Hukay

BOOK REVIEWS 125the author’s aim is to “especially raise the concern to formalise a standardfor the ethics in Philippine archaeology” (back cover). It implies advocacywhose goal is to convince the readers for the need for a Code of Ethics(back cover). To do this, it raises three main points: 1. It narrates thedevelopment of Philippine Archaeology (pp. 21-34); 2. It talks about theapplication in Philippine museums (pp. 35-48); 3. It tells the publicperception of archaeologists (pp. 49-62).To argue her points, the author dug into the past of PhilippineArchaeology. She then presented a methodical narrative of thedevelopment of the discipline. Aside from the main chapter dedicated tothis, the author presented in Table 1 a meticulous research on literature onPhilippine Archaeology. It is what its title says, “The Content Analysis ofthe Historical Literature of Philippine Archaeology” (p. 159). In arguingfor the application of standards in the Philippines, the author studiedseveral museums and their processes in displaying artefacts. The authorsummarised her findings on the handling of artefacts (Table 2, p. 171). Asbasis for comparison or benchmark, the author used the Ford’sManagement of Archaeological Collection Guidelines. It both provides abasis (the Ford’s Guidelines) and in a table shows how museums areapplying them.Again in support of her main thesis, the author wanted to capturethe historical perception of Philippine archaeology. In order to capturethis impression, the author shows a narration of historical press releases.This is summarised in Table 4 which cohesively points to newspapers andperiodicals showing “Popular Philippine Archaeology Literature.” Toshow the “transformation”, the author likewise summarises the Practiceof Archaeology in the Philippines” which she divides into the IntegrationPhase, the Assimilation Phase and the Recognition Phase.The supporting arguments for ethical practices in the Philippinesare well researched. Taken away from the context of ethics, the researchon the supporting arguments alone provides very rich material onPhilippine Archaeology. Taking the pertinent parts, the chapters of thebook can be woven into other authoritative books as well. The differentchapters supporting her thesis can very well be entitled as “The History ofPhilippine Archaeology” or “Public Perception of PhilippineArchaeologists” or “The Practice of Philippine Museums.”By collating a comprehensive discussion of articles and sources onPhilippine Archaeology, she shows a good basis to argue the impression