Filipino Tattooing: Complex Origins
These questions and my two-bit analyzation explore the recent trend of linking Filipino tattooing to the Austronesian family and its implications. They consider scientific evidence on the origins of Austronesian-speaking peoples, including Filipinos, and their tattooing practices. Furthermore, they address the oversimplification of Filipino tattooing as solely Austronesian and the neglect of diverse influences and designs. Lastly, they stress the importance of recognizing the multifaceted nature of Filipino culture and avoiding a narrow focus on specific regions or tribal groups in understanding tattooing practices.
How does the recent surge in linking Filipino tattooing to the Austronesian family reflect the broader understanding of its origins?
In what ways does current scientific evidence point to the origin of Austronesian-speaking peoples, including Filipinos, and how does it relate to tattooing practices?
Why is it problematic to oversimplify Filipino tattooing as the sole origin and assert that all Filipinos are part of the Austronesian race?
How does the oversimplification of categorizing contemporary Filipino tattoos as strictly Austronesian neglect the diverse influences and designs present within the local context?
What is the importance of acknowledging the multifaceted nature of Filipino culture and avoiding a myopic focus on specific regions or tribal groups in understanding tattooing practices?
The study of Filipino tattooing within the broader context of Austronesian cultural history is indeed a complex and nuanced field. While there has been a recent surge in interest linking Filipino tattooing to the Austronesian family, it's crucial to approach this narrative with a nuanced understanding.
Current scientific evidence suggests that the origin of the Austronesian-speaking peoples, including Filipinos, traces back to Taiwan. However, tattooing practices, like cultural elements, are dynamic and subject to migration and diffusion. The movement of people, trade routes, and cultural exchanges likely played a role in the spread of tattooing throughout the region, not originating solely from the Philippines. There are many social media ‘content creators’ dangerously playing with “which came first, the chicken or the egg?”; that tattooing began with Filipinos i.e. Polynesian tattooing is of Filipino origin, yet, there is little evidence of cultural (tattoo design) cross-transference.
The last wave of prehistoric migrations to reach the Philippines was the Austronesian expansion which started in the Neolithic at around 4,500 to 3,500 years ago, when a branch of Austronesians from Taiwan (the ancestral Malayo-Polynesian-speakers) migrated to the Batanes Islands and Luzon. That’s kind of an odd place to say that tattoo practices started in the Philippines.
It's problematic to oversimplify and declare Cordillera tattooing as the sole origin too, considering the rich tapestry of cultures across the archipelago. The assertion that all Filipinos are part of the Austronesian race oversimplifies the diverse origins and histories within the country. Indigenous groups in the northern regions may have distinct practices, but it's essential to acknowledge the equally rich histories of the central and southern parts of the Philippines.
Labeling contemporary Filipino tattoos as strictly Austronesian neglects the unique influences and designs present within the local context. It's crucial to recognize the multifaceted nature of Filipino culture, avoiding a myopic focus on specific regions or tribal groups. The trend of categorizing Filipino tattoos as Austronesian oversimplifies a diverse cultural heritage and risks erasing the complexities of historical and contemporary influences. I have seen this particularly with youngbucks of Ilokano origin when they speak on their tattoo design created by a person of Filipino descent; “My tattoo is Austronesian.” I’m like, what? Where in Austronesia are you from? Do you speak Austronesian? (Meanwhile, they’ve lived multiple generations in Hawaii or California.)
If we are to use this wave of migration as a measure of humanity’s origin, should we not say we are from Africa, as the first humans (and tattoos/drawings) came from Africa? Scientists are sure that Homo sapiens first evolved in Africa, and we know that every person alive today can trace their genetic ancestry to there. It has long been thought that we began in one single east or south African population, which eventually spread into Asia and Europe.
It's "so Filipino" to play the game of "we came first," "we do it better," and "we are the best," and I am complicit in this dynamic. This mindset, while rooted in a sense of pride and cultural identity, can be detrimental. It fosters a narrow perspective that hinders open-mindedness and collaboration with others. By constantly asserting superiority, we risk alienating those from different backgrounds and stifling our own growth. Embracing humility and recognizing the value in diverse approaches and experiences can lead to more meaningful connections and a richer understanding of the world.
I believe acknowledging the dynamic nature of cultural diffusion, understanding the broader historical context, and appreciating the diversity within the Philippines are key to a comprehensive understanding of Filipino tattooing. It's important to avoid generalizations that oversimplify the intricate web of influences that have shaped this cultural practice over time.
Sources:
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2018/july/the-way-we-think-about-the-first-modern-humans-in-africa.html#:~:text=Scientists%20are%20sure%20that%20Homo,spread%20into%20Asia%20and%20Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipinos#:~:text=The%20last%20wave%20of%20prehistoric,the%20Batanes%20Islands%20and%20Luzon.
