See Preview - Cordillera Studies Center

ISSN 2094-0262
THE CORDILLERA REVIEW
Journal of Philippine Culture and Society
Volume II, Number 1 March 2010
Cordillera Studies Center, University of the Philippines Baguio
THE CORDILLERA REVIEW
Journal of Philippine Culture and Society
Volume 2, Number 1
March 2010
Contents
JULES DE RAEDT
THE BUNTUK ORIGIN MYTH
Explorations in Buaya Mythology
Foreword / 3
I.
Introduction / 7
An Exercise in Myth Analysis
Myth Collecting: Its Problems
Review of Literature
II. The Setting / 21
The Ethnographic Background
The Physical Setting: The Buntuk Scene
III. The Syncretic Myth / 29
Four Samples
The Talanganay Myth
The Kabunyan-Patubog Myth
The Two Myths Compared
IV. The Talanganay Myth Analyzed / 49
The Creation of Man and His Food
The First Sacrifice
Human Nature
God, Man and Beast
The First Sexual Encounters
Siblings, Spouses and Paramours
Household, Political Ties, and Friendship
Incest is Divine
The Test of Alternatives
Divine Romance and Female Inadequacy
Divine Romance and Male Brutality
front pages 1-2.pmd
1
5/26/2011, 12:34 PM
The Buntuk Origin Myth
3
Foreword
This special issue of The Cordillera Review presents the posthumous
publication of a work on Kalinga mythology written by Jules De Raedt,
former professor of anthropology at the University of the Philippines
Baguio, who passed away in December 2004, after a lingering illness.
Although Prof. De Raedt worked intermittently on the manuscript during
those years when he was no longer in the best of health, we can easily
surmise from the manuscript that this project began to take shape at a
much earlier time, when the author embarked on a long and sustained
reflection on Cordillera culture and society after doing field work in
Kalinga in the 1960s.
What could warrant the publication of this old work at this time?
The answer lies in what it could contribute to the advance of scholarship
on local folklore. Almost four decades have passed since E. Arsenio
Manuel, one of the founding fathers of Philippine Studies, first took
note of the woeful state of folklore studies in the Philippines. Surveying
the theses and dissertations submitted by Filipino students to graduate
schools all over the country, Manuel decried the substandard work that
often passed for folklore scholarship in the Philippines. Most of these
works, according to Manuel, betrayed an appalling ignorance of proper
methodologies in the collection and documentation of folklore, and also
failed to come up with theoretically informed analysis of their data. A
decade after making that verdict, he wrote that “we have not yet actually
passed the collecting stage in folklore studies.”
With a few outstanding exceptions, not much has changed since
Manuel made these pronouncements. De Raedt himself writes in the
opening section of his work: “The study of Philippine mythology is still
on a level comparable to the collection of bows and arrows in early
ethnology. Whatever work has been done beyond collecting, i.e.,
methodologically acceptable collecting, has been in terms of general
classifications and attempts at interpretation inspired by the ProppDundes tradition. A reflection of later anthropological advances is hardly
detectable.” More recently, in the blurb that he wrote for a book on
Philippine indigenous oral traditions (Herminia Meñez Coben’s Verbal
Arts in Philippine Indigenous Communities), anthropology professor
Eufracio C. Abaya indirectly gave an assessment of the contemporary
state of Philippine folklore scholarship when he said that “By
interpreting quite successfully themes and subthemes of verbal art and
its performance/production in specific ethnographic, ecological and
historical contexts, this work distinguishes itself from other studies in
foreword_3-6.pmd
3
6/6/2011, 3:47 PM
4
The Cordillera Review
Philippine folklore that have not gone beyond the classificatory/
thematic analysis.” Abaya’s statement, which points to the lack of
analytical rigor in Philippine folklore studies, repeats the earlier
judgments by Manuel and De Raedt.
In “The Buntuk Origin Myth,” the author presents what he calls
“an exercise in myth analysis.” The primary perspective is
anthropological, as to be expected, given the author’s disciplinary
training. De Raedt’s earliest foray into myth analysis may be found in
“Myth and Ritual: A Relational Study of Buaya Mythology, Ritual and
Cosmology,” the doctoral dissertation he submitted to the University of
Chicago in 1969. The second chapter of the dissertation presents the
author’s earliest reflections on the subject of the Buntuk origin myth,
along with what is perhaps the first extended discussion of the Kalinga
epic form known as gasumbi. This work reflects the influence of, among
others, two eminent anthropologists, Victor Turner and Terence Turner,
who were mentors and members of the dissertation committee. The two
Turners continue to figure in De Raedt’s later musings on the Buntuk
origin myth, but the expanded nature of this later reflection can be felt
in the inclusion of new concepts and methodologies derived from
structuralist anthropology (primarily Claude Levi-Strauss),
psychoanalytic theory, and the study of symbols (e.g., the work of
Clifford Geertz, whose classic study of the Balinese cockfight is
prominently cited here). The rather eclectic approach is explained by
the author’s intention to present “as complete an analysis of two related
Kalinga creation myths” as his knowledge and analytical skills would
allow. Such an analysis must perforce comprehend “the social
structural, cultural/semantic and ecological contexts” of the myths.
We thus have in the present work an analysis whose incisiveness
is seldom encountered in Philippine folklore study. De Raedt’s attempts
to tease out various meanings from the vocabulary of the myth and its
metaphors through semantic analysis and references to the ethnographic
context make for a nuanced analysis of the narratives. However, despite
the comprehensiveness of the analysis, it must be pointed out that what
we have here is actually an incomplete work.
The manuscript on which the following text of “The Buntuk Origin
Myth” was based is an imperfect photocopy of the manuscript given to
the editor when the author was still alive. The original manuscript,
which could no longer be located, was a combination of typewritten
and computer-encoded pages, with extensive corrections and additions
in the author’s handwriting. The photoduplication was, in many parts,
unsatisfactory, and some illegible sections of the manuscript had to be
deciphered or even reconstructed, using internal evidence. In those parts
where nothing could be done with the typographic problem, the editor
could only resort to omission. In every instance, the omitted part is
indicated by a bracketed ellipsis. Another problem had to do with the
foreword_3-6.pmd
4
6/6/2011, 3:47 PM
The Buntuk Origin Myth
5
way the manuscript pages were put together. Many sections consisting
of loose pages were unpaginated and some sequencing issues had to be
resolved. Still another problem was, in two instances (“The Talanganay
Myth” and “The Two Myths Compared” in the third chapter), the
existence of two versions of a particular section. Which of the two
versions represents the author’s final intention? This too had to be
resolved.
The greater problem is perhaps the problem of incompleteness.
Two pages are missing in the copy of the manuscript used for editing.
In one case (“Approaches from Psychology: Symbols” in the Review of
Literature section), the missing page was reconstructed by using an
earlier version of the review which appeared as “Myth Analysis: Truth
in Myth” in the Saint Louis University Research Journal (1982). The other
missing section, which could not in any way be reconstructed, is again
indicated by a bracketed ellipsis.
The manuscript is incomplete for another reason. First, although it
has parenthetical citations, it has no reference list. The list was
reconstructed by referring to the author’s available works (where many
of the cited sources are also used) and through library and Internet
search. Second, the present work ends with the author’s discussion of
“Divine Romance and Male Brutality” (section 3 of Chapter 4) but we
know that the work does not properly end here because the author left a
preliminary table of contents which shows that after this is a discussion
of “God, Man and Heroes,” followed by a fourth section on “The New
Cosmos” under which the author is supposed to have discussed “Divine
Withdrawal,” “Mediums and Headhunters,” and “Sacrifice: The
Synthesis.” Then, too, there is supposed to be a last chapter where the
summary and conclusions are given.
These sections, originally thought to be missing, were never
completed by the author, according to Lourdes Gimenez who assisted
Prof. De Raedt in the preparation of the manuscript before he died. One
can get an intimation of some of the things possibly discussed in these
uncompleted sections by referring to the author’s Chicago dissertation,
particularly Chapter 2 (“Mythology,” where he discusses, in addition
to the Buntuk origin myth, the Kalinga epics, ritual myths, and the
polymorphous figure of Kabunian), Chapter 3 (“Man and His Cosmos,”
on Kalinga cosmogony, notions of the supernatural, the headhunting
complex, and the role of the medium in native rites), and Chapter 4
(“Animal Sacrifice,” where De Raedt discusses the various stages of the
anitu rites; a revised version of this chapter was published as a
monograph, Kalinga Sacrifice, by the Cordillera Studies Center in 1989.)
However, when referring to the dissertation, one has to keep in mind
that the material in this early work was subsequently re-thought and
re-interpreted as De Raedt considered new perspectives and brought in
new material drawn from later investigations in Kalinga.
foreword_3-6.pmd
5
6/6/2011, 3:47 PM
6
The Cordillera Review
While it is regrettable that the present text of De Raedt’s work on
the Buntuk origin myth is incomplete, we maintain that even in this
form it represents a thorough and penetrating discussion of Kalinga
myth and can stand by itself. It is a distinct contribution to Cordillera
Studies and offers a model of myth analysis that is backed up both by
theory and intimate knowledge of the culture and society from which
the myth originated.
In addition to the editing and reconstruction work discussed in
the preceding paragraphs, there are a few editorial corrections and the
usual silent emendation of spelling inconsistencies, typographical
errors, and the like. Editorial judgments are seldom faultless. The editor
takes full responsibility for mistakes and inaccuracies arising from the
preparation of the final copy on which the following text was based,
with the hope that none of these lapses constitutes an egregious mistake.
We would like to thank Dr. Carol Brady and Ms. Gimenez for
cooperating with us and for providing us important information, and
Dr. June Prill-Brett for reviewing the manuscript. We also thank the
staff of the Cordillera Studies Center—Alicia Follosco, Raulita Gutierrez,
Ruel Lestino, and Joey Rualo—for assistance in various stages of this
project. Needless to say, the greater debt is to the author himself, Prof.
Jules De Raedt, whose friendship and trust I acknowledge with fond
affection.
DELFIN TOLENTINO, JR.
Editor
foreword_3-6.pmd
6
6/6/2011, 3:47 PM
The Buntuk Origin Myth
7
I Introduction
This monograph is an attempt at an anthropological analysis of a
Philippine myth. It is a pioneering and exploratory work, and does not
pretend to be the final word on the subject.
Myths are succinct statements by a culture about its core concepts.
Myths are symbolic statements, held in the hands of individual
narrators, and as such potentially told in as many versions of what the
recorder-analyst (it is hard to see how the two could be different persons)
must translate into universally comprehensible statements about the
culture that produced these myths.
The study of Philippine mythology is still on a level comparable to
the collection of bows and arrows in early ethnology. Whatever work
has been done beyond collecting, i.e., methodologically acceptable
collecting, has been in terms of general classifications and attempts at
interpretation inspired by the Propp-Dundes tradition. A reflection of
later anthropological advances is hardly detectable.
1. An Exercise in Myth Analysis
This study is an exercise in myth analysis. Such an enterprise is not
only of great interest because myths are—to use a mining metaphor—
instances of high grade cultural material; it is also a challenge because
the extraction of the precious contents from this ore can be done
successfully only with the greatest effort and care. As in the treatment of
certain types of ore, a good deal of guesswork is involved in the analysis
of myths.
Like other instances of human behavior—and mineral ore, for that
matter—the empirical form in which myths present themselves is not of
a nature that immediately reveals its full meaning or content. To begin
with, the text rarely consists of a neat, well rendered sequence of edited
sentences, uniformly rendered by the average adult of the community.
Rather, as rendered empirically, the myth is never narrated the same
way, not even by the same individual. In each narration there may be
omissions and changes in the order of events, aside from the presence
of standard variants which by now we have come to accept as part of
the nature of things. In the case of the myth that is the subject of this
study, we have the further difficulty of having to deal with various
attempts at syncretisms of two or more myths by the different narrators.
1 chapter_7-20.pmd
7
5/26/2011, 12:02 PM
8
The Cordillera Review
Once the syncretic problem is resolved, the real issue is one of
methodology. Myths, like other cultural material, are “imaginative works
built out of social materials” (Geertz 1973, 449). The purpose of this
study is to give as complete an analysis of two related northern Kalinga
creation myths, together, in their syncretic form, referred to as the
“Buntuk origin myth,” as my knowledge of the life experiences of the
people who tell the myths, and my skills at analysis, permit. This means
that I will draw on the social structural, cultural/semantic and ecological
contexts of the myth, as well as psychoanalytic theory. The myth seems
to demand a certain structuralist approach which I will follow wherever
it may (or may not) lead. My basic interests lie, however, with what is
generally called the semiotic approach.
The main symbol in the Buntuk origin myth is sexual intercourse.
This study shall look at the meanings of those sexual relations which
carry great significance in local life. What the myth seems to be all about
is a statement about human nature, both ontological and moral, as the
Buaya and their neighbors experience it and conceive of it. The work
presented here is, therefore, an instance of cultural interpretation, or the
comprehensive interpretation—looking into all suggested relationships
with the rest of culture—of a single empirical piece of cultural material,
a myth.
Whatever theoretical import the present study may have is almost
purely accidental. The steps taken will reveal my own level of
understanding of what myth analysis is or should be all about. Of course,
what one does oneself, and believes to be right, he loves to see confirmed
in the practice of others. My own preferences should reveal themselves
in the section on review of literature and in various parts of the study. I
will neither defend nor refute explicitly certain approaches. Rather, let
this analysis speak for itself.
2. Myth Collecting: Its Problems
The texts from which the myth is reconstructed are potentially as
numerous as the adult and pre-adult members of the communities whose
myth it is. There are no special occasions on which the myth is told; it
can be related and heard by all at any time. From an early age, all know
about the myth, but many will direct the collector to a few individuals
who are generally considered to know the myth better. These
individuals, it is generally agreed, can narrate the myth in more detail
and with a greater degree of authority (based on acceptance) than others.
This respect for certain narrators is partly based on the relative confidence
with which they narrate the myth, the relative completeness of the
narration, the quality of their prose, the age of the narrator, and other
qualities of these persons that make their versions more authoritative
1 chapter_7-20.pmd
8
5/26/2011, 12:02 PM
The Buntuk Origin Myth
9
and satisfying to the listeners. Consequently, those versions, or elements
in them, that received universal or near-universal rejection were not
always retained as worthwhile data, and will not be presented here.
The people of this community, as well as neighboring communities,
do not seem bothered by the existence of different versions. Similar
variations can also be found in the description of the cosmos and in the
performance of rituals. Each narrator bases his or her version on the
authority of an ancestor, usually a grandparent, from whom the version,
as told, is said to have been learned. There is, of course, substantial
agreement in all the versions, but some of the differences are quite striking
to the outside observer.
Faced with the same problem of myth collecting (and analysis)
among the Australian aborigines, Stanner (1966, 84) noted: “There is
no univocal version of the Kunmanggur myth; nor, indeed, in my
opinion, of any aboriginal myth.” Fully aware that the variations are
numerous, Stanner mentions such causes and motivations as
“forgetfulness, lack of interest, mentality, prejudice and notion of what
a questioner wishes to hear, or should be told,… jealousy, shame, a
desire to shine, and an unfathomable malice” (86). In the present case,
some narrators, even good narrators, were found to start their narration
at any point in the general sequence of the myth, and jump to other
episodes as these came into their minds. All these sources of variation,
and others similar to them, are common knowledge. A narrator never
tells the myth twice in exactly the same manner.
It is the analyst’s task, then, to find his way through this maze of
variations. He has to make decisions and cannot let them rest on mere
intuition or the degree of unarticulated empathy the collector has (or
claims to have reached) with the people’s mentality. As Stanner (84)
noted, “the variations do indeed have inspirations and a logic of their
own.” He adds that “the complexity of the myth or those elements of
human frailty referred to above are not the more important causes of
variation,” and he focuses on “the dramatic potential” of the myth,
which makes it “variably open to development by men of force, intellect
and insight,” suggesting further that this is part of the process by which
mythopoeic thought nurtures and is nurtured” (85). This, however,
leaves many questions unanswered.
Stanner, and most others, will agree that a successful analysis
should be able to account for all the popularly acceptable variants in a
manner that is more sophisticated than superficial knowledge of the
culture or a mechanistic approach in the form of some statistical or
common denominator formula. Stanner is close to the solution of the
problem when he refers to the process of myth making, saying that,
“Mythopoeic thought is probably a continuous function of aboriginal
mentality, especially of the more gifted and imaginative minds, which
are not few” (85). He ends his discourse quite lamely, however: “The
1 chapter_7-20.pmd
9
5/26/2011, 12:02 PM
10
The Cordillera Review
anthropologist is thus under a practical necessity to decide on a version,
and under a moral and intellectual duty to decide what is representative.
But his decision is also one of art” (86).
We will come closer to a firm basis for such decisions if we can
arrive at a better understanding of the process of myth making. The
Australian aborigines quite appropriately call it “the dreaming” when
they refer to the mythical past as the ground and source of all things.
Perhaps an analogy with certain elements in dream-work will permit
us to detect a better and more solid ground for the necessary decisions
that must be made as we face those variants that go deeper than mere
alternatives which are in the nature of common synonyms. It should be
rather empiricist to assume that all the variants, just because they are
there and have adherents, are expressions of the same level of discourse.
They all do have value and importance, as we shall see, but not for what
they literally say. In their literal meaning they may actually come close
to contradicting each other. Yet, all of them are true.
Since for the sake of ‘credibility and factuality’ it would be both
impossible and irrelevant to collect all the possible variants of the myth,
I collected the versions of as many as a dozen middle-aged and old
adults. All of these persons were considered by their village mates as
more reliable informants. My own growing familiarity with the myth
made me progressively confident that I had a fair representation of the
major variants. In addition, I consulted two dozen persons more, whom
I had come to know as rather knowledgeable about custom and belief,
and also about these narrations and their variants.
The collection of this myth was done mainly during two periods of
field work, one from October 1964 until December 1966, and the other
from July to October 1971. It was further followed up with occasional
contacts in the years that followed, and again more intensely from
November 1975 until May 1977 through a trained assistant.
That the people under study do not have their scribes who might
attempt to streamline their oral traditions has for advantage that their
religion is not bookish. Actually, the biblical scribes did not do too well
in their selection and editorial work, and had forged what appears to
have been a quite varied tradition of oral literature into a single, artificial,
official version which by this very nature hampers analysis. When oral
literature can be recorded in its multivariate expression, as so many
attempts to say the same thing, it is more accessible to analysis.
3. Review of Literature
Many authorities could be cited in support of most of the opinions
expressed in this monograph. Such an enterprise would be pedantic
and boring. As one reads around a topic or problem, one inevitably
1 chapter_7-20.pmd
10
5/26/2011, 12:02 PM
The Buntuk Origin Myth
11
picks up new ideas which are not always annotated. In this section I
intend to refer especially to the more striking influences on my thinking,
and those authors with whom I am in greater sympathy.
Field Methods
In the section on myth collecting, I discussed Stanner (1966). Kenneth
S. Goldstein (1964) devoted an entire essay to research methods in
mythology, and has a good deal of good advice to give. I may also refer
to E. Arsenio Manuel (1975), where he discusses the level of scholarship
that has gone into the collection and analysis of oral literature in the
Philippines. Manuel has a few studies to recommend, and offers his
own solid criteria of scholarship. As I now see, I have not always
followed his advice myself, as when he demands a biography of each of
the story tellers.
Formalism
As we look back in time, most folkloristic work has been done outside
anthropology, by humanists. Inside anthropology, its development was
carried by the general theoretical orientation of the time, from Boas’s
painstaking collection of texts to Levi-Straussian formalism.
During the past half century or more, considerable effort has been
made toward a systematic treatment of oral literature, both inside and
outside anthropology, as summarized in Dundes (1965). Of particular
interest outside the anthropological tradition is Propp (1968; originally
written in 1927), who greatly influenced Dundes’s (1964) work. These
and other scholars attempted to push analysis beyond mere interest in
the tracing of geographical origins of tales, or their classification, to a
study of their form or structure. In due time they became known as
formalists or structuralists. Their interest was to find common structures
in folktales, which structures became empty skeletons, consisting of
strings of motifs whose meanings became ever more abstract and
meaningless as they were stretched to accommodate more and more
tales. This reminds us of the fruitless efforts in anthropology to arrive at
empirical universals. These humanist scholars, like the anthropologists
just referred to, created a monster—a hybrid of empiricism and
nationalism. Aside from this, Dundes himself had many good things to
say in connection with the study of oral literature. A careful selection
from among his numerous articles was published in book form (Dundes
1975). On the whole, it seems that the Propp tradition has exhausted its
usefulness for modern myth analysis.
The humanist tradition has largely remained untouched by
developments in anthropology. One example of an honest attempt at
interdisciplinary contact can be found in Kirk (1970). I can here also
1 chapter_7-20.pmd
11
5/26/2011, 12:02 PM
THE AUTHOR
JULES DE RAEDT was Professor of Anthropology at the University of
the Philippines Baguio from 1974 until his retirement in 1991. Born in
Belgium in 1926, he was ordained as a priest of the Congregatio
Immaculati Cordis Mariae (Congregation of the Immaculate Heart of
Mary) in 1950, and sent to the Philippines the following year to do
missionary work. After a decade of various postings in Baguio, Kalinga
and Nueva Vizcaya, he left in 1961 to do graduate work in the United
States, receiving his M.A. (1963) and Ph.D. (1969) from the University of
Chicago. On coming back, Prof. De Raedt taught for a few years at Saint
Louis University, a CICM school, before transferring to UP Baguio, by
which time he had left the priesthood. His master’s thesis on religious
representations in Northern Luzon appeared in a special issue of the
Saint Louis Quarterly (1964), while his works on Buaya society have
appeared in various books and journals, including Kalinga Sacrifice
(1989) and Buaya Society (1993), both published by the Cordillera Studies
Center.
The photograph above, from the files of the Philippine Province of CICM, shows
Jules De Raedt in Kalinga in the 1960s. Photo courtesy of Dr. Carol Brady.
end pages_107-108.pmd
107
5/27/2011, 1:11 PM
108
The Cordillera Review
T HE C ORDILLERA R EVIEW
Journal of Philippine Culture and Society
Vol. 1, No. 1 (March 2009)
Who are the Indigenous?
Origins and Transformations
LAWRENCE A. REID
Voices from the Other Side:
Impressions from Some Igorot Participants in
U.S. Cultural Exhibitions in the Early 1900s
JUNE PRILL-BRETT
Breaking Barriers of Ethnocentrism:
Re-examining Igorot Representation through
Material Culture and Visual Research Methods
ANALYN SALVADOR-AMORES
Technologies for Disciplining Bodies and Spaces
in Abra (1823-1898)
RAYMUNDO D. ROVILLOS
Isabelo’s Archive: The Formation
of Philippine Studies
RESIL B. MOJARES
Vol. 1, No. 2 (September 2009)
Textiles that Wrap the Dead: Some Ritual
and Secular Uses of the Binaliwon Blanket
of Upland Kalinga, Northern Luzon
RIKARDO SHEDDEN
Policy Innovations and Effective Local Management
of Forests in the Philippine Cordillera Region
LORELEI CRISOLOGO MENDOZA
Governing Indigenous People: Indigenous
Persons in Government Implementing the
Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act
PADMAPANI L. PEREZ
Exploring the Capabilities of Selected Muslim
Women in Baguio City, Northern Philippines
MA. THERESA R. MILALLOS & ROZEL BALMORES
Exploring the Pangasinan-Cordillera Connection:
The Pangasinenses and the Ibalois
ERWIN S. FERNANDEZ
Filipino Writers in the United States:
Toward a Contemporary Revaluation
E. SAN JUAN, JR.
end pages_107-108.pmd
108
5/27/2011, 1:11 PM
T HE C ORDILLERA R EVIEW
Journal of Philippine Culture and Society
THE CORDILLERA REVIEW is the official research journal of the
University of the Philippines Baguio. TCR is a multidisciplinary journal
devoted to studies on Philippine culture and society. Given the
geographical location and research thrust of the University of the
Philippines Baguio, TCR puts an emphasis on research pertaining to the
Cordillera region and other parts of Northern Luzon, Philippines. It
encourages submission of comparative studies and papers that contribute
to the debate on theoretical and methodological approaches to the study
of indigenous and upland societies. It also accepts reviews of recent
publications related to Cordillera and Philippine Studies. Although it
cannot accommodate scientific or empirical papers in the hard sciences,
the journal welcomes articles on science and technology that relate to
Philippine issues and concerns.
Review process
TCR is a refereed publication that subscribes to the established standards
of academic publications. Articles submitted to the journal are subjected
to a double-blind review process. Initial screening of manuscripts is done
by the Board of Editors. Articles that meet the requirements of the journal
are then referred, for comments and recommendation, to external reviewers
from different academic institutions in the Philippines and abroad. The
final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with the
other members of the Board of Editors. Together, they review the entire
referee process, to ensure that all editorial suggestions have been addressed.
Submission guidelines
The prescribed length for regular articles is 15 to 50 double-spaced,
typewritten pages, inclusive of endnotes and reference list. Longer works
can be considered, based on merit.
Manuscripts must be in MS Word format. For typeface, use Times New
Roman, 12 points. Illustrations, figures, and tables should use the MS
Office package facilities and must be in their proper place in the Word
document. As an alternative, graphic materials can be sent as separate
files, their placement properly indicated in the manuscript. All illustrations,
figures, and tables should be appropriately captioned.
TCR follows the author-date documentation system of the Chicago Manual
of Style, 16 th edition. Sources are briefly cited in the text, with full
bibliographic information provided in a list of references. All notes should
appear at the end of the article. Below are some examples of materials
end pages_109-110.pmd
109
5/26/2011, 12:32 PM
cited in this style, showing the format for in-text citation (T) and referencelist entry (R).
Book by one author
T:
R:
(Keesing 1962, 201)
Keesing, Felix. 1962. The ethnohistory of Northern Luzon. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Book with editor as “author”
T:
R:
(Banks and Morphy 1977, 43)
Banks, Marcus, and Howard Morphy, eds. 1997. Rethinking visual
anthropology. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Component part by one author in a work by another
T:
R:
(Ileto 1995, 64-65)
Ileto, Reynaldo. 1995. Cholera and the origins of the American
sanitary order in the Philippines. In Discrepant histories:
Translocal essays on Filipino culture, ed. Vicente Rafael, 51-81.
Manila: Anvil.
Article in journal
T:
R:
(Worcester 1906, 839-840)
Worcester, Dean C. 1906. The non-Christian tribes of Northern
Luzon. The Philippine Journal of Science 8 (1): 791-864.
Unpublished work
T:
R:
(De Raedt 1969, 86)
De Raedt, Jules. 1969. Myth and ritual: A relational study of
Buwaya mythology, ritual and cosmology, PhD diss.,
University of Chicago.
Article in online publication
T:
R:
(Galloway 2001)
Galloway, Robert C. 2001. Rediscovering the 1904 World’s Fair:
Human bites human. The Ampersand, July. http://www.
webster.edu/corbetre/dogtown/fair/galloway.html (accessed
July 22, 2008).
For a quick guide to Chicago-style citation, see:
<http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org./tools_citationguide.html>
The manuscript should be sent as e-mail attachment to any of the following
addresses:
tcr@upb.edu.ph
csc@upb.edu.ph
cordillerastudies@gmail.com
Contributors must submit a short curriculum vitae, with all the relevant
contact information. They should also certify that their manuscript has
not been published, and is not being considered for publication elsewhere.
end pages_109-110.pmd
110
5/26/2011, 12:32 PM
T HE
C ORDILLERA
R EVIEW
Journal of Philippine
Culture and Society
Volume II, Number 1 March 2010
THE BUNTUK ORIGIN MYTH
Explorations in Buaya Mythology
JULES DE RAEDT
Cordillera Studies Center
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BAGUIO
2600 Baguio City, Philippines