also work in fisheries, accompany expeditions, and rowboats. They could also perform irregular services, like support feasts or build houses. In Visayas, they paid no tribute and rendered no agricultural labor. They were seafaring warriors who bound themselves to a datu. Member included: illegitimate children of Maginoo and slaves and former alipin who paid off their debts. |
Maharlika |
Warrior class of the barangay, rendered military services to the Datu and paid for their own equipment and weapons. They also received a share of the spoils. | |
Alipin/Uripon (slaves) |
Alipin Namamahay | Slaves who lived in their own houses apart from their creditor. If the alipin's debt came from insolvency or legal action, the alipin and his creditor agreed on a period of indenture and an equivalent monetary value in exchange for it. The alipin namamahay was allowed to farm a portion of barangay land, but he was required to provide a measure of threshed rice or a jar of rice wine for his master's feasts. He came whenever his master called to harvest crops, build houses, rowboats, or carry cargo.
Member included: those who have inherited debts from namamahay parents, timawa who went into debt, and former alipin saguiguilid who married and were allowed to live outside of master's house. |
| Alipin Saguiguilid | Slaves who lived in their creditor's house and were entirely dependent on him for food and shelter. Male alipin sagigilid who married were often raised to namamahay status, because it was more economical for his master (as opposed to supporting him and his new family under the same roof). However, female alipin sagigilid were rarely permitted to marry.
Member included: children born in creditor's house and children of parents who were too poor to raise them. |
Babaylan were highly respected members of the community, on par with the Maginoo.[32][2][page needed][33] In the absence of the datu (head of the community), the Babaylan takes in the role of interim head of the community.[34] Babaylans were powerful ritual specialists who were believed to have influence over the weather and tap various spirits in the natural and spiritual realms. Babaylans were held in such high regard as they were believed to possess powers that can block the dark magic of an evil datu or spirit and heal the sick or wounded. Among other powers of the babaylan were to ensure a safe pregnancy and child birth.
As a spiritual medium, babaylans also lead rituals with offerings to the various divinities or deities. As an expert in divine and herb lore, incantations, and concoctions of remedies, antidotes, and a variety of potions from various roots, leaves, and seeds, the babaylans were also regarded as allies of certain datus in subjugating an enemy, hence, the babaylans were also known for their specialization in medical and divine combat.[34]
According to William Henry Scott[2] a Katalonan could be of either sex, or male transvestites (bayoguin), but were usually women from prominent families who were wealthy in their own right. According to Luciano P. R. Santiago (To Love and to Suffer) as remuneration for their services they received a good part of the offerings of food, wine, clothing, and gold, the quality and quantity of which depended on the social status of the supplicant. Thus, the catalonas filled a very prestigious as well as lucrative role in society.
Variation in social stratification
[edit]Because of the difficulty of accessing and accurately interpreting the various available sources,[23] relatively few integrative studies of pre-colonial social structures have been done – most studies focus on the specific context of a single settlement or ethnic group. There are only a handful of historiographers and anthropologists who have done integrative studies to examine the commonalities and differences between these polities. In the contemporary era of critical scholarly analysis, the more prominent such works include the studies of anthropologist F. Landa Jocano[4][5] and historian-historiographer William Henry Scott.[2][5] More recently, anthropologist Laura Lee Junker[5] conducted an updated comparative review of the social organization of early polities throughout the archipelago, alongside her study of inter and intra-regional trade among Philippine coastal polities.[9]
In the middle of the seventeenth century, the Jesuit missionary Francisco Colin made an attempt to give an approximate comparison of the social stratification in Tagalog culture with that in the Visayan culture. While social mobility was possible in the former, in the Visayas, the Datu (if had the personality and economic means) could retain and restrain competing peers, relatives, and offspring from moving up the social ladder.[35]
The term Timawa came into use in the Tagalog social structure within just twenty years after the coming of the Spaniards. The term, however, was being applied to former Alipin (Third Class) who have escaped bondage by payment, favor, or flight. The Tagalog Timawas did not have the military prominence of the Visayan Timawa. The warrior class in the Tagalog society was present only in Laguna, and they were called the Maharlika Class. At the early part of the Spanish regime, the number of their members who were coming to rent land from their Datus was increasing.[35]
Unlike the Visayan Datus, the Lakans and Apos of Luzon could call all non-Maginoo subjects to work in the Datu’s fields or do all sorts of other personal labor. In the Visayas, only the Oripuns were obliged to do that, and to pay tribute besides. The Tagalog who works in the Datu’s field did not pay him tribute, and could transfer their allegiance to another Datu.[35]
The Visayan Timawa neither paid tribute nor performed agricultural labor. In this sense, they were truly aristocrats. The Tagalog Maharlika did not only work in his Datu’s field, but could also be required to pay his own rent. Thus, all non-Maginoo in Luzon formed a common economic class in some sense, though this class had no designation.[35]
In other parts of the Archipelago, even though the majority of these barangays were not large settlements, yet they had organized societies dominated by the same type of recognized aristocracy and Lordships (with birthright claim to allegiance from followers), as those found in more established, richer and more developed Principalities.[36]
Barangays in the Visayas
[edit]In more developed barangays in Visayas (e.g. Cebu, Bohol, and Panay) which were never conquered by Spain but were subjugated as vassals by means of pacts, peace treaties, and reciprocal alliances,[37] the datu was at the top of the social order in a sakop or haop (elsewhere referred to as barangay).[38]
This social order was divided into three classes. The members of the tumao class (which includes the datu) were the nobility of pure royal descent,[2][page needed] compared by the Boxer Codex to the titled Spanish lords (señores de titulo).[38] Below the tumao were the vassal warrior class known as the timawa, characterized by the Jesuit priest Francisco Ignatio Alcina as "the third rank of nobility" and by the conquistador Miguel de Loarca as "free men, neither chiefs nor slaves". These were people of lower nobility who were required to render military service to the datu in hunts, land wars (Mangubat or Managayau), or sea raids (Mangahat or Magahat).[39]
Aside from this, the timawa also paid taxes and tribute (buwis or handug) and were sometimes called upon for agricultural labor to the datu, though the personal vassals of the datu may be exempt from such obligations (the latter were characterized by the Boxer Codex as "knights and hidalgos).[2][page needed] Below the timawa were the oripun class (commoners and slaves), who rendered services to the tumao and timawa for debts or favors.[2][page needed][40]
To maintain purity of bloodline, the tumao usually marry only among their kind, often seeking high ranking brides in other barangay, abducting them, or contracting brideprices in gold, slaves and jewelry. Meanwhile, the datu keep their marriageable daughters secluded for protection and prestige.[41] These well-guarded and protected highborn women were called binokot (literally "veiled" or "swaddled"), and the datu of pure descent (at least for four generations) were called potli nga datu or lubus nga datu.[42]
Barangays in the Tagalog Region
[edit]The different type of culture prevalent in Luzon gave a less stable and more complex social structure to the pre-colonial Tagalog barangays of Manila, Pampanga and Laguna. Taking part in a more extensive commerce than those in Visayas, having the influence of Bornean political contacts, and engaging in farming wet rice for a living, the Tagalogs were described by the Spanish Augustinian friar Martin de Rada as more traders than warriors, and possessed distinct religious practices concerning anitos and dambanas.[43]
The more complex social structure of the Tagalogs was less stable during the arrival of the Spaniards because it was still in a process of differentiating. A Jesuit priest Francisco Colin made an attempt to give an approximate comparison of it with the Visayan social structure in the middle of the 17th century. The term datu or lakan, or apo refers to the chief, but the noble class to which the datu belonged to was known as the maginoo class. Any male member of the maginoo class can become a datu by personal achievement.[44]
The term timawa referring to freemen came into use in the social structure of the Tagalogs within just twenty years after the coming of the Spaniards. The term, however, was being incorrectly applied to former alipin (commoner and slave class) who have escaped bondage by payment, favor, or flight. Moreover, the Tagalog timawa did not have the military prominence of the Visayan timawa. The equivalent warrior class in the Tagalog society was present only in Laguna, and they were known as the maharlika class.[44]
At the bottom of the social hierarchy are the members of the alipin class. There are two main subclasses of the alipin class. The aliping namamahay who owned their own houses and served their masters by paying tribute or working on their fields were the commoners and serfs, while the aliping sa gigilid who lived in their masters' houses were the servants and slaves.
Hispanization
[edit]Upon the arrival of the Spanish, smaller ancient barangays were combined to form towns in a resettlement process known as Reducción. The policy coerced inhabitants of several far-flung and scattered barangays to move into a centralized cabecera (town) where a newly built church was situated. This allowed the Spanish government to control the movement of the indigenous population, to easily facilitate Christianization, to conduct population counts, and to collect tributes.[45][46][47] Every barangay within a town was headed by the cabeza de barangay (barangay chief), who formed part of the Principalía - the elite ruling class of the municipalities of the Spanish Philippines. This position was inherited from the datu, and came to be known as such during the Spanish regime. The Spanish Monarch ruled each barangay through the cabeza, who also collected taxes (called tribute) from the residents for the Spanish Crown.
Difference from the modern barangay
[edit]The word barangay in modern use refers to the smallest administrative division in the Philippines, also known by its former Spanish adopted name, the barrio. This modern context for the use of the term barangay was adopted during the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos when he ordered the replacement of the old barrios and municipal councils. This act was eventually codified under the 1991 Local Government Code.
There are a number of distinctions between the modern Barangay or Barrio, and the city-states and independent principalities encountered by the Spanish when they first arrived in 1521 and established relatively permanent settlements beginning in 1565. The most glaring difference would be that the modern entity represents a geographical entity, the pre-colonial barangays represented loyalty to a particular head (datu).
Even during the early days of Spanish rule, it was not unusual for people living beside each other to actually belong to different barangays.[2][page needed] They owed their loyalty to different datus. Also, while the modern barangay represents only the smallest administrative unit of government, the barangay of precolonial times was either independent, or belonged to what was only a loose confederation of several barangays, over which the rulers picked among themselves who would be foremost - known as the Pangulo or Rajah.
In most cases, his function was to make decisions which would involve multiple barangays, such as disputes between members of two different barangays. Internally, each datu retained his jurisdiction.[48][49]
Related concepts
[edit]Feudalism
[edit]The organization of pre-colonial Philippine states has often been described as or compared to feudalism (see non-Western feudalism), particularly in light of Marxist socioeconomic analysis. Specifically, political scientists note that political patterns of the modern Republic of the Philippines, supposedly a liberal democracy, can more accurately be described using the term "Cacique Democracy"
Cacique democracy
[edit]Present-day political scientists studying the Philippines have noted that the reciprocal social obligations that characterized the pre-colonial bayan and barangay system are still in place today, albeit using the external trappings of modern liberal democracy. The term "cacique democracy" has been used to describe the feudal political system of the Philippines where in many parts of the country local leaders remain very strong, with almost warlord-type powers.[50]
The term was originally coined by Benedict Anderson[51] from the Taíno word Cacique[52] and its modern derivative "caciquismo" (sometimes translated as "Bossism"),[53] which refers to a political boss or leader who exercises significant power in a political system.
Mandala
[edit]In the late 20th century, European historians who believed that historical Southeast Asian polities did not conform to classical Chinese or European views of political geography began adapting the Sanskrit word "Mandala" ("circle") as a model for describing the patterns of diffuse political power distributed among Mueang or Kedatuan (principalities) in early Southeast Asian history. They emphasized that these polities were defined by their centre rather than their boundaries, and it could be composed of numerous other tributary polities without undergoing administrative integration.[54]
This model has been applied to the historical polities of Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia which traded extensively with various Bayan polities in the Philippines. However, Southeast Asian historians such as Jocano, Scott, and Osbourne are careful to note that the Philippines and Vietnam were outside of the geographical scope of direct Indian influence, and that the Philippines instead received an indirect Indian cultural influence through their relations with the Majapahit empire.
Philippine historiographers thus do not apply the term "Mandala" to describe early Philippine polities because doing so overemphasizes the scale of Indian influence on Philippine culture, obscuring the indigenous Austronesian cultural connections to the peoples of Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia.
See also
[edit]- Kedatuan, another term for the system of independent and semi-independent city-states in Maritime Southeast Asia
- Mueang, similar concept in mainland Southeast Asia, especially in Thailand and Laos
- Mandala, political model in ancient Southeast Asia
- Christianization
- Indian cultural influences in early Philippine polities
- Paramount rulers in early Philippine history
- Lakan
- Thimuay
- Datu
- Maynila
- Tondo
- Balangay
Notes
[edit]- ^ Another word, bansa or bangsa, is translated "nation".
References
[edit]- ^ Quezon, Manolo (October 2, 2017). "The Explainer: Bamboozled by the barangay". ABS-CBN News. Archived from the original on October 2, 2017. Retrieved October 4, 2017.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Scott, William Henry (1994). Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press. ISBN 971-550-135-4.
- ^ a b c d Junker, Laura Lee (2000). Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms. Ateneo de Manila University Press. pp. 74, 130. ISBN 9789715503471. ISBN 971-550-347-0, ISBN 978-971-550-347-1.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Jocano, F. Landa (1998). Filipino Prehistory: Rediscovering Precolonial Heritage (2001 ed.). Quezon City: Punlad Research House, Inc. ISBN 971-622-006-5.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Junker, Laura Lee (1990). "The Organization of IntraRegional and LongDistance Trade in PreHispanic Philippine Complex Societies". Asian Perspectives. 29 (2): 167–209.
- ^ a b c "Pre-colonial Manila". Malacañang Presidential Museum and Library. Malacañang Presidential Museum and Library Araw ng Maynila Briefers. Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Office. June 23, 2015. Archived from the original on March 9, 2016. Retrieved April 27, 2017.
- ^ a b Carley, Michael; Smith, Harry (November 5, 2013). Urban Development and Civil Society: The Role of Communities in Sustainable Cities. Routledge. ISBN 9781134200504.
- ^ "También fundó convento el Padre Fray Martin de Rada en Araut – que ahora se llama el convento de Dumangas – con la advocación de nuestro Padre San Agustín...Está fundado este pueblo casi a los fines del río de Halaur, que naciendo en unos altos montes en el centro de esta isla (Panay)...Es el pueblo muy hermoso, ameno y muy lleno de palmares de cocos. Antiguamente era el emporio y corte de la más lucida nobleza de toda aquella isla."de SAN AGUSTIN OSA (1650–1724), Fr Gaspár; DIAZ OSA, Fr Casimiro (1698). Conquistas de las Islas Philipinas. Parte primera : la temporal, por las armas del señor don Phelipe Segundo el Prudente, y la espiritual, por los religiosos del Orden de Nuestro Padre San Augustin; fundacion y progreso de su Provincia del Santissimo Nombre de Jesus (in Spanish). Madrid: Imprenta de Manuel Ruiz de Murga. ISBN 978-8400040727. OCLC 79696350. "The second part of the work, compiled by Casimiro Díaz Toledano from the manuscript left by Gaspár de San Agustín, was not published until 1890 under the title: Conquistas de las Islas Filipinas, Parte segunda", pp. 374-376.
- ^ a b c d e f Junker, Laura Lee (1998). "Integrating History and Archaeology in the Study of Contact Period Philippine Chiefdoms". International Journal of Historical Archaeology. 2 (4): 291–320. doi:10.1023/A:1022611908759. S2CID 141415414.
- ^ a b "barangay". Oxford Dictionaries. June 25, 2015. Archived from the original on December 22, 2015. Retrieved November 5, 2015.
- ^ During the early part of the Spanish colonization of the Philippines the Spanish Augustinian Friar, Gaspar de San Agustín, O.S.A., describes Iloilo and Panay as one of the most populated islands in the archipelago and the most fertile of all the islands of the Philippines. He also talks about Iloilo, particularly the ancient settlement of Halaur, as site of a progressive trading post and a court of illustrious nobilities. The friar says: Es la isla de Panay muy parecida a la de Sicilia, así por su forma triangular come por su fertilidad y abundancia de bastimentos... Es la isla más poblada, después de Manila y Mindanao, y una de las mayores, por bojear más de cien leguas. En fertilidad y abundancia es en todas la primera... El otro corre al oeste con el nombre de Alaguer [Halaur], desembocando en el mar a dos leguas de distancia de Dumangas...Es el pueblo muy hermoso, ameno y muy lleno de palmares de cocos. Antiguamente era el emporio y corte de la más lucida nobleza de toda aquella isla...Mamuel Merino, O.S.A., ed., Conquistas de las Islas Filipinas (1565-1615), Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1975, pp. 374-376.
- ^ ["Barangay Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture And Society" By: William Henry Scott. ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY PRESS]
- ^ Woods, Damon (2017). The Myth of the Barangay and Other Silenced Histories. E. de los Santos St., UP Campus, Diliman, Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press. pp. 117–153. ISBN 978-971-542-821-7.
- ^ Cf. Maragtas (book)
- ^ Plasencia, Fray Juan de (1589). "Customs of the Tagalogs". Nagcarlan, Laguna. Archived from the original on January 23, 2009. Retrieved March 7, 2009.
- ^ The Cultural Influences of India, China, Arabia, and Japan Archived July 1, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ For more information about the social system of the Indigenous Philippine society before the Spanish colonization confer Barangay in Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada Europea-Americana, Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, S. A., 1991, Vol. VII, p.624. The article also says: "Los nobles de un barangay eran los más ricos ó los más fuertes, formándose por este sistema los dattos ó maguinoos, principes á quienes heredaban los hijos mayores, las hijas á falta de éstos, ó los parientes más próximos si no tenían descendencia directa; pero siempre teniendo en cuenta las condiciones de fuerza ó de dinero...Los vassalos plebeyos tenían que remar en los barcos del maguinoo, cultivar sus campos y pelear en la guerra. Los siervos, que formaban el término medio entre los esclavos y los hombres libres, podían tener propriedad individual, mujer, campos, casa y esclavos; pero los tagalos debían pagar una cantidad en polvo de oro equivalente á una parte de sus cosechas, los de los barangayes bisayas estaban obligados á trabajar en las tieras del señor cinco días al mes, pagarle un tributo anual en arroz y hacerle un presente en las fiestas. Durante la dominación española, el cacique, jefe de un barangay, ejercía funciones judiciales y administrativas. A los tres años tenía el tratamiento de don y se reconocía capacidad para ser gobernadorcillo, con facultades para nombrarse un auxiliar llamado primogenito, siendo hereditario el cargo de jefe." It should also be noted that the more popular and official term used to refer to the leaders of the district or to the cacique during the Spanish period was Cabeza de Barangay.
- ^ a b c Odal-Devora, Grace (2000). The River Dwellers, in Book Pasig : The River of Life (Edited by Reynaldo Gamboa Alejandro and Alfred A. Yuson). Unilever Philippines. pp. 43–66.
- ^ Keifer, Thomas (1972). The Tausug: Violence and Law in a Philippine Muslim Society. New York: Holt, Rineheart and Winston. ISBN 0881332429.
- ^ a b c Blair, Emma Helen; Robertson, James Alexander, eds. (1903). Relation of the Conquest of the Island of Luzon. Vol. 3. Ohio, Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark Company. p. 145.
{{cite book}}:|work=ignored (help) - ^ Morga, Antonio de (1609). Succesos de las Islas Filipinas.
- ^ a b c d Scott, William Henry (1984). Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History. Quezon City: New Day Publishers. ISBN 978-9711002268.
- ^ Imbing, Thimuay Mangura Vicente L.; Viernes-Enriquez, Joy (1990). "A Legend of the Subanen "Buklog"". Asian Folklore Studies. 49 (1): 109–123. doi:10.2307/1177951. JSTOR 1177951.
- ^ Buendia, Rizal; Mendoza, Lorelei; Guiam, Rufa; Sambeli, Luisa (2006). Mapping and Analysis of Indigenous Governance Practices in the Philippines and Proposal for Establishing an Indicative Framework for Indigenous People's Governance: Towards a Broader and Inclusive Process of Governance in the Philippines (PDF). Bangkok: United Nations Development Programme.
- ^ Scott, William Henry (1992). Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino and Other Essays in the Philippine History. Quezon City: New Day Publishers. ISBN 971-10-0524-7.
- ^ In Panay, the existence of highly developed and independent principalities of Ogtong (Oton) and Araut (Dumangas) was well known to early Spanish settlers in the Philippines. The Augustinian historian Gaspar de San Agustin, for example, wrote about the existence of an ancient and illustrious nobility in Araut, in his book Conquistas de las Islas Filipinas (1565–1615). He said: "También fundó convento el Padre Fray Martin de Rada en Araut- que ahora se llama el convento de Dumangas- con la advocación de nuestro Padre San Agustín...Está fundado este pueblo casi a los fines del río de Halaur, que naciendo en unos altos montes en el centro de esta isla (Panay)...Es el pueblo muy hermoso, ameno y muy lleno de palmares de cocos. Antiguamente era el emporio y corte de la más lucida nobleza de toda aquella isla." Gaspar de San Agustin, O.S.A., Conquistas de las Islas Filipinas (1565–1615), Manuel Merino, O.S.A., ed., Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas: Madrid 1975, pp. 374-375.
- ^ Historians classify four types of non-Hispanized societies in the Philippines, some of which still survive in remote and isolated parts of the Country: 1.) Classless societies; 2.) Warrior societies, characterized by a distinct warrior class, in which membership is won by personal achievement, entails privilege, duty and prescribed norms of conduct, and is requisite for community leadership; 3.) Petty Plutocracies, which are dominated socially and politically by a recognized class of rich men who attain membership through birthright, property and the performance of specified ceremonies. They are "petty" because their authority is localized, being extended by neither absentee landlordism nor territorial subjugation; 4.) Principalities. Cf. William Henry Scott, Cracks in the Parchment Curtain, Quezon City: 1998, p. 139.
- ^ Cf. William Henry Scott, Cracks in the Parchment Curtain, Quezon City: 1998, pp. 127-147.
- ^ Heroism,heritage and nationhood. PCDSPO. 2016. pp. 7–8.
- ^ Philippine Electoral Almanac. – Revised and expanded edition. Manila: Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Office. 2015. pp. 3–4.
- ^ McCoy, Alfred (1982). "Baylan : Animist Religion and Philippine Peasant Ideology". Philippine Quarterly of Culture and Society. 10 (3): 141–194.
- ^ Mallari, Perry Gil S. (November 16, 2013). "The complementary roles of the Mandirigma and the Babaylan". The Manila Times. Retrieved July 5, 2018.
- ^ a b Limos, Mario Alvaro (March 18, 2019). "The Fall of the Babaylan". Esquire. Retrieved July 12, 2019.
- ^ a b c d Cf. William Henry Scott, Cracks in the Parchment Curtain, Quezon City: 1998, p. 125.
- ^ The Project Gutenberg EBook of History of the Philippine Islands, Vols. 1 and 2, Chapter VIII.
- ^ Cf. William Henry Scott, Cracks in the Parchment Curtain, Quezon City: 1998, p. 4. Also cf. Antonio Morga, Sucessos de las Islas Filipinas, 2nd ed., Paris: 1890, p. xxxiii.
- ^ a b William Henry Scott, Cracks in the Parchment Curtain, Quezon City: 1998, pp. 102 and 112
- ^ Laura Lee Junker (2000). Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms. Ateneo de Manila University Press. p. 126–127. ISBN 9789715503471.
- ^ William Henry Scott, Cracks in the Parchment Curtain, Quezon City: 1998, pp. 112- 118.
- ^ http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/pssr/article/viewFile/1274/1630 Seclusion and Veiling of Women: A Historical and Cultural Approach
- ^ William Henry Scott, Cracks in the Parchment Curtain, Quezon City: 1998, p. 113.
- ^ Cf. William Henry Scott, Cracks in the Parchment Curtain, Quezon City: 1998, pp. 124-125.
- ^ a b Cf. William Henry Scott, Cracks in the Parchment Curtain, Quezon City: 1998, p. 125.
- ^ Abinales, Patricio N.; Amoroso, Donna J. (2005). "New States and Reorientations 1368–1764". State and Society in the Philippines. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 53, 55. ISBN 0742510247. Retrieved January 15, 2015.
- ^ Alas, José Mario “Pepe”. "28 July 1571: The Foundation Date of the Province of La Laguna". Academia.edu. Retrieved January 15, 2015.
- ^ "The Philippines Then and Now; Spanish Period". Blogspot. May 22, 2009. Retrieved January 15, 2015.
- ^ Scott, William Henry (1992). Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino. Quezon City: New Day Publishers. ISBN 971-10-0524-7.
- ^ Laput, Ernesto J. "Ninuno Mo, Ninuno Ko: Juan de Plasencia". Pinas: Munting Kasaysayan ng Pira-pirasong Bayan (in Filipino). elaput.com. Archived from the original on August 14, 2007. Retrieved August 2, 2007.
- ^ Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, Cacique Democracy'
- ^ Benedict Anderson, 'Cacique Democracy in the Philippines: Origins and Dreams', New Left Review, I (169), May–June 1988
- ^ The Catastrophe of Modernity: Tragedy and the Nation in Latin American Literature. Bucknell University Press. 2004. pp. 136–. ISBN 978-0-8387-5561-7. Retrieved June 25, 2013.
- ^ Robert Kern, The caciques: oligarchical politics and the system of caciquismo in the Luso-Hispanic world. Albuquerque, University of New Mexico Press [1973]
- ^ Dellios, Rosita (June 25, 2019). "Mandala: From Sacred Origins to Sovereign Affairs in Traditional Southeast Asia". Culture Mandala. 13 (3): 9428.
Precolonial barangay
View on GrokipediaTerminology and Origins
Etymology and Linguistic Roots
The term barangay, referring to precolonial Philippine sociopolitical units, derives from balangay (also spelled balangai or barangay), the name for a traditional lashed-lug plank boat used by Austronesian seafarers for migration and settlement.[4][5] This boat type, constructed by joining planks edge-to-edge with pins, dowels, and fiber lashings, facilitated the transport of families and communities, leading to the semantic extension of balangay from the vessel itself to the kinship group or settlement it carried. Spanish chroniclers adopted and adapted the term as barangay in the 16th century to describe indigenous villages, preserving its association with boat-borne arrivals of Malay stock settlers.[4][6] Linguistically, balangay traces to Proto-Malayo-Polynesian roots within the Austronesian language family, reflecting maritime vocabulary developed during expansions from Taiwan circa 3000–1500 BCE.[7] The word's cognates appear in various Austronesian languages, denoting boats or communities, underscoring the seafaring basis of early Philippine social organization where balangay crews formed the nucleus of barangay units upon landing.[5] While primary precolonial records are scarce, ethnohistorical analyses link this etymology to oral traditions of datu-led migrations, as recorded in postcontact accounts like the Maragtas legend, though the latter's historicity remains debated among scholars favoring archaeological over legendary evidence.[8]Precolonial Designations and Equivalents
In precolonial Philippine societies, the sociopolitical unit known retrospectively as the barangay—derived from balangay, referring to the large outrigger boats used by Austronesian migrants for settlement and trade—was designated by terms reflecting regional linguistic and cultural variations. These units typically comprised 30 to 100 families under a datu's leadership, originating from a boat's crew and evolving into kinship-based communities centered on a leader's house.[9] In Visayan regions, balangay directly denoted both the vessel and the polity it founded, as documented in 16th-century accounts of plank-built boats serving as warships and transport in raids and migrations.[9] Equivalent terms included banwa in Visayan and Bikol contexts, signifying a settlement or homeland tied to its natural environment and ruled by a namamanwa (mountain-chief), often encompassing one or more subgroups like haop (follower groups).[9] In Tagalog areas, bayan described a larger community of multiple barangays under 4–10 chiefs, emphasizing collective identity and loyalty beyond the basic kinship unit, while pook referred to a single-barangay settlement.[9] These designations, drawn from early Spanish chroniclers' records of indigenous languages, highlight functional equivalents rooted in maritime migration and familial allegiance rather than fixed territorial boundaries, with haop or dotation sometimes synonymously denoting the datu's dependent followers forming the polity's core.[9]| Term | Primary Region/Language | Meaning and Usage | Key 16th-Century Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balangay | Visayan | Boat-derived settlement; crew-based polity | Pigafetta (1521–1522), Alcina (1668)[9] |
| Banwa | Visayan, Bikol | Community or town linked to locale/spirits | Mentrida (1637)[9] |
| Bayan | Tagalog | Multi-barangay town; core loyalty unit | Plasencia (1589)[9] |
| Pook | Tagalog | Single-barangay locale | Boxer Codex (c. 1590)[9] |
Archaeological and Historical Evidence
Prehistoric Foundations and Early Settlements
The prehistoric foundations of precolonial barangays trace to the archipelago's initial human occupations during the Pleistocene, characterized by small, mobile hunter-gatherer bands rather than fixed settlements. Archaeological excavations in Kalinga Province, northern Luzon, uncovered stone tools alongside butchered rhinoceros bones dating to approximately 709,000 years ago, indicating early hominin hunting activities by groups possibly akin to Homo erectus.[10] Subsequent evidence from sites like Callao Cave in Luzon reveals Homo luzonensis fossils dated to 50,000–67,000 years ago, suggesting archaic human persistence alongside later modern arrivals.[11] These Paleolithic populations, numbering likely in the dozens per group, relied on foraging, shellfish collection, and rudimentary tools, with no indications of agriculture or permanent villages that would characterize barangay precursors.[12] Anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) established a more enduring presence by the Upper Paleolithic, with key sites such as Tabon Cave in Palawan yielding human remains, shell middens, and stone artifacts dated to 47,000–30,000 years ago.[11] Mitochondrial DNA analyses corroborate colonization events exceeding 60,000 years ago, involving long-distance dispersal from both northern (via Sundaland) and southern routes, leading to genetically diverse groups including Negrito populations.[11] Recent discoveries on Mindoro Island, including human remains, animal bones, and stone/bone/shell tools from layers over 35,000 years old, demonstrate early maritime adaptations, with evidence of boat use for island-hopping and resource exploitation across Wallacean barriers.[13][14] These semi-nomadic bands formed the basal social units—kinship clusters exploiting coastal and riverine niches—but lacked the sedentary agriculture or hierarchical structures of later barangays.[15] The transition to proto-barangay settlements emerged in the Neolithic period (circa 4000–2000 BCE), driven by the influx of Austronesian-speaking migrants from Taiwan, who introduced polished stone tools, red-slipped pottery, domesticated plants (e.g., rice, taro), and pigs.[16] Sites in the Batanes Islands, such as those dated to around 2200 BCE, show house remains, jade artifacts, and evidence of sailing technology, marking the onset of village-like aggregations supported by swidden farming and marine resources.[17] In Cagayan Valley, Nagsabaran site yields Neolithic pottery and tools from circa 2000 BCE, reflecting settled communities of 50–100 individuals organized around extended kin groups, with exchange networks extending to mainland Asia.[12] This Austronesian overlay integrated with indigenous foragers, fostering larger, kin-based polities that evolved into the decentralized barangays of the Metal Age, emphasizing self-sufficient, boat-oriented coastal enclaves.[11] Limitations in dating precision and site preservation underscore that these early settlements, while foundational, represented gradual demographic and technological shifts rather than abrupt impositions.[15]Key Artifacts and Sites
The Butuan archaeological sites in Agusan del Norte province, particularly in Barangay Libertad, have produced the remains of multiple balangay boats dating from the 4th to the 13th centuries CE, offering physical evidence of the seafaring vessels that underpinned precolonial settlement patterns and gave rise to the term "barangay," derived from "balangay" meaning large outrigger boat. Excavations beginning in the 1970s uncovered at least nine such vessels, constructed via the lashed-lug method with hardwood planks sewn together and featuring bamboo outriggers for stability, consistent with Austronesian maritime technology used for migration, trade, and community formation.[18][19][20] These finds, preserved in anaerobic mud, include the "Mother Boat" (Balangay 1), measuring approximately 15 meters in length, and demonstrate advanced woodworking skills, with carbon-14 dating confirming their precolonial origins tied to regional networks in Southeast Asia.[21] The Laguna Copperplate Inscription (LCI), unearthed in 1989 near the Lumbang River in Lumban, Laguna, represents the earliest known written record from the archipelago, dated to Saka era 822 (equivalent to April-May 900 CE) and inscribed in Old Malay using Kawi script on a copperplate measuring 74 by 31 cm. This legal document records the remission of a debt of one kati and two suvarna of gold by a representative of a foreign prince to local figures, invoking territorial spirits and referencing polities like Tondo, Pailah, and Puliran, which suggests hierarchical organization with leaders (e.g., titles like "paramount ruler" or "lord") overseeing debt, inheritance, and alliances—elements indicative of barangay-like administrative units.[22][23] The artifact's multilingual elements, blending local and Indic influences, underscore literacy and integration into broader trade systems without implying subordination to external empires.[24] Additional artifacts from sites like Manunggul Cave in Palawan include the Manunggul Jar, a Neolithic secondary burial vessel dated circa 890-710 BCE via thermoluminescence, featuring anthropomorphic figures in a boat motif symbolizing ancestral voyages and spiritual beliefs central to Austronesian kinship groups that evolved into barangays. Such pottery, excavated from chamber graves, reflects early maritime-oriented societies with ritual practices tied to community identity and mobility. While direct settlement structures remain elusive due to perishable materials like wood and thatch, these maritime and epigraphic finds collectively affirm the barangay's roots in boat-based polities facilitating coastal and riverine habitation across the islands.[25]Limitations of Primary Sources
Primary sources on precolonial barangays are predominantly derived from early European accounts, particularly those of Spanish conquistadors, missionaries, and chroniclers active between 1521 and the late 16th century, such as Antonio Pigafetta's logs from the Magellan expedition and reports by friars like Juan de Plasencia. These documents, often compiled for evidentiary purposes in legal disputes over land and tribute or to support evangelization efforts, suffer from inherent observer bias, as authors viewed indigenous societies through a Eurocentric lens that emphasized perceived primitiveness or savagery to rationalize conquest and conversion.[26][27] The near-total absence of indigenous written records exacerbates these issues, as precolonial Philippine societies relied on oral traditions and limited scripts like baybayin, which were primarily used for poetry, personal communication, and trade notations rather than systematic historical or administrative documentation. This oral emphasis means that native perspectives on barangay organization—kinship networks, leadership succession, and inter-settlement alliances—were filtered through interpreters and second-hand reporting, leading to inconsistencies and potential mistranslations; for instance, Spanish terms like "barrio" or "pueblo" were retrofitted onto fluid Austronesian social units, obscuring their decentralized, non-hierarchical nature.[28] Geographical and temporal limitations further constrain reliability, with most accounts concentrated on coastal Visayan and Tagalog regions encountered during initial colonization, neglecting interior or southern barangays that may have exhibited different scales or adaptations to terrain and trade routes. Moreover, many sources were produced amid wartime chaos or post-contact disruptions, such as the destruction of local artifacts during Spanish campaigns, resulting in incomplete data; William Henry Scott, in reconstructing 16th-century society from over 300 such documents, highlighted how hearsay from informants and the friars' theological agendas often amplified chieftain authority to mirror Iberian feudalism, while downplaying egalitarian elements evident in linguistic evidence.[1][29] Cross-verification with auxiliary evidence, including Chinese tributary records from the Ming dynasty (circa 1370–1430) mentioning Philippine polities like Ma-i, offers sparse corroboration but introduces additional interpretive challenges due to cultural distancing and focus on commerce rather than internal governance. Overall, these constraints necessitate cautious reconstruction, prioritizing internal consistency across accounts and alignment with archaeological findings, yet persistent gaps in native voices undermine definitive claims about barangay variability across the archipelago's 7,000-plus islands.[30]Political and Settlement Structure
Kinship-Based Organization
The precolonial barangay functioned as a sovereign kinship band, comprising an extended family or clan of approximately 30 to 100 households interconnected through consanguineal and affinal ties, often tracing origins to shared migratory boatloads (balangay) from earlier Austronesian settlements. This structure emphasized bilateral descent, with kinship obligations extending equally via paternal and maternal lines, enabling flexible inheritance of property and status without exclusive unilineal clans or strict patrilineage dominance.[9][31] Proto-Philippine kinship terminology reflected this bilateral orientation, using generation-based terms like qanak for children and bapa for parental siblings or affines, which merged lineal and collateral relatives to prioritize reciprocity over hierarchical descent groups. Residence patterns were bilocal or matrilocal, allowing spouses to alternate between families, while endogamous tendencies within the barangay reinforced internal cohesion through marriage alliances that exchanged dowries, such as gold or labor service (paninilbihan).[32][33] Social order relied on these kin networks for mutual aid in agriculture, defense, and dispute resolution, with the datu's authority rooted in noble lineage yet sustained by demonstrated prowess, ensuring the barangay's autonomy as a self-regulating unit amid loose inter-barangay pacts formed via elite marriages. Primary accounts from sixteenth-century Spanish chroniclers, such as Juan de Plasencia's 1589 description of Tagalog customs, corroborate this kin-centric model, though filtered through colonial observations.[9][33]Leadership and Governance
The precolonial barangay, a kinship-based sociopolitical unit typically comprising 30 to several hundred households, was governed by a datu who held supreme authority over internal affairs, including decision-making on community welfare, resource allocation, and conflict resolution.[9] This leadership derived from personal prestige, wealth accumulated through slaves and trade goods, and often hereditary descent within the noble maginoo class, though in regions like the Zambal, Igorot, and Cagayan areas, authority was earned through demonstrated prowess in head-taking raids or lavish feasts rather than bloodlines.[9] The datu's residence, typically a large communal house, functioned as the administrative center, where summons via drum or horn (basal) convened assemblies for governance.[9] Governance operated through consultative mechanisms, with the datu advised by a council (pulong) of elders, freemen (timawa or maharlika), and sometimes specialized aides such as stewards (poragahin) or enforcers (bilanggo), ensuring consensus on major issues like public projects or law amendments during communal drinking sessions.[9] While the datu retained final authority, this structure mitigated unilateral rule by incorporating kin and noble input, reflecting the decentralized nature of barangays where no overarching sovereign existed beyond loose alliances between datus.[9] In larger settlements (bayan), multiple datus might defer to a paramount leader titled lakan or rajah, as in Tondo where tribute and trade oversight reinforced hierarchy.[9] Judicial functions fell to the datu, who adjudicated disputes using customary law (kabtangan), imposing fines in valuables like porcelain (bahandi), enslavement for unpaid debts, ordeals for proof of guilt, or capital punishment for grave offenses such as witchcraft, adultery, or theft.[9] Appeals could escalate to allied datus or external arbiters, promoting stability through networked accountability rather than codified statutes.[9] In military matters, the datu commanded raids (mangayaw) using warships (karakoa) and poisoned weapons, with freemen providing service in exchange for spoils, while divination rituals preceded expeditions to ensure success.[9] These roles, documented in early accounts like those of Antonio Pigafetta (1521) and Miguel de Loarca (1582), underscore the datu's multifaceted position as protector, judge, and mobilizer, sustained by reciprocal obligations within the social hierarchy.[9]Regional Variations in Scale and Form
In the Tagalog regions of Luzon, barangays generally ranged from 30 to 100 households, though larger settlements emerged in trade hubs like Manila, which supported approximately 6,000 inhabitants under multiple datus such as Rajah Ache, Rajah Soliman, and Rajah Lakandula. Inland communities, such as those among the Igorot in mountainous areas, were smaller, often consisting of 8 to 10 households per chief, with leadership determined by prestige gained through feasts rather than strict inheritance. These variations reflected adaptations to terrain, with riverine and coastal barangays emphasizing boat-based mobility and external trade, while highland groups focused on gold mining and defensive village crests.[1] Visayan barangays showed diversity tied to island ecology, with coastal settlements like Cebu featuring extensive graveyards over 1 kilometer long, indicating substantial populations under leaders such as Tupas, who controlled harbor trade networks. In the Bikol area, river valley barangays supported 400 to 800 households through irrigated rice fields and hydraulic systems, fostering a three-tiered structure of datus, timawa (freemen), and oripun (dependents). Inland adaptations included swidden farming and fortified sites (moog or ilihan) for raid defense, with house forms elevated on posts to withstand typhoons and monsoons, differing from smaller, kinship-focused units in isolated interiors.[1] Mindanao barangays often integrated into larger polities influenced by Islamic trade, as in the Maguindanao sultanate where subordinate datus retained local authority under a central sultan, contrasting with the more autonomous datu-led units elsewhere. Coastal examples included Sarangani's Tolula with around 500 dwellings oriented toward maritime raiding and forest product exchange, while Caraga chiefs like Inuk amassed influence over 2,000 slaves through sea expeditions. These forms emphasized sultanate hierarchies and ancestor cults (humalagar), adapting to river mouths and trade routes like Butuan's Agusan River for boat-building and external contacts, yielding scales beyond typical Visayan or Luzon norms.[1] Broader patterns distinguished coastal from inland barangays archipelago-wide: coastal units, averaging 20 to 100 families, prioritized trade and raiding (mangayaw) for slaves and goods, often allying loosely, whereas inland groups of 150 to 200 people relied on agriculture and retreated to hills during conflicts. These differences stemmed from environmental pressures and commerce with Borneo and China, though Spanish chroniclers like Plasencia and Loarca, whose accounts Scott synthesizes, may reflect observer biases toward accessible lowland societies.[1]Social Hierarchy and Stratification
Classes Within the Barangay
Precolonial barangays in the Philippines featured a stratified social structure centered on kinship and debt obligations, with classes distinguished by birth, service duties, and economic independence, as reconstructed from sixteenth-century ethnohistorical accounts by Spanish observers like Juan de Plasencia and Miguel de Loarca.[34] The nobility, often termed maginoo or principales in Tagalog regions, comprised the ruling elite, including the datu who led the barangay—typically 30 to 100 households—and his kin, who held authority over governance, warfare, and resource allocation without performing manual labor.[34] These leaders derived status from hereditary claims reinforced by personal followings (dulohan), and they maintained social distance through endogamous marriages and exemptions from tribute.[35] Freemen, known as timawa in Visayan areas or maharlika and hidalgos in Tagalog contexts, formed an intermediate warrior class unbound by debt servitude, providing military support to the datu in raids and expeditions while retaining autonomy over their lands and households.[34] They rowed war boats as equals to nobles, shared spoils from conflicts, and could transfer allegiance for compensation ranging from 6 to 18 pesos, underscoring a system where loyalty was contractual rather than absolute.[34] In contrast to rigid European feudalism, this class avoided routine tribute, focusing instead on armed service and trade participation.[36] The dependent class, referred to as alipin in Tagalog or oripun in Visayan societies, constituted the majority and was stratified by debt levels rather than permanent enslavement, allowing potential upward mobility through repayment—often 10 taels of gold or equivalent labor redemption.[34] Alipin namamahay (householding dependents) owned property, paid annual tribute like 4 cavans of rice, and could engage in trade, while sa gigilid or hearth-bound subordinates lived within their master's household, performing full-time domestic or field work and being transferable as property, particularly if unmarried or heavily indebted.[34] Subclasses among oripun, such as ayuey (serving 3/4 days weekly) or tumaranpok (4/7 days with a 12-peso debt ceiling), reflected graduated obligations tied to specific debts from fines, war captives, or inheritance, with women often entering this status via unpaid dowries.[35] Regional variations existed, with Visayan systems emphasizing warrior vassals and Tagalog ones incorporating timaguas as semi-vassal freemen, but all hinged on economic productivity supporting the elite without a merchant underclass.[34]| Class | Regional Terms | Key Obligations | Mobility Factors |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nobility | Datu, Maginoo, Principales | Governance, warfare leadership; no tribute | Hereditary, reinforced by alliances |
| Freemen/Warriors | Timawa, Maharlika, Hidalgos | Military service, boat rowing; no routine dues | Allegiance shifts via payment (6-18 pesos) |
| Dependents | Alipin, Oripun (Namamahay, Sa gigilid) | Tribute/labor (e.g., 4 cavans rice or 3-4/7 days service); property variable | Debt repayment (e.g., 10 taels gold) or manumission |
Slavery and Social Dependencies
In precolonial Philippine barangays, the alipin constituted the dependent class, functioning primarily as debtors or war captives bound to provide labor and tribute rather than as chattel property devoid of rights, distinguishing the system from transatlantic slavery.[1] Alipin status arose through inheritance from one alipin parent (resulting in half-free offspring if the other was free), capture in intertribal raids, failure to repay debts—often as small as 12 pesos—or conviction for offenses like theft, with children inheriting the obligation if the parent died without settling it.[34] [35] Alipin subdivided into namamahay, who resided in their own homes, cultivated personal fields, and retained earnings after fulfilling obligations (equivalent to about one-tenth of produce or three days' weekly labor), and sa gigilid (or oripun in Visayan contexts), who lived within the master's household, shared meals from the same plate, and performed more constant domestic or agricultural duties without independent property.[34] [35] Both subtypes could marry freely, own movable goods, and petition for manumission by accumulating wealth or through master's favor, with sa gigilid potentially elevating to namamahay status via repayment; however, they owed perpetual allegiance to patrons, including military service in the datu's retinue.[1] [37] Social dependencies extended beyond formal alipin to timawa or timagua—freemen with residual obligations to datus from prior debts or kinship ties—forming a spectrum of patronage where even nobles relied on client networks for labor and defense, reinforced by communal feasting and reciprocal aid rather than coercive isolation.[35] This structure integrated alipin into barangay kinship webs, allowing limited mobility: an alipin with three free grandparents held only quarter-status, progressively diluting bondage across generations, though defaulting on fines could revert freemen to dependency.[34] Spanish chroniclers, drawing from 16th-century accounts, noted alipin's non-transferable personal ties to specific masters, underscoring a debt-based realism over absolute ownership, though colonial codification later rigidified these fluid relations for tribute extraction.[1]Gender Roles and Family Structures
In precolonial Philippine barangays, family structures were organized around bilateral kinship systems, where descent and inheritance were traced through both maternal and paternal lines, allowing children to maintain affiliations with kin groups on either side.[33] This bilateral reckoning contrasted with strictly patrilineal or matrilineal systems elsewhere in Southeast Asia and facilitated flexible family units, often nuclear in composition but embedded within broader kin networks that included extended relatives, dependents, and adopted members. Adoption practices, such as designating anak naboo (adopted sole heirs) or kalansak (joint heirs), were contractual and common, enabling childless couples or leaders to secure succession without rigid biological constraints.[33] Marriage served as a key mechanism for alliance-building within and between barangays, requiring mutual consent from the parties involved rather than parental imposition alone, though negotiations often included parental input and exchanges of dowry (bigay-damó or panghimuyat) from the groom's side to the bride's family, typically comprising gold, slaves, or labor services (paninilbihan).[33] These unions were monogamous in practice, but serial monogamy prevailed due to the ease of divorce, which could be initiated by either spouse for causes like infidelity or incompatibility, mediated by relatives and involving redistribution of dowry—often doubled if the wife initiated separation.[33] Illegitimate children (asiao yndepat) received partial inheritance but not equal shares with legitimate offspring. Evidence from Spanish chroniclers, such as Antonio de Morga, notes that "these marriages were annulled and dissolved for slight cause," underscoring the relative autonomy in marital dissolution compared to later colonial impositions.[33] Inheritance followed lines of descent within kin groups, divided equally among legitimate children irrespective of gender or birth order, with property like land or gold remaining tied to familial lineages rather than passing between spouses.[33] Women exercised significant control over family resources and decisions, including property ownership and disposal, as reconstructed from accounts like those of Juan de Plasencia among Tagalogs, where dowries (sohol) were paid to maternal relatives, affirming women's economic agency.[33] Gender roles exhibited egalitarianism, with women participating actively in economic production—such as weaving, agriculture, and trade—while men focused on hunting, fishing, and warfare, though overlaps existed, including female involvement in rituals and occasional leadership.[33] Women could assume datu-like authority in the absence of male heirs, and babaylans (spiritual leaders) were predominantly female, wielding influence over community beliefs and healing, as noted in Visayan and Tagalog contexts. This parity extended to legal rights, where women initiated lawsuits, owned slaves, and controlled fertility through herbal contraceptives or abortion, advised by midwives. Spanish observers, potentially biased by their patriarchal norms, nonetheless documented women's high status, though reconstructions caution against overidealization given the scarcity of indigenous records and reliance on colonial ethnographies.[33] Regional variations persisted, with Mindanao polities showing similar bilateral traits but stronger Islamic influences post-trade contacts, while Luzon and Visayas emphasized women's roles in kinship mediation.[33]Economic Systems
Subsistence Agriculture and Resource Use
The economy of precolonial barangays centered on subsistence agriculture, supplemented by fishing, hunting, and gathering, with swidden cultivation (kaingin) being the predominant method across most regions, involving the slashing and burning of forest clearings to plant dry rice and other crops.[9] Permanent wet-rice fields (palayan) were limited to select riverine and coastal areas, such as the Bikol River basin with its sagop dams and canals, or irrigated terraces among the Ifugao, where communal labor supported transplanting and weeding.[9] Planting cycles followed astronomical cues, like the rising of the Pleiades in June for Visayan swiddens or the Big Dipper in October for Panay, using tools such as wooden dibble sticks (hasik), sickles (salat), and bolos without plows or draft animals.[9] Land for permanent fields often fell under individual or familial usufruct rights (gatang in Tagalog areas), while forests remained communal for grazing and wood, distributed or overseen by datus to ensure sustainability through rotational clearing.[9] Principal crops included rice varieties like humay, tipasi, and karataw (dry-field types), alongside taro (gabi with up to 78 variants), yams (ubi), sweet potatoes (camote), bananas, millet (dawa), and sugarcane, with regional emphases such as cotton in Pangasinan or sago palms in Mindanao for seasonal cakes.[9] In Visayan barangays, rice yields from swiddens frequently fell short of annual needs, prompting supplementation from tubers and fruits, while Pampanga's fields provisioned larger settlements like Manila.[9] Seeding involved broadcasting in seedbeds (sabod) or germinating sprouts on banana leaves (balanhig), followed by transplanting into rows (koyog), with weeding (dalos) performed communally via alayon labor exchanges.[9] Harvesting used conch shells in Bikol or pan-ani knives in Tagalog areas, often stalk by stalk to minimize waste.[9] Animal husbandry focused on pigs (babuy), chickens, and dogs for meat, eggs, and hunting, with herds managed by dependents or slaves; a datu might oversee 70 slaves tending livestock, yielding products like 120 liters of lard per pig.[9] Water buffalo (carabao) were not domesticated for plowing but hunted wild in Tagalog and Bikol regions or sacrificed in Ifugao rituals, while goats appeared in Mindanao barangays penned under houses.[9] Fishing complemented agriculture through inshore methods like nets (lambat), traps (bobo), hooks (biwas), and torchlit spears (law), with weirs up to 250 meters long controlled by datus; catches were dried (daing) for storage or bartered inland for rice.[9] Hunting targeted wild boar, deer, and birds using dogs (ayam), pit traps (arvang), or crossbows (balatik), with game shared communally rather than sold, and deerskins from Pampanga estimated at 60,000 annually for export.[9] Gathering from forests provided honey (up to 50 hives per expedition), wild fruits, nuts, rattan, and medicinal plants like anipay roots, regulated by datu-imposed seasonal bans (balwang) to prevent depletion; these resources fueled local crafts and trade, such as beeswax or cinnamon from Suban-on areas.[9] Overall, this mixed subsistence system emphasized self-sufficiency, with surpluses from fishing or gathering enabling limited exchange, though agriculture's variability—tied to weather and soil regeneration—necessitated diverse strategies for resilience in barangay communities.[9]| Region | Primary Farming Method | Key Supplements |
|---|---|---|
| Visayas | Swidden (kaingin) | Fishing, tuber gathering |
| Bikol | Irrigated wet-rice | Fish in rice fields, hunting |
| Tagalog | Mixed swidden/irrigation | Wild game, forest products |
| Ifugao | Terraced irrigation | Hunting, nut gathering |
| Mindanao | Swidden, sago | Livestock, coastal fishing |


