By Danilo P. Padua, PhD
makers.”
I am not used to be rooted in one place like a plant, for prolonged hours. But I was forced to be static for some hours last week and the previous week.
I could hardly move because of excruciating pain in my foot. I did not want to take western medicine liberally to ease such pain as I fear that my internal organs might be so adversely affected. Thus, I endured. No thanks to my gout.
To make myself at least active while sitting, I opened my FB account from time to time not to post anything but just to browse, and perhaps to react to what I would find interesting enough.
As I was browsing recently, my attention was caught by a post from cordilleransun.com. The bold title was: “The Banaue rice terraces are not 2,000 years old”.
For one, I’ve long believed that the Banaue rice terraces are at least 2,000 years. Learned that from even my elementary days. Can read that in countless articles, in books, in magazines, in tousim promotional materials etc. The age of the terraces was certainly one of the reasons why it is mentioned in the same breadth as the Great Wall of China, Pyramids of Egypt, and 5 other world wonders.
That post was really eye-catching, mind challenging. Imagine extensive rice terraces built on steep slopes relying only on crude instruments to be used. Definitely mind-boggling. That is why, it added to the terraces’ noteworthiness to be included as one of the wonders of the ancient world. And being Filipinos, specifically Cordillerans, we were so proud of it.
Now the jolt.
The post blared in no uncertain term that the rice terraces are only 200-400 years old! This is according to the claimed extensive research done by Stephen Acabado, an archaeologist and current professor at UCLA. He is also the director of the Ifugao Archaeological Project.
I don’t know the nationality of Acabado. Did not check it in the internet. Maybe he is really a well-respected archaeologist?
The short post continues: “The 2,000-year narrative is not backed by archaeological evidence. These were speculative estimates by earlier researchers-Roy F. Barton and H. Otley Beyer.”
Possibly, the above assertion is correct. In the book of Mr. Mariano A. Dumla, entitled, The Ifugao World, published in 1979 some scholars already doubted the earlier presumed age of the terraces. The reason? The terraces were never mentioned by early Spanish missionaries, military leaders, or travelers in their reports or memoirs. Therefore, they consider that the making of such terraces is fairly recent.
According to the post, Acabado’s argument for a younger IRT is backed by extensive research and data. Archaeological digs were done in several sites in Ifugao. Material from these sites were taken for radio-carbon dating. Paleoethnobotanical remains were collected for analysis.
Acabado has done, still according to the post, extensive research on Ifugao history and culture. In his work, He regularly collaborated with Ifugao researchers like Marlon Martin, the head of the conservation organization, Save the Ifugao Terraces Movement.
Maybe, Acabado and his team could be right. But a thing to ponder. If sample materials for testing were done in areas other than the Banaue rice terraces (as the post vaguely said that digs were done in various sites in Ifugao), their test results could be misleading.
If the terraces were about 200-400 years old only, the making of these will be only between the years 1625 and 1825. Do we have incontrovertible references, or even just reports published elsewhere during this period?
Even if the above is true, it does not diminish the grit, ingenuity, determination, endurance, boldness, resilience and the cooperative efforts of our ancestors to exhibit a work for the ages-because they used only the most basic tools available that time, and surely took them so long to complete.
Banaue rice terraces is still one of the wonders of the world. Grand salute to the makers.**
