Using Galan as a Springboard to
Sketch Philippine Regional Economic Networks©
Bruce Cruikshank, DBC Research Institute 9 September 2014
The purpose of this essay is to use an 1823 manuscript as a means to sketch out economic networks in the pre-1898 Philippines. The suggestions I make are perhaps novel even if not radical. The essay is intended for others working on the Philippines before 1898. Consequently I have not provided the usual explanations of terms and such that are expected if written for a more general audience.
I had hoped to fundamentally change our understanding of the Philippines in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, but the data are at best sketchy and the patterns and promise revealed less than dramatic. It may be that the argument itself is fallible or ultimately unproductive. I present it here both to share the idea as well as to invite feedback, corrections, disagreement, or amplifications of data or scope. My goal is to use this electronic medium to facilitate and encourage a world-wide conversation.
The essay I refer to is an informative report on the province of Tayabas[1] written in 1823 and preserved as a manuscript at the Newberry Library.[2] The Franciscan author, P. Fr. Bartolomé Galan, systematically presents short but informative descriptions of crops and manufactures from the pueblo (municipality) of Tayabas to Lucban, Saryaya, Tiaon, and ten other municipalities. He includes asides on commercial activity among the municipalities there and with pueblos in other provinces.
The manuscript has been published by P. Fr. Antolín Abad Pérez, O.F.M., as “Una vision de Filipinas y de su economica de principios del siglo XIX. Informe del P. Bartolomé Galan en 1823,” in Missionalia Hispanica, 37: 109-111 (1980), 175-210. The published text is what I have used; I have not compared it to the Newberry original, assuming a faithful transcription. I am using an 1823 essay as the springboard for this purpose. I will not provide a full translation of the manuscript. I have discussed the essay separately and posted it on this site as “Tayabas in 1823. An Appreciation of an Essay by Fr. Bartolomé Galan, O.F.M.”
The core concept of my argument is that once we have a rough sense of trade patterns we should be able to combine them with the rough measures of population sizes of the various pueblos and extend them forward and backwards in time to set up hypothetical trade networks as far back as we can measure municipality populations. We need make only three assumptions:
· First, reported population measures, no matter how problematic in terms of precision, are sufficiently reliable to establish rankings for municipalities of the time.
· Second, perhaps the more significant of the three assumptions, the larger the municipality the more economic activity and exchange was occurring there—and, conversely, the smaller the population of any given pueblo the less likely that it was actively engaged in commerce or at least was showing little prosperity from such activity. We need of course to control for natural and other events—typhoons, volcanic eruptions, Moro destruction—as well as for dramatic changes in commercial preferences and market opportunities. And,
· Third, in most cases economic activity and trade were not contained within the boundaries of whatever province is studied.
We can work with these three assumptions and see if they are useful with the populations in 21 “towns” in 1831 Cagayan:[3]
#Tributes
Tuguegarao 2826 ½
Cabagan 1908 ½
Tuao 694
Ylagan 619 ½
Tumauni 466 ½
Pia 431 ½
Malaueg 344
Cauayan 314 ½
Camarag 309
Gamu 194
Amulung 189 ½ (tied)
Yguig 189 ½ (tied)
Gattaran 182 ½
Angandanan 160 ½
Calanusian 152 ½
Nassiping 126 ½
Carig 122 ½
Furao 103 ½
Tabang 95
Mauanan 67 ½
Santa Cruz 43
One can readily sort these into two or three groups and then assume that there was more economic activity and prosperity in Tuguegarao, Cabagan, Tuao, and Ylagan than in Furao, Tabang, Mauanan, and Santa Cruz. We can further assume that if we were studying the economic history of this province per se (a focus distinct from the book author’s intent, of course), we would on the one hand look to pueblos outside the province (Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur and perhaps Isabela, La Union, and Pangasinan) for sites of trade and economic linkage; and, on the other hand, to uplanders within and near the province’s pueblos for upland items and recipients of salt, iron, cloth etc. from lowland traders. Such deductions are hypothetical of course. They need to be tested and deepened through intensive work with archival materials and missionary reports. With such research one can perhaps find narrative or even statistical support for the hypothesized trade network.
Moving back from Cagayan to Tayabas again it is tempting to see if we can push the pattern of economic activity backwards from 1823, the date of Father Bartolome’s essay. I have listed below the fourteen pueblos in the 1823 essay along with their population ranking with each other for eight other years as well as (for more contrast) a set of figures for 1827.[4]
Pueblo Demographic Rankings (largest = first)
Galan (1823) 1751 1765 /1765A 1787 1797 1798 / 1798A 1813 1827
Atimonan
5.5 5 5 / 7 5 6 6.5 / 7 5 6
Calavag / Apar
14--the only data are from Galan
Catanavan
8 / 6 3
Guinayangan
13--the only data are from Galan
Gumaca
3 4 3 / 3 3 3 3 / 3 4
Lucban
2 2 1 / 1 1 1 1 / 1 2 2
Macalelon & Pitogo
10.5 9 9 / 9
Mauban
5.5 3 4 / 4 6 5 5 / 5 4 5
Mulanay
10.5--the only data are in Galan
Obuyón
12--the only data re in Galan
Pagbilao
9 7 7 / 8 w/ Tayabas 8 8 / 8
Saryaya
4 6 6 / 5 4 4 4 / 7 6 3
Tayabas
1 1 2 / 2 2, with Pagbilao
2 2 / 2 1 1
Tiaong
7 7 6.5 / 7 7
Galan (1823) 1751 1765 / 765A 1787 1797 1798 /1798A 1813 1827
What we find, perhaps not surprisingly, is that such a mechanical or cookie cutter approach is useful but insufficient. The gaps in data are disheartening, due primarily to split administration of parishes between diocesan and Franciscan organizations. Puzzling and provocative are the observations that Lucban was first 6 of 9 times with the new data, suggesting we need to look more carefully at this municipality in any economic history of the region. Gumaca in the new set of years sampled jousted with Atimonan, Mauban, and Saryaya for the next four positions, reaching third six of the eight [sic] times. Once again we need more research into manuscripts and descriptions on the ground to understand what was occurring.
We see as well that questions about possible economic networks and activity in the provinces when we push forward a quarter of a century or so. Again we begin with the province of Tayabas, working from the information given in Huerta’s major study.[5] We find again that not all of Father Bartolomé’s list of municipalities are listed—and there are new ones noted as well:
Tayabas, 21,554 almas (literally “souls,” individuals), with commerce in the town market
each week and surplus and other items sent on to Santa Cruz and to Manila (228)
Lucban, 13,909 almas, no specifics on commerce but does say (230) that the people here
are active “in the commerce of gold from Paracale and Mambulao ….”
Saryaya, 7,273 almas, goods sent to San Pablo, Tayabas, Santa Cruz “and to other
pueblos, bringing back cloth and other articles that they lack” (234)
Gumaca, 8,850 almas, to Tayabas and San Pablo
Mauban, 8,944 almas, with goods sent “to the markets in Tayabas, Lucban, and Santa
Cruz de la Laguna” (239)
Atimonan, 7,338 almas, “to markets in pueblos surrounding them” (246)
Pagbilao, 3,564 almas, to the markets in Tayabas and Saryaya (248)
Tiaong, 6,378 almas, exported items go to the markets in Tayabas and San Pablo (250)
Dolores, 1,671 almas, exports go to the markets in San Pablo and Tayabas (251)
Lopez, 3,612 almas, not specified
The municipality of Tayabas leads in population, followed by Lucban, Mauban, Gumaca, Atimonan, and Saryaya. Tayabas has its own weekly market and sends goods to Santa Cruz and Manila, as do Saryaya, Mauban, Tiaong, and Dolores. Lucban and Saryaya are active traders within and outside the province. Surprisingly, in the light of Father Bartolomé’s essay, Gumaca’s trade is not specified nor highlighted (nor is that of Lopez), while the commerce of Atimonan and Saryaya shows activity within the province.
Archival work is clearly needed, but at least the three assumptions and a source such as Huerta’s can get the focus and raise the questions to be addressed in such research. Even so, though, not all provinces described by Huerta show patterns that would be useful. It appears that there are three groups of provinces described by Huerta, some of no utility due to propinquity to Manila and the overwhelming presence of the markets there as well as in Santa Cruz and in San Pablo on the one hand and the scarcity or lack of Franciscan-staffed parishes in provinces that consequently get no coverage by Huerta (e.g., Cebu, Sorsogon, Pampanga) or only very few of many pueblos are detailed. Let me give two examples before we move on to the two other sets of provinces whose descriptions will be of more use. The two examples[6] are the provinces of Bulacan (Huerta, 70-87) and of Laguna 118-174), which one would have thought would be extremely useful for trade patterns. However, Bulacan describes seven pueblos only, four of which have trade described as going to Manila (Meycauayan, Bocaue, Polo, Marilao), two (San José and Obando) with no specification of where goods go (though San José notes trade from/with Negritos), and trade to Malabon by Santa Maria de Pandi.
Huerta’s section on Laguna discusses twenty pueblos, with trade both to Santa Cruz and to Manila specified for the Villa de Pila, Lumbang, Siniloan, Pagsanhan, and Bay; with trade just to Santa Cruz noted for Pangil, Lilio, Longos, San Antonio, and Magdalena. No specific trade information is given for Mabitac, Cavinti, and Los Baños, while Caboan is said to have no significant commerce and Paete does trade in cabinets to Manila and to “a great many provinces…” (139). Santa Cruz is a market for goods from the provinces of Tayabas, Batangas, and Laguna; and then the goods go on to Manila and its suburbs through the efforts of Manila merchants. Nagcarlan has trade both with San Pablo and Santa Cruz, while Paquil has trade with Santa Cruz, Siniloan, and Manila. Luisiana and Majayjay send goods “to the administrative collector in Pagsanhan” (173) as well as to Santa Cruz.[7]
The provinces, the second in my grouping from the Huerta study, that are more promising for future research are noteworthy because the number of pueblos reported on is large and the interactions within each province are notable and intriguing. I am speaking of Albay (254-278) and of Leyte (340-362). Albay has eight municipalities described:
Villa de Libon, 3561 almas, “trade to the markets of neighboring pueblos’ (259)
Camalig, 17,184 almas, “to the capital and the port of Albay” (262)
Polangui, 9813 almas, “to the markets in Ligao, Oás, and Albay” (266)
Oás, 17,657 almas, goods sold in the local market which is held on Tuesdays and Fridays;
or “sent to the capital and the port of Albay” (268)
Cagsáua, 14,970 almas, sold in the local market which is held on Mondays and Fridays;
or sent “to the port and capital of Albay” (272)
Ligáo, 16,170 almas, sold locally in its Monday market or sent to the port of Albay
Guinobatan, 15,566 almas, sold in the local Thursday market or sent to the port and
capital of Albay (277)
Pilar, 3,084 almas, “sent to the port and capital of Albay” (277)
Huerta describes seventeen municipalities in Leyte:
Polo, 10,944 almas, to the capital of the province [Tacloban at this time]
Dulag, 7,035 almas, abaca to Manila
Barugo, 7,654 almas, “… to the market of Carigara and to the capital” (345)
Abuyog, 6,363 almas, “to the market of the capital” (347)
Borauen, 6,330 almas, “to the capital and other pueblos in the province” (348)
Tanauan, 12,953 almas: “The inhabitants of this pueblos are dedicated to agriculture …
[while] many others are devote to commerce since they gather in this municipality
almost all the products from Dagami and other points, which they they send on to
the market in Manila, coming back with cloth (telas) which they retail in the
pueblo market that is held weekly” (350)
Dagami, 13,034 almas, “they send [their goods] by river to the market at Tanauán and to
other pueblos” (351)
Carigara, 9,116 almas, “to the capital of the province and to the market in Manila” (353)
Tacloban, 5,426 almas, to Manila
Hinunángan, 5,140 almas, “to the market in the capital city and to other pueblos of this
province” (355)
Jaro, 5600 almas, “to the market in Carigara and to other pueblos” (356)
Alangalang, 3982 almas, “to the markets of the capital and Carigara” (357)
Leite, 3,404 almas, “to the market at Carigara” (358)
Babágnon, 1,060 almas, not specified
San Miguel, 1,338 almas, “to the markets at Carigara and the capital” (360)
Malibago, 664 almas, “to the market at the capital” (360)
Tolosa, 3048 almas, “to the markets at Tanauan and Tacloban” (361)
The third and final group of provinces from Huerta, which includes the province of Tayabas described earlier, has multiple, complex, and long range economic links. If the topic were to interest a researcher, either of the following would seem to offer intriguing research promise:
Camarines Sur (Huerta, 180-223)
Naga, 4016 almas, only local marketing, on Wednesdays and Saturdays (182)
Nabua, 9,916 almas, “in the surrounding pueblos and especially in the capital of the
province” (185)
Bula, 1,574 almas, “to the port of Pasacao and to the province of Albay” (186)
Quipayo, 2099 almas, “they export to the capital of the province” (188)
Minalabag, 3384 almas, “they export to the markets of the immediate pueblos” (189)
Iriga, 8,909 almas, not specified
Milaor, 5,722 almas, not specified
Ligmanan, 10,482 almas, they export por the port of Pasacao and the province of Albay”
(196)
Canaman, 6,254 almas, not specified
Bula, 7,887 almas, “to the immediate pueblos and the province of Albay” (260)
Misión de Sangay, 2,148 almas, “in small bancas to the province of Albay” (261)
Lupi, 566 almas, “they export in medium-sized boats by that river to the interior of the
province” (202)
Misión de Manguirin, 1,073 almas, “they export to the market at the city of Nueva
Cáceres” (204)
Misión de Tigaon, 2,395 almas, “they send goods to the port and capital of Albay” (205)
Goa, 5,409 almas, “to the market at the capital and to other pueblos of the province”
(206)
Calabanga, 5,443 almas, “they export to the markets of the province” (208)
Magarao, 5,786 almas, “they export to the capital and other pueblos of the province”
(209)
Bato, 2,947 almas, “to the markets of the nearby municipalities” (211)
Misión de Ragay, 1,085 almas, “they export in small boats to the interior of the province”
(212)
Baao, 6,655 almas, “they export to the markets of the municipalities of this province”
(215)
Camaligan, 5,942 almas, “to the capital and to other pueblos of this province” (216)
Sipocot, 962 almas, “they export via the river to other pueblos in the interior of the
province” (217)
Bombon, 3,450 almas, “they export to the markets of the capital and other municipalities
in this province (218)
Misión de Pili, 863 almas, “they sent goods to the capital and to other pueblos of this
same province” (219)
Misión de Mabatobato, 1,330 almas, “they usually send their goods to the capital and to
other municipalities of this province” (220)
Misión de Tinambac, 1,599 almas, “they export goods in small boats to the interior of the
province” (222)
Misión de Siruma, 504 almas, “they usually export products in small boats to the interior
of the province” (222)
The Island and Province of Samar (Huerta, 296-339)
Catbalogan, 6,512 almas, in the town market with abaca, coconut oil, and tortoise shell in
their own boats to Manila
Bangajon, 5,838 almas, to Catbalogan’s market
Capul, 3,063 almas, “in medium-sized boats for the province of Albay” (295)
Catarman, 6880 almas, rice to Albay and other items to Manila’s market
Catubig, 5,383 almas, to the capital of Albay or to Manila
Palapag, 4,135 almas, rice to Albay; other items to Manila
Tubig, 3,274 almas, sold in the town market “and generally speaking export to the capital
city and to other municipalities of the province” (302)
Sulat, 4,353 almas, “they export in their own boats for the capital and for Manila” (304)
Borongan, 7,671 almas, “they export to the islands of Cebú, Negros and Leyte and with
more frecuency to Manila” (306)
Paranas, 6,338 almas, rice to the “market in Catbalogan and to other pueblos” (308)
Lauang, 5,185 almas, to Catbalogan and rice to the province of Albay
Calviga, 5,385 almas, rice and some abaca to Catbalogan
Calbayog, 8,789 almas, to Catbalogan and to Manila
Guiguan, 12,873 almas, fish and coconut oil to Manila
Basey, 9,855 almas, coconut oil and guinaras to Catbalogan and to Leyte
Lanang, 5,485 almas, to Guiguan and to Catbalogan
Balanguiga, 2,609 almas, to Catbalogan, to Leyte, to Manila
Quinapundan, 1,183 almas, not specified
Salcedo, 3,400 almas, not specified
Villareal, 6,5a36 almas, “to Catbalogan and other pueblos of the province” (323)
Navas, 2,428 almas, to Manila with rice to Albay
Zumarraga, 4089 almas, “they export to the capital and to other pueblos of the province
and even to the province of Leyte” (326)
Libás, 2,940 almas, “to the market at Guiguan and to other municipalities in the
province” (328)
Bobón, 3,809 almas, to Catbalogan, to Manila, and rice to Albay
Dapdáp, 1,375 almas, to Catbalogan
Pambojan, 2,547 almas, to the capital and to other pueblos of the province” (333)
Paric, 2,998 almas, “to the capital city and to other municipalites in the province” (334)
Oras, 3,028 almas, to the capital and to other pueblos in the province” (336)
La Granja, no population given, commerce not specified
Santa Rita, 2,765 almas, to Catbalogan and to Leyte, “but all in small amounts and only
when necessity obliges them” (338)
Hernani, population figures not given, not specified
Mercedes, no population given, not specified
And, finally, also in the third group, these last two sets of pueblos are interesting, even though the number of municipalities described are few in number:
Distrito del Principe (Huerta, 279-287)
Balér, 1,367 almas, to Gapán and even to the capital (282)
Casiguran, 1,399 almas, “to Gapán and to other pueblos of the province” (284)
Misión de Dipacúlao, 60 almas, not specified
Misión de Casignan, 141 almas, not specified
Distrito de la Infanta (Huerta, 288-293)
Binangonan de Lampon, 6,714 almas, “they export in medium-sized boats for the pueblo
of Mauban … and for the municipalities of Paracale and Mambulao, returning
with gold in powder that afterwards they transport to the Capital” (291)
Polillo, 1,745 almas, “they export in medium-sized boats for the municipalites of
Mambulao and Paracale, in the province of Camarines, returning with gold in
power that afterwards they carry to the Capital” (292)
Conclusions
Given these assumptions and controls, we should be able to test and illustrate the possibibilities that I am suggesting. If I have identified a topic and focus for other scholars, I would be pleased. The materials in the Philippine National Archives and other Philippine archives need more scholars working there on this and other inquiries. I do not travel anymore and thus do not have the access to Philippine manuscripts in the islands to do the work needed.
In conclusion we can summarize the points I have tried to establish.
· First, for economic networks at least, studies based solely on provincial boundaries are not sufficient since the networks are clearly regional. This is a problem since the archives and most secondary sources are organized by province.
· Second, for the same sort of studies the reliance on diocesan, friar, or Jesuit sources is also not sufficient since the networks are clearly regional and encompass a range of pueblos in multiple provinces and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. This is a problem since the religious archives and most of their publications are organized by diocesan, friar, or Jesuit territorial assignments.
· Third, it seems quite clear that Filipinos have been actively moving and trying to make a living outside the municipalities well back into the period of Spanish rule, perhaps for as far back as we can study.
· Fourth, we need a wide-ranging and penetrating study of local markets, the tianguis. Quiason has made a useful start and I have a summary from Huerta.[8] We need more—at the very least a list of market days/pueblo so we can map out how merchants might have been able to travel from pueblo to pueblo to buy and sell through the week. I have made a start, listed on this site.
· Fifth, we also need studies of Santo Cruz and San Pablo; and probably also other provincial centers such as Tacloban, Bulusan, Dagupan, San Fernando (La Union), Vigan, and Laoag. Studies of provinces such as Sorsogon, Masbate, Mindoro, Marinduque, La Union, Ilocos Sur, and Ilocos Norte would also seem to be fields for tilling. There is work to be done.
[1] The present day (2014) name of Tayabas Province is Quezon Province. I will use the names as they appear in the manuscript or other sources. My reason is that the names used today may be changed in the future, but the designations in use then are constant.
[2] Fr. Bartolomé Galan, O.F.M., Informe sobre la provincia de Tayabas. 8 April 1823.
[3] Ed C. de Jesus, The Tobacco Monopoly in the Philippines. Bureaucratic Enterprise and Social Change, 1766-1880 (Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 1980), 208. Instead of population figures we are given the number of tributes, which work just as well. I have re-organized the data.
[4] Taken from Cruikshank, Spanish Franciscans in the Colonial Philippines, v. 2, 6-9 (1751); 10-13 (1765); 14-15 (1765A); 99 (1787); 16-18 (1797); 19-21 (1798); 22-24 (1798A); 127 (1813); and 25-26 (1827).
[5] Félix de Huerta, O.F.M., Estado geográfico, topográfico, estadístico, histórico-religioso de la santa y apostólica Provincia de San Gregorio Magno, de religiosos Menores Descalzos de la Regular y más estrecha Observancia de n. s. p. s. Francisco en las islas Filipinas; comprende el número de religiosos, conventos, pueblos, situación de estos, años de su fundación, tributos, almas, producciones, industrias, casos especiales de su administración spiritual, en el archipiélago Filipino, desde su fundación en el año de 1577 hasta el de 1865 (2nd ed.) (Binondo: M. Sánchez, 1865), 224-253. There is an earlier edition of this work, published in 1855, but generally the data and pueblo descriptions are the same in both editions. I consequently surmise that the information used data from the late 1840s or early 1850s.
[6] The others of no use for our purposes are Nueva Ecija (88-100), the Distrito de Morong (101-117), Batangas (175-178), the Distrito de Burias (294-295), and Isabela (364-367).
[7] I am not clear what the administrative collector is, but it may be part of the “royal warehouse” system studied by Luis Alonso Álvarez and described in “The Spanish Taxation System and the Manila Food Market: Indication of an Early Commercialized Economy.” Trans. Trinidad O. Regala. Kasarinlan, 14: 2 (1998), 5-20.
[8] Serafin D. Quiason, “The Tiangui: A Preliminary View of an Indigenous Rural Marketing System in the Spanish Philippines.” Philippine Studies, 33:1 (1985), 22-38. Cruikshank, Spanish Franciscans, v. 1, 147-148.