Molou ca, Patajo- Laguty, P. C2Ane), Philppine Sudtes: Have We owe Bey oud Elan. 0p Pr The Evolution of Sayan Damon L. Woods uuch of what has been written about the Philippines, particularly its history, has been produced either by outsiders or for outsiders—using their categories, their languages, their terms and often informed by their own agenda, specifically economic andjor political. Unwilling or unable to appreciate the fluid, even ambiguous nature of Tagalog social structure before and after the Spanish inerusion, several writers of Philippine history have presented a deeply flawed vision of that society. The desire to view pre-hispanic and early Spanish Philippine societies in primarily institutional and political terms has resulted in a static and consequently mistaken representation of that society as is demonstrated in the concept of Aarangay. Beginning with institutional reports for the Spanish government and continuing to the present with theoretically based reconstructions, the barangay is presented as the basic unit in early Tagalog society and is constructed as containing various aspects of Western society, including class structure and entrenched leadership. Few have bothered to ask how ivis that baranggay, a Spanish corruption of the Tagalog balangay,' described the basic unit in that society. In the project of rewriting Philippine history, baranggay is representative of the problem and dayan the solution; baranggay as an imagined and imposed view—based on a report from an outsider, and bayan as a fluid and evolving basis of Tagalog identity—found in Tagalog sources. ‘The myth of the barangay had its genesis in a single source: Las costumbres de los indios Tagalos de Filipinas, submitted in'1589 by the Franciscan Juan de Plasencia. Commissioned by Spanish civil authorities,* the repore was based on Plasencia’s apparent attempts to collect and analyze information regarding the ‘Tagalogs.’ The influence of Plasencia’s report cannot be overstated. This report became é#e basis for Spanish laws and policies in the Philippines, allowing the Spaniards to not only govern, but also to reconfigure and reconstruct Philippine society And it has continued to serve as tke basis for historical reconstructions of Tagalog society. As John Phelan noted: “The overwhelming bulk of our knowledge about the character of preconquest ‘Tagalog society comes from a study of Tagalog customs composed by a Franciscan friar, Juan de Plasencia” (Phelan 1959, 178). Plasencia’s report reads, in part: al to1% tir ‘The Evolution of Bayan 31 ‘These chiefs rule over few people; sometimes as many asa hundred houses, sometimes even less than thirty. This cribal gathering is called in Tagalo a barangay. It is inferred that the reason for giving themselves this name arose from the fact (as they are classed, by their language, among the Malay nations) thatwhen they came to this land, the head of the barangay, which isa boat, thus called, became a dato. And so, even atthe present day, itis ascertained that this, barangay in its origin was a family of parents and children, relations and slaves. ‘There were many of these barangays in each town, of, atleast, on account of wars, they did not settle far from one another. They were nor, however, subject toone another, exceptin friendship and relationship. Their chiefs, in their various ‘wars, helped one another with their respective barangays’ (BR 7, 173-74) ‘The significance of Plasencia's work is all the more striking in light of the fact that not all Spanish accounts, reports, and other materials agreed with his reconstruction of Tagalog society. There were those who also wrote of the baranggay in the same vein as Plasencia, But as Carlos Quirino and Mauro Garcia have explained: “After Loarca’s and Plasencia's the originality of the rest, insofar as the information on the subject is concerned, may be doubted” (Quirino 1958, 342).On the other hand, significant figures in their writing either present a different view of the word balangay or do not mention it at all and certainly not in terms of political organization. The Dominican Francisco Blancas de San Jose (died in 1614), one of the greatest Spanish authorities on the Tagalog language,” defined balangay in his dictionary manuscript only in terms of a means of transportation, a boat—navio comun—and traveling in a boat.8In practical terms, in the extensive collection of surviving Tagalog sermons and lessons written for the local population by Spanish friars in the last partof the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, one does not find the word baranggay’ ‘The problem is not that Plasencia and those after him merely chose the wrong name or title for the basic organization of Tagalog society; they chose the wrong concept and construct, Vicente Rafael comes tantalizingly close to catching the heart of the issue when he writes: ‘The confusion of data in early Spanish accounts stems from what seems like the inadequacy of Spanish political terminology, rooted in Roman law and European feudalism, to comprehend Tagalog social structure, There appears to bea lack of fit between Spanish descriptions and the Tagalog reality they seek toconvey. Pethaps the difficulty may be attributed to the overdetermined nature of both Spanish political terminology and Tagalog designations of social status. (Rafael 1988, 138) Correct or not, Spanish policies were based on this view of the indigenous society. The dat, translated as chief by Plasencia, was transformed into the cabeaa de barangay and society was reorganized accordingly. The barangay came to be accepted as the basic political unit of Tagalog society. However, the term32 Philippine Studies: Have We Gone Beyond St. Louis? baranggay in describing political structure quickly faded and was replaced by the Spanish darrio and part of the pueblo. Baranggay continues to be heard only as part of the new title for datus, i.e. cabeza de barangay (head of the barangay). In seeking to recover and reconstruct the organization of pre-Spanish ‘Tagalog society, Filipinos and Americans looked to the baranggay. Between 1887 and 1892, Pedro Paterno published several books which sought to argue for the equality of Filipinos with Spaniards based on pre-Hispanic society.!° His interpretation of the baranggay included the notion that it was monarchial and democratic at the same time, “uniting all the best features of contemporary Spain!” (Schumacher 1979, 269)! When the Americans took the Philippines, they embraced and perpetuated the myth of the baranggay. Schumacher notes: So complete was this American appropriation of the Propagandists’ reconstruction of the Filipino past, that post-independent nationalist historiography in its own reconstruction ofthe Filipino past and search for national identity has tended to underplay or ignore, paradoxically, both the period that Rizal saw as the destruction of Filipino culture, and the work of Rizal himself the former as a Spanish period, the latter as an American view, (Schumacher 1979, 280) ‘Thus, the problem had its roots in incorrect data which in turn led to a wide range of misinterpretation.' As a result, by the second half of the twentieth century, one finds a wide range of interpretations regarding the baranggay.!? Consider the statement (based on American sources) by A. B. Villanueva, “City- states are to the ancient Greeks as barangays are to the Filipinos” (Villanueva 1974, 85)."* F, Landa Jocano states: “For all intents and purposes, the barangay qualifies to be described as a state—perhaps not on the level of the modern states or even in the status of the city-state of ancient Greece—but in terms of local developments. Past writers did not give the barangay the status of a state because they were following the western model” (Jocano 2000, 155-56). A more temperate and widely accepted definition of baranggay is given by David Joel Sceinberg: “a basic kinship unit in the pre-Spanish Philippines that consisted of from 30 to 100 families which the Spanish preserved as the basis of local administration” (Steinberg 1987, 485). While Steinberg’s definition is concise and helpful, it contains within it the seeds of confusion on the part of scholars who seek to reconcile the kinship and political aspects of the barangay ‘Thus, one finds a lack of clarity or uniformity, and in some cases contradictions,!* in discussions of the barangay. Phelan illustrates the inexactness which marks modern understanding of the baranggay in his classic work The Hispanization of the Philippines, He begins by referring to the barangay as a small kinship unit, then later marks it as “the only form of political and social organization”, and then calls the barangay a “patriarchal kinship”, which was transformed into “the comerstone of local government” (Phelan 1959, 9, 15, 17). Finally, he concludes that the barrio and barangay are one and the same. In the glossary of his book, |The Evolution of Bayan 33 the entry for barangay reads: “In preconquest times a political-social unit; the Spanish term for a village” (Phelan 1959, 165). The second part of the definition shows more insight than Phelan may have realized. This confusion can be traced back to Plasencia himself,’as he failed to appreciate the fluid nature of Tagalog society. In his Castumbres, quoted above, he stated that there were many barangays in a town. ‘The desire to imagine Tagalog society in a form recognizable and familiar to Western minds has perpetuated the myth of the baranggay in political terms and by extension, in terms of identity. This insistence on the barangay 28 the basic kinship or political unit in Tagalog society is so entrenched in modern scholarship that when an alternative is present, itis ignored or missed altogether. Consider the following: “These settlements, orat least the land they occupy, appear to be what the dictionaries calla Bayan, namely, “place for a pueblo” or “pueblo where people live”, asin the question, “kaninong pabuwsisan ang bayang ito?” (Whose estate is the dayan here?) Assuming this to be the case, a given barangay might have claims to swidden land in more than one bayan, and serfs (alipin namamahay) might be inherited from one barangay to another but could not be removed from the Bayan itself. (Scott 1982, 101-02) Based on the information given in this passage, dayan would seem to have greater significance than the barangay. Yet this possibility seems not to have been considered. The end result, in practical terms, is illustrated by the Local Government Code of 1991, or Republic Act Number 7160 which established the barangay as the local unit of government throughout the Philippines. While scholars and politicians have sought to establish the baranggay as the basic unit of society, ayan has emerged and remains a dominant part of national, nationalist, and political discourse in the Philippines. To set the context for understanding Tagalog society, one must begin by ‘examining the region in which it is located: Southeast Asia. When the Spaniards came to Southeast Asia, they did not have an understanding of the region and they did not develop one after they established a presence in the Philippines. How they interpreted any new contact was based on their experiences in the ‘Americas, In Central Mexico, “The Nahuas had reasonably close analogues of the concepts structuring nearly all facets of European society and culture” (Lockhart 1993, 4). In terms of political organization, the altepet! among the Nahuas of Central Mexico,” and the ca# among the Maya," were seen as “essentially identical” with those found in Spain. The assumption held was that the Tagalog equivalent was the barangay. This failure to appreciate the differences between not only Tagalog and Spanish societies, but also Tagalog and Latin American societies, was based on both a lack of, and faulty, information. Modern scholars have no such excuse. Southeast Asia is the proper context for understanding the structure of pre-Spanish Tagalog society.” Utilizing and4 Philippine Studies: Have We Gone Beyond St. Louis? comparing the material available from other Southeast Asian socicties with that of the Philippines allows one to get a sense of the foundations and assumptions undergirding Tagalog sociery, its pre-hispanic cultural norms in addition to its fluid political structures. As Tony Day observes in his recent work, Fitid Iron: State Formation in Southeast Asia, those writing on the subject tend to focus on the political rather than the cultural aspects. Be that as it may, one can still construct a framework within which to work. At least four characteristics of pre-hispanic Tagalog political life emerge. First, fluidity was a key characteristic. O. W. Wolters in his History, Gulture, and Region in Southeast Asian Perspectives, wrices of the mandala, a Sanskrit term meaning “circle of kings”, to describe what he accepts as “a political apparatus fluid in terms of territory and therefore without fixed frontiers” (Wolters 1999, 106-07) [emphasis added]. He also notes, “Mandalas would expand and contract in concertina-like fashion” (Wolters 1999, 28). Second, this fluidity, in part, was due to the nature of socio-political organization. They were based on relationships. “The territorial scale of a political system is certainly not the correct measurement for describing and defining it. Instead, we should think in sets of socially-definable loyalties that could be mobilized for common enterprises” (Wolters 1999, 25). Barbara Andaya notes: ‘The typical Southeast Asian “kingdom” was a coalescence of localized power centers, ideally bound together not by force but through a complex interweaving of links engendered by blood connections and obligation. Leadership, conceived in personal and ritual terms, required constant reaffirmation. (1992, 409) ‘Third, indigenous terms for such political entities either did not exist or have not survived. The known titles given are borrowed from foreign influences; kingdom, state, mandala, negara, etc. Wolters has even suggested that mandalas existed in the Philippines.” Thus, it seems unlikely that the Tagalog had a name for their social organization. Fourth, Southeast Asians identified themselves in terms of place and relationships. “In Southeast Asia space was organized under cover of personal relationships ...” (Wolters 1999, 5557). These four characteristics were also true of the Tagalogs in early Spanish Philippines, as, will be seen below, and thus probably the case in pre-Spanish times as well. With this in mind, a re-examination of Spanish reports clearly demonstrates that the Spaniards were not primarily concerned with the social or cultural structure of that society as much as they were with controlling the Tagalog people. Thus, the commission given to Plasencia. The Philippines was a part of the Spanish Empire and Spanish authorities needed to not only control the tertitory, but the local population as well, with the least amount of difficulty and expense as well as with the fewest number of Spaniards possible. | entity contin find kil‘The Evolution of Bayan 35 ‘What the Spaniards sought, and historians continue to seek, was a political entity in Tagalog society which had structure, hierarchy, authority, and continuity." As Phelan notes from Pigafetta’s account: “the Spaniards did not find kinglets in the islands; hence they tried to create them” (Phelan 1959, 16). ‘The focus of Spanish authorities was on rulers, not political entities as such (Phelan 1959, 122). Southeast Asian societies were marked by fluidity in social structures as well as in leadership. Overcoming the fluidity in leadership® was an easier task than seeking to reshape Tagalog society." As a result, the reports produced by both Spanish friars and civil authorities focused on what they perceived as local elites rather than local structures. The local structures only come into play as they relate to local leadership. As Rafael notes: From their earliest years in the Philippines, the Spaniards had tried to locate native ruling elites and incorporate them in the colonial hierarchy. Sixteenth+ century Spanish accounts purporting to describe the social and political structures of indio society were compiled precisely for this purpose. (Rafael 1988, 161)® Plasencia began his report by writing about the datus and ended it dealing with che issue of the datus. Pedro Chitino’s Primera Parte de historia, also focused on the political figures which one could or could not find in the Philippines; for example, i avia Reyes, they do not have kings. The Augustinians requested in a memoranda to the civil authorities: “That his Majesty order that the chiefs be teated as such, and that they do not pay tribute in.their persons or be made prisoners except for very serious matters"(BR 34:282).# It becomes necessary to present an alternative to the question of Tagalog social organization and identity in order to cut through inaccurate interpretations based on erroneous information. To accomplish this task requires at least two mechanisms: unused and untapped sources—Tagalog sources—and a new methodology, both within a Southeast Asian context. The documents in question are those written in Tagalog by Tagalogs beginning in the sixteenth century. As James Lockhart notes in his monumental The Nakuas After the Conquest: Inced not belabor the advantage of using records produced in the mother tongue by the subjects of a given historical study. Wherever native-language materials have been available, they have been used as the primary source for writing a people's history. (Lockhart 1992, 7) ‘This has not been done in the writing of Philippine history. The significance of existing Tagalog documents from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries has been demonstrated.*” For example: Nicholas Cushner’s Landed Estates in the Colonial Philippines, which includes the transcription of a Tagalog petition from36 Philippine Studies: Have We Gone Beyond St. Louis? 1696; Jean-Paul Poter’s “La Petition Tagale Caming manga Alipin” (1665) which is based on a Tagalog document from Mindoro; and Jaime B. Veneracion’s paper on several sixteenth-century Tagalog documents, “Ang mga Pinuno sa Silangang Maynila noong Dantaon 16 ayon sa mga dokumentong Tagalog na may petsang 1590" 38 Up to the present, it has been assumed that one seeking to study Philippine history of the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries faces the overwhelming task of breaking through the “parchment curtain” and, with creative methodologies, writing “a history of the inarticulate”. For the corollary to this assumption is that Spanish sources are all that exist and they form the “parchment curtain” that separates us from the Filipinos of the past, who could not and did not leave behind any written records.” The result has been an institutionalization of carly Spanish Philippine history.” With the realization that indigenous language documents exist, the task is to seek them out, search through the archives of various institutions for them. With the exception of the treasure trove of materials dealing with the 1745 Revolt found in the Archivo General de Indias in Seville, the majority of materials are found in collections coming from the various religious orders. If one accepts Lockhart’s thesis regarding the cycle of sources, from more to less synthetic, that is, beginning with 1) contemporary books and other formal accounts, which we call “chronicles”; 2) official correspondences; 3) the internal records of institutions; 4) litigation; 5) notarial records,® then the documents from Tagalogs of the sixteenth through cighteenth centuries fit into the last two categories, testimony given in legal matters and notarial records. Although the issues discussed in the documents are not usually religious or institution-related, they were still kept among the papers of the different religious orders. ‘These documents were writcen by Tagalogs for Spanish eyes (unlike those produced by the Nahuas of Central Mexico), but like their counterparts in the Americas, ‘most of them [were] ostensibly in Spanish genres... nt only more individual in their language, conventions, and content than the Spanish counterparts, but ‘more complex in belonging to two traditions rather than one. They are both ‘more difficule and potentially richer (that is, per item) than Spanish records. (Lockhare 1992, 8) But more importantly, “language itself turns out to be an irreplaceable vehicle for determining the nature and rate of general cultural evolution” (Lockhart 1992, 8). ‘The number of Tagalog documents from the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries is small, but the possibilities are exciting. Lockhart, whose work dealt with Nahuatl documents from Central Mexico, in establishing a New Philology argues that in light of the limited number of records, it is difficult and often _—isieaectie‘The Evolution of Bayan 37 impossible to track a single individual, in contrast to what is possible with Spanish sources. Largely deprived of seeing the pattern in a succession of actions, we must fall back on the other aspect of the career-pattern approach, a close attention to the categories that the person and his peers used to classify himself and his thoughts and actions, as well as che phenomena surrounding him, thus studying concepts borne in a person's language rather than patterns manifested in the person's life. (Lockhart 1992, 8) This is certainly the case with Tagalog documents, in which not only is the number rather small, but the geographic and temporal distribution wide—across the Tagalog region and almost two centuries. Thus, one should take into account the diversity found among Tagalogs as well as “the nature and rate of general cultural evolution” demonstrated by these sources. ‘Taking into account the diversity among Tagalogs, one discovers several features when it comes to self-identification: as was the case throughout Southeast Asia—relationships and location.’ In examining Tagalog documents, one comes across at least two broad categories: those written by individuals and those by ‘communities—usually a collection of individuals from a given community. In both cases, the individuals identify themselves in two ways: by location and in terms of relationships. In terms of relationships, horizontal and existential are what are expressed—based on contemporary realities and not ancestry. Three types of relationships tend to be used to express relationships: familial, age, and shared experience. In identifying oneself in terms of family relations, the most commonly used words are capatid (sibling) and Aamaganac (relative).** Age is used in general terms and usually only to express a breadth of community participation. Thus, ma‘anda'’t bata (old and young) and ata’t matanda (young and old). These phrases occur often enough to indicate that they carry some significance. In addition, pinacamatanda (the eldest) also carries weight. The most common way of identifying oneself is based on shared experience, designated by the prefix ca; words such as casimba, casamahan, and cababayan. ‘The Spanish titles don and doffa were taken on by the early seventeenth century. The famous Zaybayin documents in the University of Santo Tomas archives, dated 1613 and 1625, are bills of sale for land in Tondo. The first records a sale of land by one Dofia Catalina Bayiya, who identifies herself as maginoo sa Tondo, along with her sister Dofia Cecilia, to one Don Andres Kapiit of Dilaw. The second records a similar sale by one Dofia Maria Sila, maginoo dito sa bayan nang Tondo to Dofia Francisca Luga. Both. the Spanish dofia and don were used, as was the Tagalog maginoo. But these titles again reinforce the horizontal nature of relationships and identity among Tagalogs. Location was expressed with the word dayan, which is found consistently in documents dating from 1583 well into the nineteenth century. Relationships,38 Philippine Studies: Have We Gone Beyond St. Louis? as mentioned above, are described using a wide variety of terms which indicate horizontal relationships. By the end of the nineteenth century, bayan would come to express aspects of both location and relationships. ‘The importance of location as a basis for identity can easily be missed. As ‘Tagalog notarial documents followed the Spanish formula of beginning with the place and date of the writing of the document, one could easily assume that the material is formulaic and not of any great significance. Most Tagalog documents began with the location of the writing of the document. Where a Spanish-language notarial document might begin: En /a ciudad de Manila; one finds in a Tagalog- language equivalent: Sa dayan nang Pasig, for example. Place was important, as were their names. The Laguna Copperplate Inscription demonstrates the importance of names for specific geographic locations. Written in 900 A.D., itis the earliest known Philippine document and it contains place names which remain to the present day: Tundun for modem- day Tondo, Puliran for Pulilan in Bulacan on the Angat River, Pailah for further up the Angat River at the Ipo Dam site, and Binwangan at the mouth of the Bulacan River, near Obando.? ‘That dayan was a remarkably fluid term and could indicate much more than geographical location is demonstrated in the Franciscan Pedro de San Buenaventura’s Vocabulario, published in 1613. In the second part of the vocabulario the author lists the following as Spanish equivalents for dayan: pueblo, poblar, lugar, habitar, morar, bivir, poblacion, peregrinar, sielo, espacio, tiempo. One expects the Spanish equivalents, pueblo (town, village), /ugar (place), poblacion (town), tierra (land, region), sito (place, spot), but not the verbs, pablar (to people, to settle, to colonize), Aabitar (to inhabit, to reside in), morar (to live, to stay), vivir (to live, to dwell in), peregrinar (to travel, to roam). Thus, we are faced with a word that had not only noun equivalents in Spanish, but verb equivalents as well. In addition, the even more perplexing equivalence given between bayan and tiempo—as in masamang bayan, mal tiempo is found as late as the mid- eighteenth century in Noceda and San Luca's dictionary, It is small wonder that the Spaniards chose barangay, a more static concept than dayam as the designation for the basic political unit in Tagalog society. The Spaniards chose to reshape leadership and this had implications for society as well. It should be pointed out that Jayam was not the equivalent of mandala, but was as fluid as the mandala has been described. The fluidity of bayan allowed its use to evolve and expand during this period. At least four stages are illustrated in Tagalog documents. Each stage or expansion did not mean the end of the previous meaning of dayan, but rather the earlier meanings continued to exist, to be understood, and to be used, while the new use and meaning of the word centered into the vernacular. In the first stage, bayan, while used along with place names, had an informality to its use. Thus, in the earliest known Tagalog document, datedie vol eS poe 1583, one finds two words to indicate location, the Spanish /ugar and bayan. While dayan is used with place names, as in, bayan nang San Matheo (a Spanish Christian name) as well as bayan nang Banghang, lugat is used in two ways. First, to indicate location, without a specific name, as in, sa /ugar yfo, and then it is used as the equivalent of dayan with a place name, dito sa /ugar nang Binongsoran. ‘That this earliest document fits into the first stage is seen in Tomas Pinpin’s Librong pagaaralan nang manga Tagalog nang wicang Castila (A book to teach Tagalogs the Spanish language), published in 1610, As he gives Tagalog equivalents for Spanish words, at least three ways of translating dayan are indicated. First, it could be used to indicate location in a general sense without a place name, as in the place of the Muslims." Secondly, it was given as the equivalent for pueblo” Finally, it was presented as an attempt to match Spanish realities, such as the homeland of the Spaniards.” ‘The second stage emerged early on during the Spanish period. Here, bayan was used in a more formal and even legal, though not political sense. Both individuals and communities identified themselves in terms of location, that is ayan in a formal sense, at least until the end of the seventeenth century. In a document dated August 12, 1626, the two persons giving information are husband and wife, Don Agustin Manguiet and Margareta Limbauan, identify themselves as manga tauo sa bayan nang Malis." In the will of Maria Jimenez dated 1687, she writes: accy si Maria Jimenes tauo sa bayan nang Calumpit.® ‘Three documents from the end of the seventeenth century demonstrate how communities identified themselves in terms of location or dayan. Al three are from Maybonga," a separate dayan, but a part of the bayan of Pasig. All three were written within fifteen months of each other and cach was written by a different escrivano, each with his own orthography. The earliest document, which is transcribed in Nicholas Cushner’s Landed Estates in Colonial Philippines, sets the stage. The document is from the people of Maybonga, who wish to give authority to four individuals to act on behalf of the entire community. These four men are to be given the power to: (1) take care of the property of the community, i.e, land, bamboo groves, ‘woodlands; and other property, (2) rencout the ands that have previously been rented, (3) collect debts left over from their predecessor, (4) take back commnal land from those not fit co hold it, (5) sell property and communal land only t0 ‘members ofthe communicy, and (6)issue eceipts and leters of payment when rents collected. (Cushner 1976, 82-84) ‘The four men in question are to act on behalf of Maybonga, that is, che people of Maybonga, who identify themselves in two ways. First, they mention personal relationships. They use four words, all with the prefix ca to signify these identifying relationships. Cababayan, meaning someone from the same bayan is used once, casamakan (companion ot associate) is used twice, casimbaPhilippine Studies: Have We Gone Beyond St. Louis? (those who attend the same church) is used once, and camaganacan (which means relative) is used five times. It is this designation that Cushner identifies and translates as “community”. At least three times (of the five times it is used) camaganacan is preceded by doong means entire, whole, that is, the whole group of relatives, in modern terms, the entire community. Toward the end of this first document, the writers identify themselves as Boog camaganacan taga Maybonga, that is, the entire group of relatives from Maybonga. Bayan thus retained its primary designation as referring to location in a formal sense. Yet the documents continued to use dayan in a general way, without place names. The third stage emerges in the eighteenth century as is demonstrated in documents generated by the Revolt of 1745. The revolt reflected tensions between local communities and the various haciendas of the religious orders. ‘The revolt seemed to have begun in Silang, the culmination of over half a century of conflict between the Dominican hacienda Bifian and the community of Silang.** In many ways, this conflict was not unique; similar conflicts could be found throughout the Tagalog provinces, including the communities of Taguig, Hagonoy, Paraiiaque, Bacoor, Cavite el Viejo, San Mateo, Yndang, Cavit na Matanda and others. An attack on the hacienda followed: granaries burned and irrigation works damaged, the administrator and the Chinese and mestizo tenants fled to Manila. After destroying structures on the hacienda, the people of Silang, moved against the Hacienda of Santa Cruz de Malabon. This pattern was repeated in the provinces of Tondo, Bulacan and Batangas. One “General” Joseph de la Vega led the rebels from Silang, with his “army” of 1500 armed men, When an alcalde was sent to negotiate, the rebels stated their terms: the return of their land; the removal of the administrator of Bifan; assurance that they would be under the spiritual jurisdiction of the Jesuits. This last item, along with other factors, caused some to claim that the Jesuits were behind the revolt. No evidence has been produced to support this claim. In fact, the Jesuit haciendas of Nasugbu and Lian were also attacked during the revolt. In the negotiations, the men of Silang were careful to point out that cheir actions were against the haciendas of the religious orders, not the government. Most of the principales of Silang agreed to submit to Spanish authority, but this was not the case with the commoners (timaguas), who said that without land they would eventually die, The revolt broke out again, The people of Silang not only fought but also wrote letters and formal documents in Tagalog, following Spanish formulas and structures, but using ‘Tagalog values and sensibilities. At different points, they were careful to identify themselves as Tagalogs. In addition, the oidor, Pedro Calderon, amassed some five thousand pages of testimony and other legal documents while investigating the revolt. Some of those documents were in Tagalog. These documents reveal a number of realities regarding dayan, including its expansion.‘The Evolution of Bayan 41 The conflict was between competing “bayans”; for example, the “town” (Gayan) of Silang and the “estate”or hacienda (bayan) of Bifian, The Tagalogs refer to the Augustinian hacienda as bayan at hacienda nang Bittang. The issue was not private ownership, rather, it was a conflict between two communities, Silang and Bifian, much in the same way one might imagine conflicts in pre- Hispanic times between various groups over land use. As Cushner notes in his article, dealings between the Augustinians and other towns contained “a faint echo of pre-Hispanic communal use of land”(41). ‘What is striking in these documents is the assertion of those writing that they are the dayan of Silang. While a number of the documents begin with the formulaic Sa dayan nang Silang (From the bayan of Silang), one finds the statement, cami ang bong bayan nang Silang—we are the whole bayan of Silang. In the place of Joong camaganacan—the whole group of relatives—such as is found in the second stage documents from Maybonga, one finds time and time again boong dayan—the whole dayan. The responsibilities of the four individuals in the Maybonga documents are for the community as camaganacan not as bayan, By 1745, bayan had evolved and expanded to represent not only location, but also the community that resided in that location and space. In this capacity of being the community, the bayan was seen as the preserver of memory. Not only was the land in question “inherited from our grandparents”, it belonged to Silang “before we became Christians”. This would indicate ownership based on memory that predated the Spanish incursion. While asking pardon for the revolt, they told Calderén that “the Reverend Fathers of San Agustin have taken from us the lands and woods which we inherited from our grandparents and in so doing they have taken away our livelihood” (41). Bayan also came to include the functions of governing, Those writing the letters to the Spanish authorities and the Spanish friars possessed knowledge and familiarity with the Spanish legal/civil system—a familiarity with the various offices, officers, and their functions. There was also an awareness that they had Spanish law on their side. The Laws of the Indies stipulated that land was to be left open “to common use for pasturage and forage”. According to Spanish law, “all fruits of nature which grew without the aid of human labor were open to the inhabitants of the surrounding communities” (Roth 102). At the same time, the “Tagalogs appeared to have their own system of government, beyond that instituted by the Spaniards. In one letter from Silang, those writing are described as jocoman nang lalauigan nang Tangui—the court of the province of Tangui. ‘These are Tagalog titles and designations, not Spanish. It should be noted that the rebels were not anti-Catholic, they just wanted their land back. This is particularly reflected in the letter written to Padre Joseph. de San Vicente.2 Philippine Studies: Have We Gone Beyond St. Louis? Esteemed Padre Father Joseph de San Vicente: There is no other purpose in this small letter to the esteemed/beloved/mahal Padre excepe to wish him a good day and give thanks for your good fortune, esteemed Padie, that what you have long hoped for has become yours. And one more thing that we want to warn you, esteemed Padre, tomorrow, Thursday if the Lord God is merciful, we will arrive there, at our lands which you have unjustly taken (through the power of your money)and we are going to destroy your house being built near the pass of the Monting Tlog as well asthe dams attached to our lands. In this, we are not turning our backs on the Lord God and his teaching and the Lord King, and that is why we ery out: Long live the faith (mabuhay ang pananang palataya), Long live the holy church (mabuhay ang santa iglesia), and Long live Philip (mabuhay si Phlipe) (may the Lord God watch over him) ‘This expansion of the use of Aayan is reflected in Tagalog writings after the mid-eighteenth century. A document dated 1783 begins with the words Caming boong comun nanamamayan dini sa Bayan ng Subaon (we ate the whole community of residents/citizens here at the Bayan of Subaon).” The Spanish comun is used in the place of bayan, but the sense is that of the community as a whole being represented, as found in the Silang documents. The designation pinunong bayan (heads of the dayan, translated as local leaders by Tleto) is found not only in the Pasyon Pilapil, which was based on the Pasyon by De Belen, but is found in letters and documents during the revolutionary period at the end of the nineteenth century. ‘The fourth stage appeared in the nineteenth century, as Filipinos began to think of the archipelago as not only a single unit, but as a political entity; that is, they began to imagine themselves in the terms outsiders used. Bayan was then employed to express Western or Spanish political concepts, such as nacion and patria. The usc of dayam in this way was not new in the nineteenth century. Fernando Bagongbanta in his poem “Salamat nang Ualang Hanga” (Undying Gratitude) from 1605, wrote “sa lahat na bayan natin” with the Spanish translation “de toda esta nuestra tierra” (everywhere in this, our land) (Lumbera 1986, 240- 41). Pinpin, as mentioned above, also gave dayan as the Tagalog equivalent of pueblo as well as describing Spain, ang bayan nang manga Castila (the bayan of the Spaniards). Francisco Baltazar, the poet known as Balagtas, in “Florante’s First Lamentation” in the epic “Florante at Laura” the well-known line “Sa Joob at labas ng bayan cong sai” (All over my hapless country) (Lumbera 1986, 204-05). However, the dayan referred to was Albania, the setting for this metrical romance, ‘The evolution of Bayan in the nineteenth century pointed to changes in thinking as well as language. Bayan was conscripted to convey the idea of a national entity, and later, that national entity itself. But the transition took time. While Rizal in La Liga Filipina, imagined the national community in terms of an archipelago as “one compact, vigorous, and homogenous body”, the Katipunan thought in terms of “a nation of Tagalogs” or Katagalugan, as found in Andresbin fre Fan oan hres ‘The Evolution of Bayan 4B ia iri a Bonifacio’s “Ang Haring Bayang Katagalugan” (Cruz 1986, 45). As Bonifacio wrote of the coming of the Spaniards in “Ang Dapat Mabatid ng mga Tagalog”, he spoke in terms of mga Jupaing ito (these lands here), But as the historical account Continues, bayan comes to the forefront. Is it to be translated as land (as does Heto) or community or country On August 24, 1896, Bonifacio did establish Ang Haring Bayang Katagalugan. The Cartilla of the Katipunan, published in 1896, explained that Tagalog referred to “all those born in this archipelago; therefore, though visayan, ilocano, pampango, ete. they are all tagalogs” (Guerrero 1996, 89). Carlos V. Ronquillo, President Aguinaldo’s secretary, explained further that Tagalog was not limited to those from the Tagalog region, bucas the name Tagalog actually meant ““aga-ilg’ (from the river] which, traced directly to its root, refers to those who prefer to settle along rivers, eruly a trait, it cannot be denied, of all those born in the Philippines, in whatever island or town (dayan]” (Guerrero 1996, 89-90). Those familiar with Philippine history will recall that the rallying point in the conflict with Spain was the oppression of the friar-controlled estates and the overreaching power of the friars. As with the revolt of 1745, the Revolution was ‘not motivated primarily by an anti-Spanish sentiment, and the hostility against the friars did not mean that the Tagalogs were anti-Catholic. Lacking the strength of local government (of the éayan), the Katipunan constituted a substitute on at least three levels: first, an extended community (for the conflict was between two communities); an alternative governmental system, as the Tagalogs still Possessed in place in 1745; as well as the preserver of the memories of the Past.” This last aspect is scen in the initiation rites described by Ileto in Pasyon and Revolution. The initiate was asked three questions, the first being: “What was the condition of the country in early times?” The answer to this would have been provided through indoctrination prior to the initiation. Tt was during this period that the concept of Inang Bayan emerged, and a division as well. As Professor Zeus Salazar points out: +. the rftwould later cesultin the ideological break in Tejeros between the more indigenous /nang Bayan of the mass-oriented Katipunan and the more Westem-oriented nacon thatthe iustrador around Aguinaldo wanted to construct Bonifacio’sInang Bayan would continue to havnt the Filipino revolutionary spirit as an ideal of nationality... Again and again, decisions as daring—and as fundamentally correct—as that of Bonifacio in August 1896 would also be executed, against all odds for Jnang Bayan. (Salazar 1997, 365-66) Yet it must be noted that the writing of the period retained the earlier uses of dayan. Emilio Aguinaldo, though fluent in Spanish, wrote only in Tagalog, and his writings arc filled wich mixed uses of dayan. One finds frequent references to Inang bayan, a name created by Bonifacio which could be translated as motherland. But in giving instructions regarding military matters, Sayan tends to be used as location.*?Philippine Studies: Have We Gone Beyond St. Louis? z ‘The next stage of the usage of Jayar remains at this point a possibility, not a reality. If we take to heart the words of the late Virgilio Enriquez, “Pilipino Aahit saan, kahit kailan”, then bayan may be used to refer not only to the population living within the archipelago, but those in the Diaspora as well (Enriquez. 1994, 81). This is critical as by some estimates, by the year 2020, ‘one-third of all Filipinos will be in the Diaspora. And no matter his or her location, or even citizenship, each Filipino would be a vital part of Bayan nang Pilipinas. Conctusion’ In examining this evolution of the concepts and usage of Bayan, varying perspectives will tend to focus on different aspects. Some will emphasize the impact of Spanish influence on the changing nature of the concept in Tagalog, thinking, That is, bayan will be viewed as a vehicle for Spanish constructions into the Tagalog world. Others will concentrate on how the Tagalogs appropriated or adapted Spanish concepts into their expanding worldview. This fits with Phelan’s observation that: The Filipinos were no mere passive recipients of the cultural stimulus created by the Spanish conquest. Circumstances gave them considerable freedom in selecting their responses to Hispanization. Their responses varied all the way from acceptance to indifference and rejection. The capacity of the Filipinos for creative social adjustment is attested in the mannerin which they adapted many Hispanic features to their own indigenous culture, (Phelan 1959) Southeast Asianists speak of the phenomenon of domestication, vernacularization, or indigenization to indicate the process as well as product of taking something foreign and making it indigenous. H.G.Q. Wales used the phrase “local genius” to express how Southeast Asians retained their own cultures while appropriating from other cultures aspects which gave concrete expression or organization to local ideas. ‘The focus should be on the word dayan; a word elastic enough to encompass meanings from location to community to nation. Other Philippine languages lacked such words. The Tlokano word #/ is translated today as town or country; in the past, its primary function was to indicate location. The people or a town of country ate called umifi. Those who come from the same town or country are referred to as Aailian, the equivalent of the Tagalog éababayan, But ifi by itself, without prefixes, did not and does not have the flexibility or the fluidity found in the Tagalog dayan, That such a word was so pliable and adaptable as to evolve and still remain a major marker of identity should be the primary focus. Owen Lynch suggested some years ago that the name of the Philippines be changed to Bayan and accordingly, its citizens would be known as dayani:® An intriguing idea, but I think a bigger change than most would be comfortable with, Instead, what if the title of the country was changed to Bayan ng Pilipinas?fot g g i 1 ‘The Bvolution of Bayan 45 $e Diattion of Ragan ‘To the rest of the world, the nation would be known as the Republic of the Philippines. But in the national language, Filipino, it would be known as Bayan 1g Pilipinas—bayan of the Philippines. Bayan has the flexibility to refer not only to location—the archipelago, but the people as well. And, one day, Filipinos could aspire to say to one another, “Tayo'y mea bayani ng Bayan ng Pilipinas”. For it is not political systems that provide a sense of identity; not even the foreign notion of nation, or bansa, does so. It is the bayan that gives that sense of identity. Nowes 1. Williams Henry Scot: noted: Barangay or Galangy was one ofthe fist native words the Spaniards learned in che Philippines. When Antonio Pignfecta, Magellan's Italian expeditionary ethnographer, went ashore to parley with the ruler of Limasawa, chey sat together in a boat drawn up on shove which Pigafeta called dalanga. This word appears as either Jalangy or barangay, withthe same meaning, i allthe major languages ofthe Philippines, und the earliest Spanish dictionaries make itclear that iterag Pronounced “ba-la-ngay,” noc “bu-lang-gay” Indeed, many ofthese Spanish mispronunciations here heen accepted in modern Philippine languages... barangay, which was always spelled "balangsy” in ‘Tagalog dictionaries, is now pronounced “ba-rang-gay” (Scot 1994, 45, 14). Balagay ex nombre de enbarcacion:prowuncianle baraug fos castellanasporsupliesfaltasdesomido en su iberico longue idiona de Castilla carace del nasal ga, deque abunda dl Tagalrg (Paterno |892), 2, Plasencia wrote ina letter: After receiving your Lordship’ leer, I wished to reply immediately. but I postponed my answer in order that I might frst thoroughly inform myself in fegard to yous request, and to avoid discussing che conflicting reports ofthe Indians, who are wont to tell what cote their purpose. Therefore, this end, Lcollected Indians from different dstricts-old men, and those of most capacity all nowa to me; and fiom them Ihave obtained the simple ech, after weeding oot ‘much foolishness, in regard co cheir government, administration of justice, inheritances, slaversand ddowties (Blair and Robertson 7:173) 3. Joha Schumacher, $4., writes: Though not precisely a chronicler, the Franciscan Juan de Plasencia also wrote down in the 1580s careful descriptions of Tagalog and Pampangun customs and {nws, which were long accepted as normative by the colonial government and are informative on pre Hispanic society in hese regions, Nonetheless, seventeenth century Spanish missionary views were strongly colored by their views on che unquestioned superiority of Hispanic eultue, and their conviction thar the pre-Hispanic animistic religion was a manifestation ofthe Devil, whose hand they seemed a sce at work almost as frequently as they did the hand of God in the work of Chriscianizacion (Schumacher 1979, 264.65) ‘An order from Don Francisco Tello and Dr. Anconio de Morga dated January 7, 1599 stated in part itis ficcing that the advocates and actorneys ofthis rayal Audiencia fallow the customs of the said natives, observed formerly and now in the said suits therefore, in order that ehey may be observed a3 bis Majesty orders, and char to that end they may Keep a copy in their possesian, inorder chat they may know and observe them, they ordered, and they did s0 order, that che said advocates and attorneys in all suits a present pending inthis yal Audiencia, asin chose which shall be brought end continued henceforth, touching the said natives, shall approve and adhere tothe said custome which the Indians were accustomed to follow and do follow; and they shall ke a copy of the said customs ‘hich are set down in the books of the royal Audiencia resident in these islands (Blairand Robertson 1131.32). 4. Plasencia isthe source ofthe following: che clas structure ofthe Philippines as explained in ‘Scot's essay, “Filipino Class Structure inthe 16th Century"; the existence of the maharlida class as the parallel tothe ida/gs in Spain; che babaylan as artang(Mefiez 1996, 91-92), His work caones be toually discounted, bur muse be viewed with care and skepeicism,Philippine Studies: Have We Gone Beyond St. Louis? 5. Eran ete principales de poca gente, hasta deciencacas,y aun de trinta abajo, yesto aman en tagalo sun barangay, 9 del lamarse ast coli fut que como kites en su lengua eveserdenacién malaya, cuando vinieron esta tierra, fa cabeea de barangay, quets une enbarcacién asf lamada, se queds por Dato, y asi aun el dia de day se averigua que esto de barangay, en su origen bra una familia de padres €Nijos, sires, pariente, Deestas ‘arangay habia en cada pueblo muchas, dlo menos nose aleaban mucho unos de otras, por causa delas guerra, ‘mas wo eran sujetes unos d otros sin por ula de amistad y paretesce se ayudaban los principales unos d otras com sus Barangayes en los guerras que teian (T. H, Pardo de Tavera 1892, 9-10) 6. Antonio de Morga wrote in his Sucers: When any of these chiefs was more courageous than ‘others in wat and upon other occasions, such one enjoyed more followers and men; and the others were underhis leadership, even if they were chiefs. These latter retained to themselves the lordship and particular government of their own following, which isealled barangay among them (Junker 1999, 7. Bishop Salazar wrote “barangais que son barrios en lengua castellan” (Phelan 1959,183). (Contradictory information is given by the Jesuit Pedro Chirino, In his Relacon (1604) he wrote: Atno time did the Filipinos have any form of towns with civie order and political government, such that xt least one island, or a number of villages, cecognizing one person as their lord, might live under his proceetion and rule; bute who was mose powerful conquered others and ruled over them (BR 13:89- 50 from chapter LVIL). Yet he also stated in the same Relacion: “El uso de estos pueblos paraa su mas comsdo gobierno estar partidos en barrios ala taza de parroquia gue alla Naman barangais" (Phelan 1959, 183n16 from Blair and Roberts 12:211), 7. Blancas’ fame rests in the books which he wrote and which were printed by the Dominican press. In his listing ofthe first books printed in Tagalog, with the exception of the fitst—the Doctrina Giristiana—Van des Loon lists Blancas asthe authot ofthe first five books in Tagalog. Quétif and Echatd list eight works by Blancas. These include his works in Spanish, Te should be noted that Blaneas wrote his works in Tagalog for Tagalogs. They were not for priests but forthe layman, In the dedication o his work Memorial de fa vida chrstiane, Blancas mentions that his next work, which was to be on confession, “would be his last book for laymen; thereafter he intended to write for the ‘missionaries who had to learn the language.” However, on his wansfer back to Abucay, Bataan, he was instructed to continue printing the books which he had written in Tagalog 8, Manuscript from the University of Santo Tomas Archives. The full citation reads: “Balangey. ‘29.m. Navio comun. Naghabalangay. Teneo afueuso. Nanalangay.. naghabelangay.por nadir boca arriba, ‘Namamalangay embarcarlo ene.” 9. Some of these sermons and lessons have been reprinted recently. Rosales, Antonio Ma., OLRM. A Study of a 16th Century Tagalog Manuscript on the Ten Commandment: Its Signifcence and Implications. Quezon City University ofthe Philippines Press, 1984. This is an examination ofa work composed by the Franciscan Juan de Oliver between 1583 and 1591, Francisco, José Mario C., 81. Ed, Sermones: Francisco Blancas de San José,0.P. Quezon City: Pulong, 1994, This work contains about 8 dozen sermons by Blancas as well as seven essays on his simons. Cruz, Jose M, S.J. Ed. Declaracién dela Doctrine Christiana en Idioma Tagalog: Juan de Olver, O.FM. Quezon City. Pulong, 1995. This work. includes texe of Oliver’s explanations of various aspects of Catholicism, including the sign of the cros, the Our Father, the Hail Mary. It also has the section on the Ten Commandments on which Rosales based his work, 10, Among his works are: La antigua cvilzacintagdlo, El cristianivmo n la antigua coilizacién ‘agdlog, La familia tagilg en la historia universal, and El Barangay. In the first, Paterno argued that Filipino society and culture “had been Spaniards at heatt even before the Spaniards arived in the Philippines.” Rather than destroying a thriving civilization, a Filipino civilization, the Spaniards looked for one that somewhat mirrored their own. Cristianismo posited that Filipinos were Christians “in al bbut name long before the coming of the Spanish Catholie missionaries” (Schumacher 1979, 268) 11, Yetit must be noted that even Paterno saw Barangay 2s a politcal unitas a secondary meaning, 12, One could say that Plasencia bears the blame forthe disinformation, and the Americans for ‘misinformation,i | The Evolution of Bayan 47 a ren eT 13. Theories abound regarding the daranggay, and not always based on evidence. But the deraragay 28 the basic political unit has been accepted as fact. Consider the anthology edited by Joos E:Abucva, The Making ofthe Filipino Nation and Republic From Barangms, Tribe, Sutanates, nd Color, F Lands Jocano’s Filpine Prehistory offers interesting theories about the Barenge.Jocana does there | the traditional view of the Barevggay with important criticisms and questions. For example: How could a small politcal unt such asthe barangay have a well-defined and wellstatifed clas system? {ic is worth noting that Plasencia again is the source for the notion of class structure in Tagslog . aariety—in the same report mentioning the barangzoy. Noone else mentions the maharite as acless} cc In addition, Jocano questions how there could be specialists in small communities, But Jecane’s ip sclution isto move even closer toa Westem madel with the Barangay being the equivatent of the state “4 With the following characteristics: ceritory large aggregate of people, government, sovereignty, end common heritage. There have been pre-Spanish and Spanish accounts of large population eencers with the primary purpose of trade, but these were not known as barangay either. Jocano speaks in ie) terms of the daranganic phase and states: The barangay was the last phase of the development of y Filipino precolonial society and culture (Jocano 2000, 154). i 14, Villanueva cies the following wocks: Joseph Ralston Hayden, Te Piippines—A Saud) in i. National Development (3rd reprint, 1950); Francis Burton Hatison, The Gometae of Philpoie ae Lndapendenc (1922); and Ricardo A. Arcilla, Book Review of 'A Survey of Local Governoeons ne 8, Philippines" (1959), 15.Jocano writes: Moreover, if we define the state a “the complex of institutions by means of | hin ‘hich power ofthe society is organized on a bass superior to kinship,” the barangay can qualify os 2 a seit because its power extends beyond kinship, especially in punishing ening neesbor: UR, ad A few pages later: Because the barangay political community was stil a its nial stage of | that development, it remained kinship-defined and tradition bound (160) ies 16, Deestos barangay habia en cada pueblo muchos ... i Be 17 James Loca The Naina Afer he Cong A Sie and Glare Hitory of he aden of | ca Central Mexico, Sitenth Through Eighteenth Gnturies, Lockhat's second chapter, afer on ouoducna, ndted:“Altepe1.” The chapter begins: “At the hear ofthe organization ofthe Nahws world bees bi before the Spaniards came and long after, lay the ele or ethnic stat. Indigenous people thovgh ee ‘of the entire countryside of central Mexico in terms of such entities” (14). But there was a problem. ‘| marie. “The Nahuas had reasonably close analogues of the ‘concepts structuring nearly all facets of European societyand culture After fr contac, ach side wa able to operate for centuries on an ltimarel aie ci Me but in practice workable presumption that the other side's analogous concepes were essentially ead ‘dential with is own, thus avoiding close examination ofthe unfamiliar and mainatining to ow, faa principles. The truce obtaining under ths partial misconception permitted fora long pied he $1 preservation of indigenous ster ofall kinds while intercultural ferment went on geval sb hardly staining the level of consciousness. Ihave called this phenomenon the proves ef Decbie en Mistaken Identity” (Lockhart 1993, 4). ik 18, Matthew Restall. Te Maya World: Yucotc Culture and Sac 1550-1850. The fist ewo chapters in the frst section of his book, “Identity and Organization,” are entitled: “The Cah: 1denticy” and Hes “The Cab: Entiry.” 19-For some, this temains an unsettled issue, Te does nothelp that for political reasons, Filipinos in the United States have sought tobe classified as Pacific Islanders, not Asians let alone Southoare Aslan. That the Philippines isa pare of Southeast Asia willnotbe defended here but simply assumed. hoked 20. Thete is also evidence to suggest that similar mandalas were in existence inthe Philippines “inal during the pre-Spanish periad (Wolters 1999, 28, i Ey 21, Junker adds: standing army and codified law (1999, 66) i 22. Phelan notes that two “notable featurcs of the postconquest barangay were its stability and i its horizontal mobility” (Phelan 1959, 122). These are notable because they were not features one should expect to find in preconquest Tagalog society. Bue these features were sought by thove48 Philippine Studies: Have We Gone Beyond St. Louis? seeking to contol sixteenth-century Tagalog society: They imagined in Tagalog society what chey wanted, 23. However, itis clear from the contact period Spanish documentation that chiefly authoricy, particularly at the regional level, was frequently weak, ineffective, and ephemeral. It was clearly ‘undermined by relatively diffuse rules of chiefly succession, by a power base centered on cenuous alliance networks rather than more stable territorial units, by the lack of instcutionalized mechanisms for wielding true coercive power against subordinates, and by the perpetual threat of usurpation by competing politica leaders Junker 75). 24, The concession of allowing the sito eflects Spanish attempts to deal with the fluidity of ‘Tagalog social structures (Phelan 1959, 183-84 nose 16) 25. Ieshould be noted that Rafael, however, accepts che barangay as described by Plasencia, “It {not surprising, then, that native communities bore the same name as the largest type of boat, barangay” (Rafael 1988, 88). “The head of a barangay or village was che datu" (Rafael 1988, 139). 26, Jocano also deals with the issue of leadership but much of what he writes is speculation. “The ddotw who had influence over the other dates was called pangula (head or leader) Ihe were at the same time the founder of the Barangay, he was called the pinuno. Ina big derangay, which had contacts with Muslim traders, the dats took the title of raja, as in the case of Rajah Matanda and Rajah Soliman" (160) 27. This in contrast to the view of Professor Agoncillo, as noted by Ileto “Agoncillo knew chat Filipinos were disadvantaged in histories that privileged archives. He often spoke of the tyranny of the colonial archives, how they spoke ofthe das in elation to Spain and Spanish offical surveillance. That is one reason why Philippine history to Agoncillo begins in 1872, when native voices start to proliferate in the written records” (Ileto 1998, 224, 28, The date ofthe documentin Veneracion's essay is 1883. The document opens: Dito sa bayan song San Mathoo nang yealimang arao nang buang Mayo rang caong rang libot limang daan at maycasiyam taslongtaon. “Here in the Bayan of San Matheo on the fifteenth day ofthe month of May of the year one thousand five hundred and eighty-theee.” The method of counting among’ Tagalogs during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and even beyond differed fiom whats now practiced. Mayeasiyam: means “of the ninth set of tens,” thus eighty, and not ninety. Iewas during the seventeenth century that Tagalogs slowly made the transition a method mirroring Spanish. This transition was seen first inthe numbering of the years of dating and later in the numbering of the days of months. See Jean- Paul G. Potet. “Numeral Expressions in Tagalog" (Privately printed, 1994). 29, Scott discusses these positions inthe fist co essays of his Cracs iv she Parchment Curtain and Outer Essays in Philippine History, These essays are entitled, respectively: “Cracks in the Parchment Curtain” and “History ofthe Inarticulate.” 30. The history of the Philippines of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries has been institutionalized on three levels. First, much of the work done on this time periad was done by historians whose works ean be Achutegui, Pedro S. de. Aguinaldo and the Revolution of 1896; A Documentary History, by Pedro 8. de Achitegui and Miguel A. Bernad. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1972. ‘Andaya, Barbara Watson. “Political Development between the Sixteenth and Eighteenth Centuries.” The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia: Volume One, Part Two: From c. 1500 to c. 1800. Ed. Nicholas Tarling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Blair, Emma Helen, and James Robertson. Eds. The Philippine Islands, 1493- 1898. 55 vols. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark, 1903-1909. Constantino, Renato. “Reform, Revolution and Filipino Nationhood, 1860s- 1890s” (1975). The Making of the Filipino Nation and Republic. Bd. Jose V. ‘Abueva. Quezon Gity: University of the Philippines Press, 1998.52 Philippine Studies: Have Wl ne Beyond St. Louis? Cruz, Jose M., S.J. Ed. Declaracién de la Doctrina Christiana en Idioma Tagalog: Juan de Oliver, O.F:M. Quezon City: Pulong, 1995. Cruz, Romeo V, “Evolution of Filipino Nationalis, 1810-1912"(1986). The Mating af the Filipino Nation and Republic. Ed. Jose V. Abueva. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1998. Cushner, Nicholas. Landed Estates in the Colonial Philippines. New Haver University Press, Southeast Asia Series, 1976. “Meysapan: The Formation and Social Effects of a Landed Estate in the Philippines.” Day, Tony. Fluid Iron: State Formation in Southeast Asia, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2002 Enriquez, Virgilio G. Pagbabangong-Dangal: Indigenous Psychology and Cultural Empowerment. Quezon City: Akademyang ng Kultura at Sikolohiyang Pilipino, 1994. Francisco, José Mario C., S.J. Ed. Sermones: Francisco Blancas de San José, O.P. Quezon City: Pulong, 1994 Gaerlan, Barbara. “The Politics and Pedagogy of Language Use at the University of the Philippines: The History of English as the Medium of Instruction and the Challenge Mounted by Filipino.” Doctoral dissertation, 1998, fale Guerrero, Milagros C., Emmanuel N. Encarnacion, and Ramon N, Villegas. “Andres Bonifacio, the Philippine Revolution of 1896, and the First National, Democratic Government Under Bonifacio as President (Haring Bayang Katagalugan)” (1996). The Making of the Filipino Nation and Republic. Ed. Jose V. Abueva. Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1998. Hall, D. G. E. A History of South-Kast Asia, Fourth Edition, New York: St. Mattin’s Press, 1981 eto, Reynaldo C. Pasyon and Revolution: Popular Movements in the Philippines, 1840-1910. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1979. ——. Filipinos and their Revolution: Event, Discourse and Historiography. Quezon Gity: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1998. Jocano, F. Landa. Filipino Prehistory: Rediscovering Precolonial Heritage. Metro Manila: PUNLAD Research House, Inc., 2000. ——. Filipino Worldview: Ethnography of Local Knowledge. Metro Manila: PUNLAD Research House, Inc., 2001 Junker, Laura Lee. Raiding, Trading, and Feasting: The Political Economy of Philippine Chiefdoms. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1999.‘The Evolution of Bayan 53 es Lockhart, James. The Nahas Afier the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Cantral Mexico, Sixtenth through Eighteenth Centuriag Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992, pkititor and Translator. We Pople Here: Nahuatl Accounts of the Conquest of Mexico. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1993 Lumbera, Bienvenido. Tagalog Poetry, 1570-1898: Tradition and Influences in its Development. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1986 Mendoza, Susanah Lily L. Benen the Home and the Diaspora: The Politics of Theorising Filipino and Filipino American Identities. New York. Routledge, 2001 Metiez, Herminia. Explorations in Philippine Foltore. Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1996, Ocampo, Ambeth. “Turning Historical Bias Around,” Philippine Daily Inquirer (October 16, 1998) Pardo de Tavera, T. H. Las Costumbres de los Tagalos en Filipinas (segin ef Padre Plasencia). Madtid: Tipografia de Manuel Ginés Hernindes, tavo Patanne, E. P The Philippines in the 6th to 16th Centuries. Quezon City: LSA Press, 1996. Paterno, Pedro Alejandro. E/ Barangay: con la Relacién de Fr. Juan de Plasencia, EO. A [RE de cimo se gobernaban los tagalos en la antigledad y una cates & D. Miguel Villalba Herods | Paterno, Madi : impr, de los Siveconee de Cuesta, 1892, Phelan, John Leddy. The Hispanization ofthe Philippines: Spanish Aims and Filipino Responses, 1565-1700. Madison: The University of Wistonsin Press, 1959, Poter, Jean-Paul. “La Petition Tagale Caming manga Alipin (1665)." Cahiers de Linguistique Asie Orientale 16.1(1987): 109-57 Rafael, Vicente L. Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in Tagalog Society under Early Spanish Rule, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988. Reseall, Matthew. Te Maya World: Yucatec Culture and Society, 1550-1850, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997 Rosales, Antonio Ma., O.FM. A Study of @ 16th Century Tagalog Manuscript on the Ten Commandments: ts Significance and Implications. Quersn City: University of the Philippines Press, 1984, Roth, Dennis. The Friar Estates of te Philippines. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1977. Salazar, Zeus A. Talaarawan 1997: Handog sa Senrenaryo Himagsikan Pilipino Pigma ng mga Anak ng Bayan, 1897. Lunsod Mandaluyong, Metro Manin, Kalawakan, 1996,