Talk:Prehistory of the Philippines

Unsourced Migration-Related Portions
I'm removing unsourced migration-related portions of the article (as taken from the History of the Philippines (Before 1521) article) and placing them here temporarily until I can sort them out for inclusion in a separate section tackling the various Models of Migration that have come up. I'm moving migration discussions because the alternative models contradict each other, doing this in favor of a chronology based on artifact findings rather than theorized migrant waves. Please note though that properly sourced portions will not be added here and will instead be moved to the migration discussion on the lower part of the article page. -- Alternativity (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the following paragraphs are unsourced:

From the 30,000 years BC section
 * About 30,000 years ago, the Negritos, who became the ancestors of today's Aetas, or Aboriginal Filipinos, descended from more northerly abodes in Central Asia passing through the Indian Subcontinent and reaching the Andamanese Islands. From thereon, the Negritos continued to venture on land bridges reaching Southeast Asia. While some of the Negritos settled in Malaysia, becoming what is now the Orang Asli people, several Negrito tribes continued on to the Philippines through Borneo. They had a Paleolithic culture. They live a nomadic lifestyle, roaming the forests and living in crude dwellings consisting of leaves and sticks. But they were skillfully adept in using the bow and arrow as a primary defense weapon. They also gathered wild plants for consumption.

Entire "3000 BC onward" section removed, section was in dispute and was unsourced
 * After the last Ice Age (which ended about 10,000 years ago), the sea level rose an estimated 35m (110 feet), which cut the land bridges, filling the shallow seas north of Borneo. Thus the only method of migration left was the dugout proa, built by felling trees and hollowing them out with adzes. An image of this method of travel can be seen on the Manunggul Jar, a National Treasure of the Philippines.


 * About 3000 BC, a loose confederation of peoples known as 'Nesiots', from what today is Indonesia, came to the Philippines. They were to become the ancestors of the present-day Luzon and Mindanao hill tribes. There were two waves of successive Nesiot immigration. The first wave saw a people who have light complexions, aquiline noses, thin lips, and deep-set eyes. The second wave of migration were shorter and heavier in physique, having darker complexion, thick lips, large noses, and heavy jaws. Those of the second wave of migration had epics and folk stories mixed with superstitions. From these people came the Luzon hill tribes.


 * will proceed to do more over the evening. -- Alternativity (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia summary style vs. this article
This remark was prompted by a recent change popping this article up on my watchlist. The change was to the Prehistory of the Philippines section, and I happened to look beyond that particular change.

WP:SS says, "... When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article." The section at issue points to Barangay (pre-colonial) as the main article on this subtopic. It strikes me that the info in this article section doesn't comply with that WP:SS guideline, and that details about some of the info in this section of article would be better moved into the subtopic article and summarized here.

I'm no expert in this area, and I presently have other fish to fry, so I'll just mention this here in passing. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Overlapping articles
The articles History of the Philippines (900-1521) and History of the Philippines (Before 1521) overlap one another, and both overlap portions of this article. There was some discussion of overlap between those two other articles at Talk:History of the Philippines (Before 1521), but the work on that doesn't appear to have been finished appears not to be currently under discussion there. Neither of those two articles in their current state appear to fit as summary-style articles related to sections of this one

This situation is confusing -- at least it confuses me. The lead section of this article defines Philippine pre-history as pre-900AD (i.e., pre-Laguna Copperplate Inscription). I suggest that: I'm willing to do some of the work above -- perhaps all of it, over time. I don't want to start on it without consensus about what is to be done, though. Considering WP:silence means nothing, I'd like to get some level of consensus beyond WP:Silence and consensus about what is to be done before boldly starting on these changes. I will mention this discussion on the talk pages for the other articles mentioned here, and would appreciate comments about this here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Post-900AD material be removed from this article and, as appropriate, merged into the (900-1521) article. ✅,.
 * 2) Post-900AD material be removed from the (900-1521) article and, as appropriate, merged into the (900-1521) article. (See next item - inserted 03:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC))
 * 3) Post-1521AD material be removed from the (900-1521) article and, as appropriate, merged into the History of the Philippines (1521–1898) article.✅.
 * 4) Pre-900AD material in the (Before 1521) article be merged into this article, as appropriate. ✅
 * 5) Article-space wikilinks to the (Before 1521) article be relinked or unlinked, as appropriate. (I count 128 hits at |Pages that link to "History of the Philippines (Before 1521)") ❌
 * 6) When the count above reaches zero in article space, delete the (Before 1521) article. ❌


 * I concur with all your suggestions, and am interested in helping in what limited capacity I can give. (I'm still on indefinite wikibreak.) - Alternativity (talk) 09:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rethink
When I started looking at the wikilinks to the (Before 1521) article, I found that it's sometimes not easy to decide whether to unlink them, relink to (900-1521) article or relink to the Prehistory article. Also, article prose often speaks of a pre-Spanish period in a way which makes it difficult to separate out the pre-900 AD part. I can't devote the time to read a hundred-some articles closely enough to figure those cases out and handle then cleanly (perhaps rewriting as needed).

I think a half-measure solution might work here. Instead of deleting the (Before 1521) article, it could be replaced with a stub identifying 1521 as a demarcation year marking the beginning of the Spanish period and linking to the Prehistory and (900-1521) articles from there.

Comments? Better ideas? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I did that severe half-measure edit described above to the (Before 1521) article. That article is now effectively a switchbox offering a choice between the Prehistory and (900-1521) articles to readers who reach it. I couldn't think of a better approach. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

National Geographic study
This edit inserted "A much bigger study by National Geographic on around 40,000 Filipinos found out only 2-3% of the ancestry was R1b found in Europe, Middle East and India, 2-3% was South Asian and the rest mostly Austronesian." into the Genetic studies -> Conclusions section.

This edit changed that to read, "A much bigger study by National Geographic on around 80,000 Filipinos found out based on a massive genetic testing in 2008–2009 found that the Philippines’ autosomal genepool is overwhelmingly Asian, consisting of 53% Southeast Asian and Oceanian genes, and 36% East Asian genes, with only 5% Southern European genes, 3% South Asian (Indian subcontinent) genes, and 2% Native American genes. Note that these percentages do not represent the average admixture of every Filipino, but rather represents the genepool of all Filipinos combined, with each individual Filipino varying or even lacking any degree of admixture from one or more said ancestries."

I couldn't find support for all of that in the source cited, so I've moved that content here for discussion. The cited source has a section which lists genetic marker percentages of Filipinos supporting those given above and which says: "The reference population is based on people living in the Philippine archipelago. The large Southeast Asia/Oceania component is indicative of some of the earliest settlers of the islands of Southeast Asia some 40,000 years ago, when much of the Philippine and Indonesian archipelagoes were connected to mainland Asia. The East Asia component, in contrast, is associated with the migrants from China and Taiwan who expanded south, spreading Austronesian languages and rice cultivation some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago." I've done some googling for info on the study and, in particular, have found nothing abut a sample size of around 80,000 Filipinos; maybe there's something there which I missed. Also, re "Note that ...", please see MOS:NOTED. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Migration theories
In the current version of the article, the section "Migration_theories" is massive and probably equal in size to the main article Models of migration to the Philippines. This section needs to be trimmed massively, and the main article adjusted accordingly. comments, objections? Austronesier (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. I may try to help as I have time. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely needs doing. A light summary of the most supported and agreed upon models is all that should be located here, no need to mention older or fringe theories at all. CMD (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd retain the Austronesian expansion part, since it's the mainstream theory and is actually relevant to the article. It is discussed here in more detail as well. The alternative theories should be moved to the dedicated article, at least the non-duplicate parts. And yeah, no need to mention them here at all. I'd also retitle the section to "Neolithic" or "Neolithic Austronesian migrations" or something. Rather than "Migration theories".


 * Though I worry that the Models of migration to the Philippines article seems to focus more on discussing the alternative/fringe theories than the mainstream one. And adding more content from here could worsen the WP:DUE problems there.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  10:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I share your worries about this. I have indicated it vaguely when I said that the main article needs adjustments. People read from top to bottom, so essential/mainstream views shoud come first. Older/alternative theories can follow and be presented with due weight. After all it should be an article about the topic of migrations to the Philippines, and not the meta-topic of the history of scholarship about it. We might also consider to move it to "Peopling of the Philippines" (or "Settlement...") –Austronesier (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree on both points.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  11:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I also afree with you Austronesier, CMD, and Obsidian Soul, not only does it need to be trimmed but also screened to prune out fringe theories too. -Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I just performed what you guys discussed earlier. I tried to move/merge/clean up as well as possible, but both pages need a critical look, as to what information should be kept/improved/expanded. --Glennznl (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)