MHC2: History of the Mariana Islands

History of the Mariana Islands Three of Three

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

2nd Marianas History Conference !

History of the Mariana Islands 

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Guampedia.com This publication was produced by the Guampedia Foundation ⓒ 2013 Guampedia Foundation, Inc. UOG Station Mangilao, Guam 96923 www.guampedia.com

Table of Contents History of the Mariana Islands Ancient Marianas History Migration for Settlement or Home Range Expansion...........................................................1

By Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson, PhD

Early European Exploration in the Marianas ......................................................................23

By Omaira Brunal-Perry

Spanish Era Choco the Chinaman as a Member of Chamorro Society ...................................................53

By Judy Flores, PhD

1800’s in the Marianas..........................................................................................................93

By Carlos Madrid, PhD

Demons Described, Demons Discredited ...........................................................................95

By Nicholas Chow Sy

The Early Spanish Period in the Marianas, 1668-1698 ......................................................127

By Francis Hezel, SJ

The Mariana Islands Militia and the Establishment of the “Pueblos de Indios” ..............137

By David Atienza, PhD

Where is the Gold? Silver and Copper Coins from Two of Guam’s Historic Sites ...........159

By Darlene R. Moore

Kunsidera i Fina’pus-niha i Man’antigu na Mañainata sa’ i Estorian-niha Estoriata Lokui’ (1670-1695) ..............................................................................................................197

By Genevieve S. Cabrera, Kelly G. Marsh and Monica Dolores Baza

El Camino Real ..................................................................................................................201

By Nicole Vernon, MA, RPA

Social Realities and Legal Regulations..............................................................................203

By Mariana Sanders, Francine Clement and Carla Smith

Japanese Era Islands Too Beautiful for Their Names...............................................................................219

By Jessica Jordan

Unspeakable Survival.........................................................................................................227

By Leiana S.A. Naholowa’a

Subversive Women.............................................................................................................251

By Evelyn Flores

Forgotten People............................................................................................................253

By Sung Youn Cho

The South Seas on Display in Japan ............................................................................277

By Mark Ombrello

Northern Marianas Under Japanese Navy Administration (1914-1922) ........................287

By Yumiko Imaizumi

Under the Gun ..............................................................................................................301

By James Oelke Farley

US Navy Submarine Patrols to the Mariana Islands in World War II ...........................303

By Dave Lotz

Representations of War Memories on Guam from Three Perspectives Chamorro, Japanese and American.................................................................................................................329

By Ryu Arai

American Era The Early Political Status Talks on Saipan in the Early 1970’s Leading to the Plebiscite Vote on US Commonwealth Status of the Northern Mariana Islands ..........................359

By Guadalupe Camacho Borja-Robinson

The Transformation of Guam’s Penal System ...............................................................371

By Linda Song and Dominique Hope Ong

Jumping the Fence ........................................................................................................373

By Michael Lujan Bevacqua, PhD

Historical Context of Suicide in Guam .........................................................................375

By Iain K.B. Twaddle, Camarin G. Meno and Eunice Joy G. Perez

I Kelat ............................................................................................................................377 By the Guam Humanities Council

Galvanizing Past and Present Threats to Chamorro Homelands .................................379

By Vicente (ben) Pangelinan

Guardians of Gani .........................................................................................................401

By John Castro Jr. and Diego L. Kaipat

A History of Marianas Reunification Efforts .................................................................415

By Don A. Farrell

!

! ! !

2nd Marianas History Conference !

Ancient Marianas History 

Migration for Settlement or Home Range Expansion What Caused People to First Come to the Marianas c. 3500 Years Ago?

!

By Rosalind L. Hunter-Anderson, PhD Adjunct Associate Professor of Anthropology University of New Mexico rozinabq@gmail.com

! !

Abstract: Archaeological research at the oldest known sites in the Marianas, dated to the Early Pre-Latte Period (1500 and 1000 BCE), has raised important anthropological questions regarding the causes and character of human advent in this remote archipelago. Artifacts and other remains excavated from the lowest layers at these sites strongly contradict a migration and settlement narrative that has been forwarded to explain them. The anomalous data are reviewed and an alternative explanation is offered, based on cultural ecological concepts. Specifically, it is proposed that long-distance ocean travel to the Marianas manifests a home range expansion tactic, which enabled families of foragers specializing in the production of valuables for trade, such as marine shell ornaments, to remain in a Island Southeast Asian foraging niche for at least 1000 years.

Pertinent information from ethnography and ethno-archaeological research is discussed in light of the model and test implications are derived.

Introduction Public interest in the Early Pre-Latte Period has been keen lately, in part because of local mass media reports featuring archaeologists interpreting their findings. I have noted that in these reports, journalists have not presented the reactions of interested colleagues, as is common practice in science writing. Given this lack amid increasing public interest in Marianas archaeology, I have written this paper in order to begin a dialogue about the Early Pre-Latte Period. Without informed dialogue, no learning takes place.

!

I feel that such a dialogue is needed to evaluate claims that have been made regarding the meaning of the Early Pre-Latte Period archaeological remains, which are the oldest known in the Pacific Islands. These claims, discussed in detail below, derive from a view that archaeology is a form of history, with its own standards, whereas other archaeologists adhere to a natural science paradigm. This is my viewpoint. Because the writing of cultural history is done in essay form, it is difficult (but not impossible, see below) to judge the validity of its interpretive claims.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !1

Another characteristic of a culture history approach is that only certain facts are the focus of inquiry, while others are neglected. For example, not all data are published, only “examples” of types of finds and note is made of general trends, such as decreases in the size of certain shellfish thought to have been consumed as food. The incomplete reporting of finds prevents quantitative study by others. A further limitation in the case of Early Pre-Latte Period sites is that excavations have been restricted spatially, confined to “test pits” of one meter square or somewhat larger. This method of excavation was assumed sufficient to construct chronological sequences that reflect “culture change” over time. The goal of constructing chronologies is reflected in a pre-occupation with radiocarbon dating, the “scientific” part of culture history. While it is clearly important to control the “time dimension” accurate dating of cultural deposits is just the beginning of systematic inquiry, not the means to a limited end like chronology building.

!

The shortcomings of culture history notwithstanding, a dialogue is possible over the meaning of Early Pre-Latte Period archaeology. To forward that dialogue, I have condensed the elements of recent culture history narratives into The Marianas Migration Story. I then critique this story’s unwarranted claims, and offer what I think is a better interpretation of the available facts.

!

The Marianas Migration Story Here is a story about how people first came to the Marianas, and what they did when they got there. It has appeared recently in archaeology journals like Antiquity and World Archaeology. Translated into plain English, and omitting extraneous details, the story goes like this.

!

The time is 3500 years ago and sea around the southern Mariana Islands is about two meters above where it is today, but still coming down from its mid-Holocene highstand. A few narrow beaches have emerged, and between these are mangrove-fringed wetlands and limestone cliffs. Nearby reefs and lagoons are full of edible marine life.

!

A small party of Neolithic, Austronesian language-speaking migrants arrives. They have come from the Philippines, perhaps from a riverside village called Nagsabaran in the Cagayan Valley of northern Luzon. The migrants may have some cultigens with them but none of the domestic animals from their homeland. Even if they started out with any of them, perhaps the crew got too hungry and ate them along the way. After all, it was a very long trip – a distance of some 1500 miles, straight across the open ocean.

!

Little did they realize that they had just broken two human achievement records previously set by the Lapita Peoples of Melanesia. One was the “distance traveled by canoe” record: the Marianas migrants sailed more than twice as far into Remote Oceania as the Lapita folk.The other was the “Island Southeast Asian culture-carrying” record: the Marianas migrants beat the Lapita folk by 500 years as the first people to bring their cultural heritage to a remote Pacific island.

2 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

The main proof of that Island Southeast Asian heritage came with the migrants is the designs on their pottery. The incised and stamped designs at their settlements in the Marianas are very similar to the designs used on pots in the Cagayan Valley. Pottery designs reflect ethnic identity, and so clearly these migrants were ethnically the same as people living at or near Nagsabaran village.

!

The strictly coastal location of their settlements and the kinds of artifacts and food debris excavated at these sites all indicate a “shoreline-oriented” way of life. For at least 500 years, the settlers continued to live in this manner. Things were about to change, however, as sea levels declined further throughout the tropical western Pacific, but that is another story for another time.

!

A Critical Evaluation Migration stories, of people leaving their homeland and starting a new life far away, are found in many cultures. Sometimes they are even true, but not this one, not entirely, and maybe not even mostly. The Marianas migration story, summarized above from scholarly publications, has been offered as an authoritative account based on archaeological facts (Carson 2013; Carson and Kurashina 2012; Hung et al.

2011). It is still just a story because, among its other problems, it lacks a very important feature of scientific models, “warranting one’s propositions.” This means showing how prior, reliable knowledge “warrants” or justifies the selection of terms in the propositions that comprise the model.

!

A scientist looking at the Marianas migration story, as an explanatory model published in scholarly journals, would ask, why should we believe these particular propositions about what happened in the past and about who the actors were?

Should we accept it because of who is making the propositions? After all, they are archaeologists with hands-on experience with the primary data. No, to accept an explanation because of who its authors are is to rely unduly on authority. Authority is fine in religious matters but out of place in science, where the empirical world is the testing ground for the validity of ideas. The real-world testing ground includes all sorts of prior knowledge – descriptions and discoveries by others. This knowledge supplies the appropriate frames of reference that guide the search for meaning in the data.

!

It appears to me that the Marianas migration story was composed without benefit of appropriate frames of reference and hence no warrants for its propositions have been attempted.

!

Consider the proposition that the first voyage to the Marianas, for purposes of permanent settlement 3500 years ago, began in northern Luzon and proceeded straight across the Philippine Sea (Fig. 1). Such a journey is touted in the Marianas Migration Story as a remarkable human achievement, a recording-breaking “first.”

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !3

!

Fig. 1. Detail of a larger map of “colonizing migrations in Micronesia in relation to larger AsiaPacific patterns,” after Carson (2013:Fig. 1). Note the straight-line crossing from the northern Philippines to the Marianas, and that the arrows imply the colonists descended from Taiwanese ancestors and that Palau and Yap were colonized later from the southern Philippines and Solomon Islands, respectively.

!

With respect to the proposed colonizing voyage from the Philippines, what are the scientific warrants for expecting that a sailing canoe with a small group of would-be settlers would undertake a straight-line journey across 1500 miles of open ocean – assuming their navigator knew the destination from earlier exploratory searches for suitable islands to colonize? Was this route feasible, and was it likely, given currents and wind patterns? Prior knowledge of sailing conditions in the region is helpful in evaluating this proposition

!

Figures 3 and 4 depict the dominant winds in the Carolines and Marianas, in winter and summer. During neither season would it be appropriate to sail a canoe straight across the Philippine Sea to the Marianas. If you left northern Luzon in January, you would be pushed back southwest toward Mindinao. If you left in July, you would be pushed north toward Japan.

4 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

Fig. 2. Detail of map of direction and constancy of prevailing winds in January; thickest lines show most constant winds. After Irwin (1992:Fig. 41).

!

Fig. 3. Detail of map of direction and constancy of prevailing winds in July; thickest lines show most constant winds. After Irwin (1992:Fig. 42).

!

Given this frame of reference, it is more likely that a voyage to the Marianas from Island Southeast Asia, including the Philippines, would start from a much more southerly position than northern Luzon, and would not involve a straight, unbroken line of travel, if it could be avoided. 

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !5

!

Fig. 4. Map detail as in Fig. 1, with locations of Palau, Yap, and Guam highlighted in red, to show another possible route from Island Southeast Asia to the Marianas.

!

As can be seen in Fig. 4, had the trip started, say, in Mindanao, or farther south, there are two intervening island groups, Palau and Yap, that could have served as rest stops along the way – making the journey safer and more in line with prevailing winds in this part of the western Pacific. No archaeological sites contemporary with the oldest Marianas sites have been found in Yap or Palau, however. Yet if these islands served only as temporary rest-stops, the chances of preservation of the “archaeological signature” of this activity are slim to nonexistent.

!

For a thorough and detailed critique of various aspects of the Marianas migration story, see Winter et al. (2012), who also demonstrate, by using prior knowledge about sailing conditions as well as with regard to ceramics and linguistics, that the claims by Hung et al. are untenable. Hung et al. (2012) replied to these criticisms in the same issue of Antiquity, unsuccessfully in my opinion because they are either more modestly stated reiterations of their original claims or vague references to possibly different climatic conditions. The reader is encouraged to read these arguments and decide for him/herself, with an important caveat. The Marianas linguistic data in dispute pertain to Chamorro, with all sides assuming that there was cultural continuity from the Early Pre-Latte Period to the “ethnographic present.” Such an assumption has not been warranted and should be questioned further in light of other possibilities raised here.

!

6 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Another source of relevant prior knowledge is the expertise of Micronesian navigators (Flood 2002). These men live in the central Carolines, and some even can be found in the Marianas on occasion! They could be consulted as to feasible and practical routes to the Marianas from various departure points in Island Southeast Asia. They would want to know what the winds and currents are like in the region of interest, as well as the astronomical configurations that would be useful, just as Mau Pialug did when deciding his course from Hawaii to Tahiti (see an account of Mau’s learning techniques in Finney1994).

Warranting one’s propositions with appropriate prior knowledge is especially important in archaeology. The primary observations, such as pottery fragments and modified stones, clearly pertain to past human behavior that obviously is no longer observable. Archaeologists can often agree on “what is it” type of questions about primary observations, such as, is it an adze or a pounder, a fishhook or a gorge?

Disagreements usually pertain to the meaning and causes of patterning in the archaeological record. Examples of archaeological patterns include unchanging (or changed) technologies over time or space, consistent (or random) placement of houses, high (or low) densities of artifacts in cultural deposits, differences in artifact type frequencies, diversity, etc. Suggesting the causes of these patterns is to engage in answering “why” questions, and these answers are the heart of an explanatory model.

!

The best such models are comprehensive, they account for all the data. We want a good match between the model and the original observations, and we especially appreciate models that predict new facts, in addition to those that peaked our interest in the first place. The model-data match test is called “goodness of fit.” If the original data do not fit the model well, are not well accommodated by it, the model is inferior because it suffers from anomalies. A model is also tested for noncircularity in its logic, for simplicity, and if it accurately predicts new observations, all the better (Lakatos 1995).

!

Actually anomalies are not necessarily bad news. In science, anomalies are not just mistakes, they often can be opportunities to learn something new. If we recognize the anomalies, they force us to re-consider our subject and what we think we know about it.

!

Anomalies and What They Might Mean Some of the anomalies in the Marianas migration story derive from imprecise terminology that causes a mismatch with the data. For example, the story says the first people to arrive in the Marianas were Neolithic in culture and spoke an 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !7

Austronesian language. Archaeologists speak of the Neolithic as a period in world history when hunter-gatherers first adopted agriculture; it started at the end of the Pleistocene in some places, including Asia. Generally accepted archaeological markers of the Neolithic are pottery, domestic animal remains, polished stone adzes, permanent villages, and human burials. Yet at the earliest Marianas sites, only one of these traits, pottery, is present. Therefore it is inaccurate to characterize these sites as occupied by “Neolithic” people. Not noticing this anomaly is a missed opportunity to learn something new about the earliest phase of Marianas prehistory.

!

As to the Marianas migrants speaking an Austronesian language, this is a tenuous inference from historical linguistics, a field rife with scholarly disagreements regarding the classification of present languages in the Pacific, much less what languages were spoken nearly four millennia ago.

!

Other anomalies include the continued use of decorated red ware pottery, for over five hundred years, by “shoreline-oriented” people, who were living far from the Philippine Neolithic; and their decorating this pottery in the same manner, by stamping or incising with fine lines, throughout this very long time.

!

Prior knowledge about the function of decorated items in subsistence-level societies indicates that non-random decorations, those that can be recognized as a “style” on publicly visible items, function to convey social information, usually about the group identity of the makers and/or users. As a marker of group identity or affiliation, decorated items such as pottery, jewelry, and dress, develop in complex social milieus, where it is important to distinguish one group from another. Therefore we have to ask, since the most ancient Marianas pottery was decorated in a consistent manner for five hundred years or more, where was the complex social milieu in the Marianas?

!

Analysis of the Early Pre-Latte pottery designs (Butler 1994) revealed two distinctive design styles, called Achugao Incised and San Roque Incised. This fact is not considered important in the Marianas Migration Story, which emphasizes the similarities between Nagsabaran designs and all Marianas pottery designs. Ignoring the significance of two consistent design styles is another missed opportunity for a better understanding of the Early Pre-Latte Period.

!

Other anomalies or data misfits include the fact that these “shoreline-oriented” settlers left no evidence of permanent occupation, even though their purpose was colonization. Their sites actually resemble those of mobile marine foragers such as 8 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

the “sea nomads” of Phuket, Thailand, called the Chao Lay (or Chaw Lay). These “shoreline-oriented” people have been studied by ethno-archaeologists Richard Englehart and Pamela Rogers (1997a, 1997b) in a ten-year long investigation. The Chao Lay occupy different types of camps within their territory (Fig.5).

!

!

Fig. 5. Different kinds of sites within Chao Lay territory; the size of dots indicates the size of population using the site (after Englehardt and Rogers 1997a:Fig. 1).

Figure 6 shows Chao Lay moves throughout their Phuket area territory in 1980.

Over time these flows changed. In 1996 the base camp at Laem Thong was abandoned.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !9

!

!

Fig. 6. Chao Lay population flows in 1980 (after Englehardt and Rogers (1997b:Fig. 5).

Englehardt and Rogers (1997a, 1997b) conducted surveys and excavations after people had abandoned their sites to see what artifacts and features were present and to map their distributions horizontally and vertically. They found that in general, Chao Lay leave few artifacts behind, curating them until they cannot be repaired any more. Such a high rate of curation is expected when raw materials are scarce and therefore must be conserved through careful maintenance.

!

Englehardt and Rogers (1997b) characterize Chao Lay sites as “palimsests,” which refers to the imprinting of repeated occupations but not all of the same kind, group size, or duration. They found that at sites occupied repeatedly by larger groups, the 10 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

post holes from abandoned residential structures overlapped but tended to be placed beside a central, communally used area that was swept daily. This eventually resulted in a thick, linear midden at the rear of the site. At special-purpose camps used by one or two people for a day or two, no middens formed, and only expediently made items remained near where they had been used; no whole tools were observed at these sites.

!

The Chao Lay case is just one of the many ethnographically and historically known sea nomad groups (e.g, Sopher 1965; Sather 1997). It is the only one I know of that has been studied by archaeologists interested in site structure and artifact distributions. Similar studies of other groups would certainly increase our knowledge in respect to what the various “archaeological signatures� of sea nomad groups might be.

!

Ethnography has shown that sea nomadism, or marine foraging, to use an ecological term, is not a stand-alone, self-sufficient adaptive system; it always needs a land component to make it complete and viable. The gamut of economic and social relationships between landed groups and sea nomads runs from relatively symmetrical exchanges of marine products for land products, to less symmetrical exchanges involving low payments for services, to complex down the line trading, to piracy to generate income for commodities.

!

The variability in sea nomadism is great due to varying historical and geographic circumstances. Nonetheless, these marine foragers are all involved in either mutualistic, symbiotic, or parasitic relationships with nearby landed groups. These relationships involve exchanges of foods and other items, as well as occasional inter- marriage between partnering groups.

!

The various co-dependencies among land people and sea people in the tropics are not unlike those among other species in tropical settings. Studying such relationships among tropical species other than people can help us think about the causes of variation that is evident in sea nomadism, such as ecosystem stability and complexity (Montoya et al. 2006; Morris et al 2003; Odum 1985).

!

There are negative and positive archaeological indications that marine foraging/sea nomadism of a kind yet to be well described or understood in full, is represented at Early Pre-Latte sites. The negative evidence includes the lack of concentrated household debris or midden at their seaside encampments as well as the lack of substantial structural remains, burials, or implements useful in agriculture or in the exploitation of forest resources. It has been suggested that the Marianas migrants 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !11

lived in stilt houses (e.g., Carson and Kurashina 2012) that were built over the intertidal zone, so that debris would be discarded over the water. This practice could explain the eroded condition of some of the pottery and the lack of intact features that are typical of most Early Pre-Latte sites.

!

Prior knowledge of the use of stilt houses by sea nomads, however, indicates they build them in fairly large clusters on wide reef flats, where and when the seas are calm. An example of this practice is shown in Figure 7.

!

!

Fig. 7. Cluster of stilt houses occupied by related families of Bajau Laut. Source: http:// amazingstuff.co.uk/humanity/bajau-laut-sea-gypsies/#.UhT3fTIiZig.

Most Early Pre-Latte sites are located on the lee side of the islands (Ritidian and Mangilao are exceptions), indicating an avoidance of the prevailing easterlies. But the Marianas are subject to frequent typhoons, making stilt housing less than optimal as a first choice, and the reef flats tend to be narrow and discontinuous.

Furthermore, there is the apparent absence of wood-working tools in the deposits, whether they were accumulated under water or on land. How did the Early PreLatte people build stilt structures without such tools? Canoe-making tools, such as small and large adzes are absent as well, but they may have been carefully curated and rarely discarded. However, the absence of these adzes, combined with the lack of heavy stone tools for felling trees and trimming wood parts, make it seem unlikely that canoe making took place in the Marianas at this time.

!

12 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

The positive evidence for sea nomadism for short periods and involving small numbers of people includes the apparently low artifact densities at Early Pre-Latte sites and the consistently fragmentary condition of the artifacts. The latter could be due to erosion processes but in sites relatively protected from direct wave action, such as those located within a protected cove, it could relate to discard practices as seen among the Chao Lay. Typically reported are flakes of chert and marine shell; small, fragmentary adzes of chert and clam shell; pieces of marine shell bracelets; and lots of shell beads, some of them in different stages of manufacture, as well as sea urchin spine files that may have been used to make these ornaments.

!

These facts and the anomalies raised by the Marianas Migration Story present an explanatory challenge, a puzzle to be solved. Some of the archaeological observations indicate that the Early Pre-Latte people participated in a complex cultural milieu, not a pioneering culture, for example, the decorated pottery, and perhaps also the jewelry, if their particular forms were socially significant in ways they have been observed ethnographically. Yet the absence of evidence for reliance upon plant foods and the presence of fishing gear, fish bones, and shellfish remains suggest that obtaining and consuming marine resources made up the majority of activities.

!

Prior knowledge of the caloric returns for effort from tropical marine resources indicates that this kind of diet can support very few persons per kilometer of reefs (Bayliss-Smith 1974, 1975). Therefore we can anticipate a very sparse population, one perhaps not even a viable year-round. But if these were indeed committed colonists, why did they not at least adopt agroforestry, assuming lowland agriculture was limited by a few narrow coastal areas? Avoidance of agriculture is unlike other known frontier situations; it could be a lack of labor, as Pichon (1996) found, or it could be that these early Marianas people had another agenda.

! !

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !13

Figure 8 is a map showing the distribution of known Early Pre-Latte sites, all eight of them.

!

Fig. 8. Early Pre-Latte sites: three in Saipan, two in Tinian, and three in Guam (modified from Carson and Kurashina 2012:Fig.2). Note the absence of sites in Rota, suggesting less hospitable shoreline conditions at this time of relatively high sea level.

This is not a lot of sites for half a millennium of colonization effort. No doubt there were more, but archaeologists have not found them, perhaps because these early sites are buried deeply in backstrand areas beneath cliffs. Judging from the sites we know about, the people who created them left a very light “archaeological footprint.”

!

I suggest the solution to this puzzle is to change the terms in the model and view the problem of explaining the attributes of Early Pre-Latte Period sites through the lens of cultural ecology. For example, we can ask, what sort of ecological niche did these people occupy?

!

My answer is that they were indeed marine foragers – but without landed partners in the Marianas. Prior knowledge indicates that marine foragers always have partners on land with whom they are connected economically and socially if not politically. The two partners provide each other certain necessities. Usually marine foragers provide dried fish and finished items like woven mats, for instance, and in return, they receive cultivated foods, as well as permission to harvest trees and to 14 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

shelter on land during storms and/or seasonally. Figure 9 illustrates the result of a land-sea exchange.

!

!

Fig. 9. Drying cassava on sea nomad boat roof. Unknown internet source.

Since there were no landed partners in the uninhabited Marianas, where were they? I propose that they were back across the Philippine Sea in what Bill Soheim calls “Austronesia” – that zone of thousands of large and small islands stretching from Taiwan to eastern Indonesia. In Fig. 10 this zone is within the black triangle.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !15

!

Fig. 10. “Austronesia”is within the black triangle, possibly the source area for marine foragers who visited the Marianas. After Oppenheimer and Richards (2001:Fig. 1).

!

Solheim (1984) proposes the term “Nusantao,” or people of the sea, for the ancestral groups who eventually peopled the remote Pacific Islands and with whose descendants Solheim enjoyed many encounters during his decades of field research in “Austronesia.” Without noting the inter-dependent economic and social relationships that likely were maintained by the Nusantao and their landed partners, Solheim avers that the ancestral Nusantao were the spreaders of the cultural traits throughout Austronesia, and that they spread the idea of decorating the red ware pottery to the Marianas during the Early Pre-Latte Period.

!

This is a partial answer to a why question, namely why there was consistent patterning of pottery decoration throughout Island Southeast Asia during the late Holocene, as well as in the Marianas. However, Solheim’s answer is dependent upon the logically circular notion of diffusion. To say that an idea, manifested in an archaeological observation like decorated potsherds, has diffused, is to re-describe the thing that needs to be explained.

!

16 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Over five decades ago Alexander Spoehr (1957) proposed that the decorated Marianas red ware (and a few sherds of contemporary black ware) was “trade ware,” i.e., not locally made. This idea has been abandoned by most archaeologists because Bill Dickinson and colleagues (2001) found that the calcareous sand used to temper Marianas red ware was available locally. Calcareous beach sand, originating from coral reefs, is indistinguishable as to its source area throughout the tropics. Yet because calcareous temper is indistinguishable as to its source, the temper in Marianas red ware indeed may be exotic to the Marianas. Was it made elsewhere? The very similar examples from the Nagsabaran site come to mind.

!

Answering the Title’s Question: Migration for Settlement or Home Range Expansion: or What Caused People to First Come to the Marianas c. 3500 Years Ago? I can put my answer in the form of a story – a well-warranted one. It goes like this.

A small segment of the numerous marine foragers living in Island Southeast Asia were experiencing difficulties 3500 years ago. More seasonal climate regimes were developing, for example, requiring adjustments by agricultural and foraging people on land and sea (Donders et al. 2007; Liu and Feng 2012; Toth et al. 2012).

!

The marine foraging niche had been a viable response to the last pulse of glacial meltwater c. 7500 years ago, which inundated the Sunda shelf and created the thousands of islands, and myriad aquatic habitats in Island Southeast Asia (Oppenheimer 1998). Now, however, the marine foraging niche was becoming crowded, not from population growth, but from more frequent shortage in marine resources. Sea levels were declining in Island Southeast Asia, just as they were in the Marianas. Coastal lands were expanding, mangroves were receding and estuaries were becoming rich, alluvial deltas that could be planted. These changes were good for people with access to land but were bad for people dependent upon productive marine habitats for food and products to trade.

!

The result was increasing competition among marine foraging groups, as they all sought the same dwindling resources. Lewis Binford (2001) referred to such situations as regional “packing” and showed that hunter-gatherer responses to packing vary according to local environmental circumstances. For example, in the tropics, food production can be increased through agriculture but not by intensifying production of aquatic resources (see discussion in Johnson 2013).

!

An important motivator for marine foragers to do something and quickly, was that their social and economic relationships with landed groups were breaking down.

Landed people were increasing in number as agriculture became more common, 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !17

but their sea nomadic partners were often failing to keep up their end of the “bargain” in supplying fish and finished items to trade for land foods and other necessities.

!

One possible response by marine foraging groups to this untenable situation was to integrate more fully with landed groups, who controlled the expanding coastlines.

This choice would involve adopting a sedentary lifestyle on land, probably also some agriculture, and certainly a loss of political autonomy and social status.

Integration of formerly autonomous groups into a new social and economic system is not new in dynamic multi-ethnic Island Southeast Asia (see examples in Sopher 1965). Nor is this phenomenon confined to marine foragers. It can be witnessed today, as previously autonomous groups lose access to their preferred habitats through various development schemes (Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau 2003).

!

Another possible response to the competition for marine resources was to enlarge the home range utilized by a cooperating group or groups. This tactic would enable them to remain in the marine foraging niche but would entail paying a high price, in terms of dangerous ocean crossings and a departure from established domestic routines. The benefit would be free access to the uncontested marine resources offered by the Marianas and a way to remain relatively autonomous within the Island Southeast Asian multi-ethnic cultural milieu.

!

The “pristine” reefs of the Marianas would have abounded in large sized marine shells, and a variety of inshore and pelagic fish and turtles would have been available as well. Occasional or seasonal trips to the Marianas for collecting purposes by small parties would have involved re-organizing of labor and coresident groups. Temporary housing at seasonally (or less frequently) occupied encampments would have been necessary too.

!

That a home range expansion tactic was onerous implies that few marine foraging groups would have tried it. The very light footprint of the Early Pre-Latte visitors to the Marianas indicates that marine foraging occurred here. The two pottery design styles, Achugao and San Roque, suggest there were only two groups, perhaps related clans, who had succeeded with the home range expansion option.

!

Expectations Marine foraging in the Marianas apparently lasted as long as 1000 years, with the pottery designs becoming simpler and less finely made toward the end of that time, as noted by Moore (2002). Aside from the need to explain this simplification, the range expansion model predicts, a contemporary simplification process in the red 18 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

ware ceramics in Island Southeast Asia. This is because of the postulated close connections between marine foragers and their landed partners in Island Southeast Asia, from whom they either obtained these ceramics or somehow made them themselves.

!

That the Early Pre-Latte Period came to an end when it did requires an explanation. I suspect its causes will be found to relate to changing political, social, and economical alignments that occurred during the Metal Age in Island Southeast Asia. The simple trade items made by marine foragers may have lost their attractiveness, as new sources of wealth became sought after. Trying to maintain previous mutualistic relationships using devalued trade items would have been a losing battle for marine foragers, encouraging the further shrinkage of this once broadly practiced niche.

!

The home range expansion model can be tested further with quantitative data from large excavated areas at Early Pre-Latte sites. Extensive horizontal excavations can expose spatial patterning in the placement of features and distributions of artifacts and faunal remains (e.g., see Carson 2014), which cannot be perceived using the old test pit method. If these newly exposed areas reveal patterns indicate that people lived in large permanent settlements and from the start were establishing colonies similar to the Neolithic villages in northern Luzon, rather than transient encampments resembling the Chao Lay settlement patterns and cultural deposits, then the model needs serious revision. If not, then perhaps we are on to something.

!

In conclusion, I hope the dialogue begun here (and as seen in the recent dialogue in the archaeological literature between Hung and her colleagues and their academic critics) will continue so that students can judge for themselves what is credible and worthwhile in the fascinating intellectual “pursuit of the past� called archaeology.

!

References Bayliss-Smith, Tim 1974 Ecosystem and Economic System of Ontong Jave Atoll. Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Cambridge.

1975 The price of protein: marine fisheries in Pacific subsistence. Paper presented at the Pacific Science Congress, Vancouver, 1975.

!

Binford, Lewis R. 2001 Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building Using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Sets. University of California Press, Los Angeles.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !19

Butler, Brian M. 1994 Early prehistoric settlement in the Mariana Islands:New evidence from Saipan. Man and Culture in Oceania 10:15-38.

!

Carson, Mike T. 2014 First Settlement of Remote Oceania, Earliest Sites in the Mariana Islands. Springer Briefs in Archaeology. Ebook Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London. DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-01047-2.

2013 Austronesian Migrations and Developments in Micronesia. Journal of Austronesian Studies 4(1):25-52.

!

Carson, Mike T. and Hiro Kurashina 2012 Re-envisioning long-distance Oceanic migration: early dates in the Mariana Islands.

World Archaeology, 44:3, 409-435.

!

Cernea, Michael and Kai Schmidt-Soltau 2003 Biodiversity conservation versus population resettlement: risks to nature and risks to people. In International Conference on Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity, Bonn, pp. 19-23.

!

Dickinson, William R., Brian M. Butler, Darlene R. Moore, and Marilyn Swift. 2001.

Geological sources and geographic distribution of sand tempers in prehistoric potsherds fro the Mariana Islands. Geoarchaeology 16:827-854.

!

Donders, Timme H., Friederike Wagner-Cremer, and Henk Visscher 2008 Quaternary Science Reviews 27:: 571-579.

!

Englehardt, Richard A. and Pamela R. Rogers 1997a Maritime adaptive strategies in post-Pleistocene Southeast Asia: An ethnoarchaeolgoical model for the nature and distribution of archaeological sites.

Indo-Pacific Prehistory: The Chiang Mai Papers 3:177-192.

!

Englehardt, Richard A. and Pamela R. Rogers 1997b The Phuket project revisited: the ethno-archaeology through time of maritime adapted communities in Southeast Asia. Journal of the Siam Society 85(1&2):17-33.

!

Finney, Ben 1994 Voyage of Rediscovery: A Cultural Odyssey through Polynesia. Univ. of California Press.

!

Flood, William 2002 Carolinian-Marianas voyaging: Continuing the Tradition. Micronesian Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 1 (1-2):48-56.

!

Hung, Hsiao-chun, Mike T. Carson, Peter Bellwood, Fredeliza Z. Campos, Philip J. Piper, Eusebio Dizon, Mary Jane Louise A. Bolunia, Marc Oxenham and Zhang Chi 2011 The first settlement of Remote Oceania: the Philippines to the Marianas. Antiquity 85:909-926.

!

20 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Hung, Hsiao-chun, Mike T. Carson and Peter Bellwood 2012 Earliest settlement in the Marianas-a response. Antiquity 86(333):910-914.

!

Hunter-Anderson, Rosalind L. and Darlene R. Moore 2001 The Marianas Pottery Sequence Revisited. Presented at the International Symposium on Austronesian Cultures: Issues Relating to Taiwan, December 8-12, Academia Sinica, Taipei.

!

Irwin, Geoffrey 1992 The Prehistoric Exploration and Colonisation of the Pacific. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

!

Johnson, Amber 2013 Exploring adaptive variation among hunter-gatherers with Binford’s Frames of Reference. Journal of Archaeological Research, published online July 30 2013; DOI 10.1007/s10814-013-9068-y.

!

Lakatos, Imre 1995 The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Philosophical Papers Volume 1, edited by J. Worrall and Gregory Currie. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

!

Liu, Fenggui and Zhadodong Feng 2012 A dramatic climate transition at ~4000 cal. yr BP and its cultural responses in Chinese cultural domains. The Holocene:1-17.

!

Montoya, José M., Stuart L. Pimm, and Ricard V. Solé Ecological networks and their fragility. Nature 442(7100: 259-264.

!

Moore, Darlene R. 2002 Guam’s Prehistoric Pottery and its Chronological Sequence. Report Prepared for Dept. of the Navy, Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu.

!

Morris, William F., Judith L. Bronstein, and William G. Wilson Three-way coexistence in obligate mutualist-exploiter interactions: the potential role of competition. American Naturalist 161(6): 860-875.

!

Odum, Eugene P. Trends expected in stressed ecosystems. Bioscience: 419-422.

!

Oppenheimer, Stephen 1998 Eden in the East: the Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia. Phoenix paperback, a division of Orion Books, Ltd., London.

!

Stephen J. Oppenheimer and Martin Richards 2001 Polynesian origins: Slow boat to Melanesia? Nature 410: 166-167.

!

Pichon, Francisco J. 1996 Settler agriculture and the dynamics of resource allocation in frontier environments. Human Ecology 24 (3): 341-371.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !21

Sather, Clifford 1997 The Bajau Laut: Adaptation, History, and Fate in a Maritime Fishing Society of South-Eastern Sabah. Oxford Univ. Press, Kuala Lumpur and New York.

!

Solheim, Wilhelm G. 1984 II (1985). The Nusantao hypothesis: The origin and spread of Austronesian speakers.

Asian Perspectives 26(1): 77-88.

!

Sopher, David E. 1965 The Sea Nomads: A Study of the Maritime Boat People of Southeast Asia. National Museum, Singapore, Memoir 5.

!

Spoehr, Alexander 1957 Marianas Prehistory: Archaeological Survey and Excavations on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota. Fieldiana: Anthropology 48.

!

Toth, Lauren T., Richard B. Aronson, Steven V. Vollmer,Jennifer W. Hobbs, Dunia H. Urrego, Hai Cheng, Ian C. Enochs, David J. Combosch, Robert van Woesik, and Ian G. MacIntyre 2001 ENSO drove 2500-year collapse of eastern Pacific coral reefs. Science 337:81-84.

!

Winter, Olaf, Geoffrey Clark, Atholl Anderson, and Anders Lindahl 2012 Austronesian sailing to the northern Marianas, a comment on Hung et al.(2011).

Antiquity 86(333): 898-910.

! !

--Rosalind Hunter-Anderson earned a BA and an MA in anthropology from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1969 and 1971, respectively. In 1980 she was awarded a PhD in anthropology, with an archaeology specialty, from the University of New Mexico. Dr. Hunter-Anderson lives in Albuquerque with her husband, Dr. Yigal Zan. She is an adjunct associate professor of anthropology at the University of New Mexico and continues to actively pursue research in, and write about, island archaeology. Current projects include documentation and chemical and dating analyses of Guam pictographs and recording the material and intangible cultural heritage of Yap. 

22 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Early European Exploration in the Marianas

!

By Omaira Brunal-Perry Associate Professor Micronesian Area Research Center, Spanish Document, University of Guam obrunal@uguamlive.uog.edu

! !

Abstract: Spanish and Portuguese exploration in the late 15th and early 16th centuries was part of an effort to find a westward route to the Indies and lay claim to these lands – islands known for their rich spices. This pursuit resulted in voyages by European sailing vessels that explored the islands in Micronesia. When Ferdinand Magellan arrived in the Mariana Islands on March 6, 1521, while seeking this westward route to the spice rich Indies, it heralded the beginning of a European dominance in Micronesia that would span more than four centuries. Continuous European contact began with Spanish control of the Mariana Islands in 1565. The exploration and exploitation of Micronesia by European sailing vessels reflects the changing requirements of discovery, conquest, commercialization, and colonization. The influence and impact of Europeans on the indigenous people of the islands was widespread, resulting in changes and resistance.

During the late fifteenth century, the Portuguese steadily worked their way down the west coast of Africa and established a chain of bases along the way. The Bull of Pope Alexander VI in 1493 and the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 gave the Portuguese exclusive rights to colonize and explore all areas east of an imaginary line of demarcation established well out into the Atlantic. As a result of Vasco de Gama’s voyage in 1497 around the Cape of Good Hope to India, the Portuguese established a monopoly over the only known sea route to the Orient.

! !

By 1518 the shipping route down the African coast and across the Indian Ocean to India and the strategic Malaccan Straits was the exclusive estate of John III of Portugal. The Portuguese had succeeded in creating a highly profitable commercial empire in the East, while the Spanish could do little but stand by and watch with covetous eyes (Hezel 1983:8).

In the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, Spain was also interested in a westward route to the Indies. With Portugal’s monopoly of the known sea route, the Spanish were forced to look for an alternative, westward route to the Indies.

!

In 1518, Magellan convinced the Spanish Crown that rounding the tip of South America would bring him to the Spice Islands. When Trinidad and its companion ships the Victoria and the Concepción sailed into a small harbor on the western 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !23

coast of the lateen-rigged outriggers of the (later called Marianas) in 1521, the hope of a westward route became a reality. Magellan stopped at one of the islands to provision. A misunderstanding over property rights caused him to refer to it and its inhabitants as the island of the thieves (Isla de los Ladrones) (Cusher 1971: 16).

Only 18 men and one small ship, Victoria, survived the rigorous expedition, but the long-sought route to the Spice Islands was established and the exploration of Micronesia began. During the return voyage of Trinidad in 1522 Gonzalo Gómez de Espinosa, who assumed command after Magellan’s death, first recorded tiny Sonsorol, an island in the Caroline Islands (Stanley 1874:25-29).

!

Stirred into action by the Spanish discovery of a western route to the Spice Islands, the Portuguese captain of the Moluccas was ordered to initiate exploration of the surrounding waters and lay claim to them. In particular, were the islands to the north reported to contain spices, gold, silver and other precious metals. In 1525, Diego de Rocha was searching for these lands (refer to Figure 1.1), when a severe storm drove him between 800 and 1,200 miles to the northeast. He sighted a small island group he named Islas de Sequeira, after the ship’s pilot. The crew remained on one of the islands, probably Ulithi, in the western Carolines for four months making repairs and waiting for favorable winds. They learned there were no metals, although gold could be obtained from high mountains to the west, possibly in the southern Philippines. After Rocha sailed out of Ulithi on January 20, 1526, the island was forgotten.

!

A second Spanish expedition with a fleet of seven vessels commanded by Juan García Jofre de Loaysa set out in 1525 with the sole purpose of taking possession of the Spice Islands for Spain, by whatever means possible. Nearly a year after departing Seville, the fleet finally arrived in the Pacific—with only two ships remaining. When the fleet was forced to put in at Mexico for repairs, only one ship, Santa María de la Victoria, was capable of continuing the journey. Shortly after, Alonso de Salazar assumed command when Captain Loaysa and his second in command died. As the ship continued northward in a desperate search for provisions and water, a small island was spotted and named San Bartolomé. This was probably Taongi, now called Bokaak, and was the first European discovery in the Marshall Islands. Victoria’s crew, unable to find a suitable anchorage, was forced to sail on and eventually arrived in Guam.

!

After a brief layover in Guam for reprovisioning, Salazar and his crew with several native Guamanian islanders impressed into service, departed for the Philippines.

Following a brief stay in the Philippines, Salazar continued to the Moluccas where

24 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

a substantial Portuguese force quickly routed the Spanish by compelling them to abandon their ship and take refuge in the hills.

!

In October 1527, Charles V sent another fleet from New Spain (Mexico) under the command of Alvaro de Saavedra Cerón to provide assistance to the Loaysa-Salazar expeditionary force. In December, while crossing the Pacific, Saavedra sighted Los Ladrones but did not put into port (Coello 1885:42). On January 1, 1528, two small islands in the western Carolines were discovered and named Islas de los Reyes (Islands of the Kings); these two were most likely Fais and Yap.

!

Upon reaching the Philippines, Saavedra heard news of the Loaysa-Salazar survivors. Realizing he could not rescue them, he continued to the Moluccas where he picked up a cargo of valuable spices. Saavedra hoped to find a return route back across the Pacific to New Spain, by following the northern coast of New Guinea and eventually turning northeast. En route he reached an island he called Barbudos because of the beards worn by the natives. The island was recorded as being at 7o north latitude and was Pohnpei (probably Ponape) or one of its outliers in the Caroline Islands. After six months of frustration, and with the winds still against him, Saavedra was finally forced to turn back to the Moluccas.

!

In May 1529, Saavedra began his second attempt to cross the Pacific (refer to Figure 1.1). He retraced the route of his previous voyage, again sighting islands in the vicinity of Barbudos. Continuing northeasterly into the area of the Marshall Islands in late September, he reached what is probably the atoll of Ujelang. Impressed by the tattooed natives, he named the islands Los Pintados (The Painted Ones). On October 1, another group of islands to the northeast was sighted and because of its lush vegetation, was named Los Jardines (The Gardens). These are probably the atolls of Bikini and Enewetak. After limited reprovisioning, the Florida with Saavedra and his crew continued northeastward; however, when both Saavedra and his successor died the Florida’s crew returned to Tidore in the Moluccas, where they joined the Loaysa survivors in the hills. The ship had reached the northern latitudes and the winds would have eventually taken them back to New Spain.

!

Explorers under the auspices of the Spanish Crown had succeeded in discovering a westward route to the Indies, but no ship was able to recross the Pacific and return to New Spain. Of 15 ships that were sent out, only Magellan’s Victoria had returned; the loss of life among the crews paralleled the ship losses. With Spanish commercial success less than spectacular, representatives of the Crowns of Spain and Portugal met and signed the Treaty of Zaragoza in 1529. It stipulated that in

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !25

exchange for 350,000 ducats, Spain would give up its tenuous rights to the Spice Islands to Portugal (Cushner 1971:29).

!

Spain was denied access to the Moluccas, but there was nothing to stop them from exploring, conquering and colonizing the Philippines, reputedly rich in cinnamon and gold. Thirteen years after the Treaty of Zaragoza on November 13, 1542, the Spanish sent another expedition into the Pacific. Ruy López de Villalobos, captain of a fleet of six vessels, set out from Mexico with orders to seek out the Islas del Poniente (the Philippines).

!

!

Fig. 1.1. Map design by James W. Hunter III, Ships of Discovery, 2009

During this expedition, the fleet made landfall on December 25, 1542, somewhere in the Marshall Islands that Villalobos named Los Corales (The Corals). Shortly thereafter, they arrived at another atoll suspected of being Saavedra’s Los Jardines.

They sighted Los Ladrones but did not stop (Colín 1900[I]:149).

!

In the Carolines, Villalobos rediscovered Fais and Yap where they were greeted in Spanish, “They made the Sign of the Cross and shouted Buenos días, matalotes – Ahoy, mates! This was an indication of contact with the Loaysa-Salazar expedition 14 years earlier. The island was promptly dubbed, Matalotes (Cushner, 1971: 32).

Villalobos reached the Islas del Poniente in early February 1543 and immediately set out to conquer the local inhabitants on the island of Mindanao. Ultimately, the expedition proved unsuccessful and, after finding out that the Philippines were claimed by Portugal five years earlier, Villalobos set out for the Moluccas. Severe 26 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

food shortages and loss of life forced him to surrender to the Portuguese, who eventually provided the survivors passage back to Spain. Antonio de Herrera, who accompanied Villalobos, eventually published one of the earliest and best maps of the northern Pacific, which depicted all the islands discovered by the Spanish (refer to Figure 1.2).

!

!

Fig. 1.2. Princeton University, 2010.

Much of the exploration was occurring in the islands to the south of the Marianas.

However, in 1552 the caravel Santa Margarita, commanded by Pedro de AcuĂąa, was on a trading and exploring venture when it is believed to have wrecked somewhere in the Ladrones (Potter 1972:414). If so, this was the first Spanish contact in the islands preceding Legazpi by 13 years. Other vessels may have also visited the islands during this period, but their visits were either not recorded or have been lost over time.

!

In 1564 the Spanish again attempted colonization of the Philippines. Despite evidence that the Philippines lay beyond the Spanish zone as set forth in the Treaty of Tordesillas, Phillip II dispatched a fleet of ships from Mexico. The San Pedro under Miguel de Legazpi and the San Lucas under Captain Alonso de Arellano had 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !27

orders to discover which of the islands grew spices, obtain samples of those and other riches and establish a colony.

!

A few days out of port, however, the San Lucas, deserted the flotilla. Captain Alonso de Arellano and his crew intended to become pirates and prey on rich merchant vessels in the Indies. Piloted by Lope Martín the ship ran a few degrees south of the usual track to Los Ladrones. Within a month it had made its first landfall at a group of low islets that compose Likiep Atoll in the Marshall Islands. On January 7, 1565, they discovered two more islands – Dos Vecinos (Two Neighbors), probably Kwajalein (Figure 1.3). The following day, another island approximately 20 miles south of Kwajalein was discovered. This was, perhaps, Lib Island, also called Nadadores (The Swimmers) as a result of the hostile welcome received by the Spanish. On January 17, several high islands ringed by a barrier reef were seen – the Truk Islands. The well-armed natives, hostile and bent on capturing the ship, pursued San Lucas in their canoes. On January 18, another small group of islets was discovered, the atoll of Pulap. Unlike the Trukese, the people of Pulap offered to provide water and wood to the crew. Although apprehensive, several men went ashore with the islanders. Unfortunately, their fears were well grounded, and before it was all over two sailors were killed and a third barely escaped. As a result, Arellano named the islands Los Mártires, (The Martyrs). A few days later the natives of Sorol Atoll, in the western Carolines, repeated the hostile greeting offered by the Lib, Truk and Pulap islanders. This time the Spanish were prepared. They fired on the armed natives and seized their canoes and weapons for wood. Once beyond Sorol, the remainder of San Lucas’ voyage to the Philippines was uneventful.

!

About the same time San Lucas reached its first landfall, Miguel de Legazpi in San Pedro reached another island in the Marshalls. He disembarked, claimed it for the King of Spain and named it Isla de los Barbudos (Island of Bearded Ones) on January 11, 1565 (Doc. Ined. 1967, Doc. 27: 228-229). Thus continued a tradition of confusing or duplicate place names; this was the same name given to Pohnpei in the Caroline Islands more that 30 years earlier by Saavedra. Legazpi subsequently discovered four more uninhabited island groups in the Marshall Islands (refer to Figure1.3).

!

Legazpi’s flotilla finally reached Guam on January 22, 1565 with three ships to officially claim the islands for the Spanish Crown. It was forty-four years after Magellan’s initial visit to Los Ladrones. Mass was said in a large boathouse (Doc. Ined. 1967, Doc. 27:251) on the southwest coast of Guam. Legazpi had crosses carved in coconut palms near the shore (Doc. Ined., Doc. 38:80). The flotilla set about reprovisioning. The Chamurres—as the natives of Guam were then called – 28 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

known for simply taking items that interested them, swarmed over the ships collecting whatever they could. Tensions mounted following a report that a group of sailors were stoned while ashore seeking water. The death of a young seaman brought matters to a head. As a result, an armed party from the flotilla torched a village and all of the canoes readily available. The reprisals ended with Legazpi hanging four Chamorro and departing.

!

Arriving in the Philippines in mid-February 1565, Legazpi spent the next two months exploring Samar in the eastern Philippines before arriving off the coast of Cebu in late April. Although he was greeted by a large, well-armed force of natives, they were quickly dispersed by the ship’s artillery. Legazpi took possession of the islands in the name of the Spanish king, Philip II and formally initiated an era of colonial rule that would span more than 300 years (Cushner 1971:53-54).

!

Captain Alonso de Arellano arrived in the Philippines before Legazpi and decided to wait for the fleet in the Davao Gulf. After a brief but unsuccessful search in the area, the San Lucas departed the Philippines on April 21, 1565 and tracked northeast, then east in the hope of finding a route back to Mexico. When San Lucas reached 40 degrees north, the westerly winds quickly carried the ship across the Pacific to North America. Two months later, Legazpi left the Philippines and sailed northeast along a course similar to that taken by San Lucas. Both of these west-east crossings of the Pacific established once and for all the return route that would be followed by the Manila galleons for more than 250 years.

!

Upon the arrival of San Lucas in Acapulco, Spanish authorities had the ship San Jerónimo quickly outfitted to bring additional supplies and reinforcements to Legazpi, still believed to be in the Philippines. Lope Martín was again selected to pilot the ship. Not long after departing Mexico, Martin convinced San Jerónimo’s crew to mutiny and eventually took control personally. Continuing in a westerly course through the Marshall Islands, San Jerónimo sighted several small islands and arrived at Ujelang on July 6, 1565 (Figure 1.3). During their brief stay, some of the mutineers slipped back to the ship, retook it and ultimately left Martín and 26 others marooned.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !29

!

Fig. 1.3. Map design by James W. Hunter III, Ships of Discovery, 2009.

Legazpi’s successful establishment of an outpost in the Philippines opened up trade between the Orient and Spain. Chinese entrepreneurs brought silks, teas, porcelain, spices and gems to the Spanish traders in Manila who purchased these goods with silver mined in Peru and Mexico. The first of the Manila “galleons” to traverse the Pacific were San Juan in 1567, under the command of Juan de la Isla, and two unidentified ships, under the command of Felipe de Salcedo. San Juan sailed from the Philippines in July and arrived at Acapulco in November, while Salcedo departed Acapulco in April, stopped in Guam to reprovision, and arrived in Manila in August. Departing Manila on July 1, 1568 on the return voyage, San Pablo, under the command of Salcedo, became the first Manila galleon lost in the trans-Pacific crossing. One hundred thirty-two survivors eventually made it back from Los Ladrones to the Philippines in a small bark they constructed from a ship’s boat (Dahlgren 1917:48).

!

The last exploratory encounter into Micronesia in the sixteenth century occurred when Álvaro de Mendaña led two expeditions (1568, 1595) to search for the phantom land of Ophir, the source of Solomon’s gold (refer to Figure 1.3). On his disastrous second voyage, Mendaña died and command was assumed by Pedro Ferdinand de Quiros. On December 23, 1595, while attempting to reach the Philippines after the small band was decimated by raids on their camp, Quiros nearly ran aground on an offshore reef that was most probably at Pohnpei in the

30 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

eastern Caroline Islands. Quiros is credited with being the first European to sight the island of Butaritari in the Gilbert Islands in 1606, which he named Buen Viaje.

!

Quiros’ near disaster at Pohnpei marked the end of the first wave of Spanish exploration into Micronesia. The Gilbert, Marshall and Caroline archipelagos had no riches or precious metals, and the Manila-Acapulco route ran well north, leaving little reason for further Spanish exploration of the region. While the discoveries and general locations of these islands were recorded in journals and logs, they were quickly forgotten and faded into obscurity.

!

With its foothold in the Philippines and access to the lucrative Chinese markets, the volume of trade from Manila to New Spain increased dramatically. The established sailing route took the ships and men through the Mariana Islands, a critical stop on the outbound leg of the journey. As a result, this led to significant differences in the subsequent history of the Mariana Islands and a cultural break with other people in the region. These differences began in the mid-1560s.

European influence in the Mariana Islands can be divided broadly into three time periods:

!

Contact (1565-1668), Conquest (1668-1700) and Colonization (1700-1898).

!

Presentation slides begin on the following page.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !31

Presentations Slides

!

 

32 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !33

!

34 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !35

!

36 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !37

!

38 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !39

!

40 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !41

!

42 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !43

!

44 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !45

!

46 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

References Coello, F. 1885 La conferencia de Berlín y la cuestión de las Carolinas. Madrid: Imprenta de Fortanet.

!Colleción de Documentos Ineditos Relativos al Descubrimiento, Conquista y Organización de las 1866

!

Antiguas Posesiones Españolas de Ultrmar: De las Islas Filipinas, Segunda Serie Tomo 2.

Madrid: Sucesores de Rivadeneyra. Reprinted (1967). Nendln, Germany: Kraus Reprint Limited.

Cushner, N.P. 1971 Spain in the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines: Ateneo de Manila.

!

Dahlgren, E.W. 1917 ere the Hawaiian Islands visited by the Spaniards before their discovery by Captain Cook in 1778? : A contribution to the geographical history of the North Pacific Ocean especially of the relations between America and Asia in the Spanish period. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksells boktryckeri-a.-b.

!

Diffie, B. W. 1960 Prelude to empire: Portugal overseas before Henry the Navigator. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press

!

Fernández, D.C. 1972 Armada Española. Madrid: Museo Naval.

!

Fernández, N.M. 1971 Colección de documentos y manuscritos compilados por Fernández de Navarrete: 21,1. Nendeln: Kraus-Thomson Organization.

!

Princeton University 2010 Spice Islands (Moluccas): 250 Years of Maps (1521–1760). Retrieved July 30, 2013, from Strait Through: Magellan to Cook & the Pacific: http://libweb5.princeton.edu/ visual_materials/maps/websites/pacific/spice-islands/spice-islands-maps.html.

!

Hezel, F.X. 1983 The First Taint of Civilization: A History of the Caroline and Marshall Islands in PreColonial Days, 1521-1885. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.

!

Pigafetta, A. 1986 Primer Viaje Alrededor del Globo. Barcelona: Ediciones Orbis, S.A

!

Potter, J.S. 1972 The Treasure Diver’s Guide. Garden City: Doubleday and Company.

!

Stanley, H.E. 1963 The First Voyage Round the World by Magellan: Translated from the Accounts of Pigafetta, and other contemporary Writers. New York: B. Franklin.

!

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !47

--Omaira Brunal-Perry’s current research interest is concentrated on the legal and historical interpretation of documents concerning the Spanish colonial administration in the Mariana and Caroline Islands, particularly pertaining to land grants, administrative and judiciary actions, and other cultural aspects related to the Spanish presence in Guam and Micronesia. Brunal-Perry has done archival research in the national archives of Mexico, the Philippine Islands, Spain, and the United States. In addition, she has directed the archival project entitled “The Spanish Language Judicial Records of Guam” with its resultant annotated index, and processed other collections of historical importance to the region.

48 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !49

!

50 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

! ! !

2nd Marianas History Conference !

Spanish Era 

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !51

!

52 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Choco the Chinaman as a Member of Chamorro Society

!

By Judy Flores, PhD Folklorist, Historian, Teacher and Visual Artist J.Flores, Inc. judyflores@guam.net

! !

Abstract: The Chinese man, Choco, was firmly established in Chamorro society at the time of Pale’ Diego Luis de San Vitores’ missionization, and was instrumental in turning the Chamorro people against the missionaries.

This paper uses the brief information contained in missionary letters as clues to learn more about how this outsider came to Guam and achieved a prominent place in Chamorro society. Where did he come from and why was he against the missionaries? What more can we learn about the village of Pa’a where San Vitores came to debate with Choco? What happened to Pa’a and to Choco after San Vitores’ death? This paper shows how a combination of research methods and resources can be used to further document this incident and to create a more global view of Choco’s world as it impacted the Mariana Islands.

Introduction My personal interest in the Chinaman, Choco, grew as I learned more about the area between Inarajan and Merizo in southern Guam; a stretch of white sand beach today called Tonggan, and a point of land to the south of Tonggan, called Bibesbes.

My husband and I built our house inland from Tonggan in the 1970s, on family land that stretched from the beach to the hilltop. A farmer clearing the parcel of 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !53

land next to ours unearthed dozens of grinding stones of various sizes, called lusong. As we planted flowers and trees, we often found pieces of pottery and clamshell tools on the ground. My husband’s old auntie came with her son who was farming another parcel nearby. On her first visit, soon after we had moved there, she stood facing the hill where a large banyon tree grew, and she spoke loudly and respectfully, asking Guella yan Guello (Grandmother and Grandfather) for permission to use the land and to pass near their place, and to live in harmony with those who now lived and farmed there. In the days before there were laws against removing beach sand, we moved a truckload from our beach to use on construction projects at our house. My son, playing in the sand pile, found a beautiful slingstone (achu’ atupat), about three inches long from tip to tip, pure white, marbled with red coral. My nephew hired a backhoe to dig a hole for an outhouse at the beach, and discovered a human burial in the pure white sand about 6 feet below the surface.

Out of respect, that outhouse was never built. When Typhoon Yuri churned up the eastern shoreline in the early 1990s, washing piles of sand across the road, my husband found dozens of slingstones at the low tide level. For years afterwards, we would often find slingstones and pottery sherds among the tide debris.

!

54 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

It wasn’t until the mid 1990s when I began to research Guam’s history that I learned about Choco the Chinaman who lived in Pa’a during the early missionization period. My conversations with archaeologist Richard Olmo and reading reports of his work at Achang Bay revealed that the lost village of Pa’a was in fact located in the Tonggan and Bibesbes area. One additional bit of local information confirmed for me that we now lived in the vicinity of Pa’a: just south of our property is the farm land (lancho) belonging to a branch of the Chargualaf family. Their family clan name is “Choco”!

!

Choco was a Buddhist Chinese Sangley – a term used to describe Chinese residing in the Philippines for business purposes. According to missionary documents, he had been cast ashore in Saipan when his sampan was blown off course while sailing between Manila and Ternate – an island in the Moluccas (Indonesia). He married a woman from Saipan and subsequently moved to the village of Pa’a in southern Guam where he made knives and axes out of iron hoops. (De Viana, p. 23).

Choco had been living in the Mariana Islands for 20 years at the time of Missionary Luis Diego de San Vitores’ arrival in 1668.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !55

This statement establishes Choco’s mode and time of arrival, and place of residence in Guahan. These historical facts lead to more questions that require a variety of research methods to place Choco’s presence in the Marianas in a more global context. As a Sangley, what was he doing in the Philippines and what might have turned him against Catholic missionaries? How did Choco ingratiate himself into Chamorro society? How were the village of Pa’a and the Chamorro people affected by his presence? The historical record begins only with the arrival of the missionaries and how Choco’s presence affected their missionization efforts. The rest of his story must be learned through other sources.

!

Research Methods and Strategies This story provides an interesting case study that shows how a variety of research methods can provide insight into the matrix of world events, Chamorro cultural practices, Spanish Catholic and Chinese ideologies that played out on our small island of Guahan. Source documents about Choco can be found in letters and reports written by Padre San Vitores and his fellow missionaries, particularly Father Peter Coomans. These documents were used in the 1683 publication by the Jesuit historian, Francisco Garcia, written for the purpose of documenting the life of the first Marianas missionary, Luis Diego de San Vitores. This information can be crosschecked through copies of the original source documents in volumes compiled, edited and translated by Rodrigue Levesque (1992). The Far Islands by Augusto V. de 56 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Viana contribute to an understanding of world trade of the 17th century and describe the lives of Chinese immigrants in the Philippines. The importance of spices on world trade and travel is described by Lawrence Bergreen in Over the edge of the world: Magellan’s terrifying circumnavigation of the globe. Chamorro society of the 17th century has been documented in letters and journals written by visitors to the islands as well as by missionaries of the time. Fray Juan Pobre in the Marianas, 1602 edited by Marjorie Driver provides first-hand observations of Chamorro society of the time. Lawrence Cunningham’s Ancient Chamorro Society adds to this body of knowledge.

!

Secondary sources were often used as starting points to seek out primary resources that may provide more details and verify information. Don Farrell’s History of the Northern Mariana Islands, Scott Russell’s Tiempon I Manmofo’na: ancient Chamorro culture and history of the Northern Mariana Islands are just two examples of publications that provided additional details about Choco, including their bibliographies of source documents. We must acknowledge the use of the internet as a contemporary research tool. Google and Wikipedia are a good place to start identifying source documents. Our own Guampedia provides a wealth of information that has been verified and peer reviewed. Contemporary observations and experiences in Chamorro culture can provide resonance and connections to those observed by 17th century writers.

!

Each of these sources presents a point of view colored by the experiences of the writers and the societies that shaped their thoughts. Furthermore, the Chamorro viewpoint was never written by the natives themselves; so we must rely on the observations made by others about their society to tease out the Chamorro response. This is an exercise in assembling these various sources and viewpoints to personalize the story of Choco by providing a global context for his presence in Guahan in the 17th century.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !57

Choco’s Story According to Missionary Documents The earliest reference to Choco is in writings by the first missionaries, who experienced his influence within a few months of their arrival:

!

But as soon as the Sangley knew that the fathers had arrived on the island of Guam and were baptizing many, he began to circulate a report that the fathers were people despised and loathed by the Spaniards, and for this reason they had been banished to Guam; that they were killing those they baptized, especially children; and if one who was especially strong was able to resist that poisoned water, it would at least cause him to have dropsy, declaring he had seen it thus in Manila. Actually, some children did die a short while after being baptized, because they were already in a dying condition, or because God, as he is accustomed to do in new conversions, wished to harvest the young fruits of the land till then barren. And so Choco saw his opportunity to make the people witnesses to the truth of what he told them. (Garcia, p. 190-191) This is a sample of the viewpoint expressed by the missionaries according to Jesuit historian Francisco Garcia in 1681 (His book was published in 1683). His account goes on to describe the change in attitude shown by the Chamorros, who no longer welcomed the missionaries to their villages. Women hid their children so they could not be baptized. As time went on, the natives threatened them with spears, calling them murders and threatening to kill them. Father San Vitores … “resolved 58 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

to disarm the enemy by converting Choco himself to Christianity, . . . and determined to set out at once for Paa, where Choco lived” (Garcia, p. 192). Margaret Higgens, who first translated portions of the Garcia text in 1935, stated in a footnote, “Paa was near Merizo, a distance of some twenty miles from Agaña. There is a small stretch of beach between Merizo and Inarajan that is even nowadays called Paa by the local residents” (1935). Note that in 1935 local residents still recognized that place name. In my 2013 research, I could not find an informant who remembered that location.

!

Traveling by boat from Agatña, which took about one day, San Vitores and his companions entered the village singing the Act of Contrition, which he had composed in the Chamorro language. The people came out of their houses, forgetting their former hostility. Some even brought their children to be baptized.

Upon finding Choco, San Vitores began to argue with him in front of the villagers.

“It was easy to answer his reasoning, but his unreason was a problem” (Garcia, p.

193).

!

The dispute lasted three days, during which time the Venerable Father was able to convince Choco of his errors, proving by reason and experience how the sacrament of baptism does not remove life from the body, and teaching him at the same time how it causes the life of the soul. He dispelled all his calumnies and deceits to the 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !59

extent of obliging him to confess publicly that all he had said against the fathers and against the Law of Christ was false, and that nobody could be saved without holy baptism. He begged for baptism and seemed to mean it. (Garcia, p. 193) Choco’s influence over the natives declined somewhat after his apparent conversion, but Garcia stated in 1681 that “Choco became again what he was before, because he had not received baptism with Christian sincerity...” (Garcia, p.

196).

!

Choco’s continued influence against the missionaries is mentioned briefly several times in subsequent Christianization efforts. In a passage describing Spanish fortifications in 1671, a tower called Castillo de San Francisco Xavier in Hagåtña was built, “where the gun was placed that remained from the shipwreck that had cast Choco on these shores, the man who was the origin of all these wars and persecutions” (Garcia, p. 238). He taught them to “show reverence for the bones and skulls of the dead, whom they paint on the bark of trees and blocks of wood” (Garcia, p. 174). One of the figures had three heads on its shoulders (ibid.: 188). During a major battle in September, 1671, the natives …”made some shields like platforms, a new invention of the apostate Choco. With these they could protect themselves at a distance, which enabled them to throw stones, lances, and fire balls” (Garcia, p. 240).

!

60 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Almost 30 years of warfare between the Spanish and Chamorro people ensued after the death of San Vitores by Chief Mata’pang in 1673. One of the major battles was fought at Pa’a, and it has been suggested that the Spanish were determined to wipe away this village because of its association with their enemy, Choco. Surviving Chamorros were forced to live in one of the six villages formed by Acting Governor Joseph Quiroga. Any remaining residents of Pa’a would have been resettled in Inalahan to be near the church dedicated to St. Joseph. Men and boys would go out to their lanchos to farm and gather food during the weekdays, and spend Saturday evening and Sunday with their families in the village. Because of this practice, family connections to their ancestral lands remained intact except for large parcels of “crown lands” claimed by the Spanish. In Inalahan, the crown lands were concentrated in the hills inland from the village and on the plateau between Inalahan and Talofofo. Therefore, it is quite possible that families from Pa’a continued to use their ancestral clan lands.

!

Historical documents do not mention Choco’s family, other than to say that his wife was from San Jose (Saipan). In the Chamorro matrilineal society, children belonged to the mother, and in case of death or divorce, the children followed the mother (Garcia, p. 172). The name of Choco would not be carried officially by his children.

Christianized Chamorros were given Christian first names and their last names would have been recorded under their mother’s name, according to Spanish laws.

The Chamorro tradition of clan names would have distinguished Choco’s children from others of the same surname. Clan names have historically been bestowed on an individual because of a physical distinguishing feature or because of an incident that became memorialized by a nickname. Offspring of that individual would carry the name down the generations, thus creating the clan name. Therefore, it is possible that Choco became a clan name and was carried through the generations to the present.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !61

Choco’s World According to Historical Documents Historical records have not revealed information about Choco’s life before he was shipwrecked in the Mariana Islands. We can only create a profile of Choco by researching Chinese who lived in the Philippines during the 1640s. To begin this profile, it is necessary to understand the historical relationship between the Chinese and the Filipinos. Moreover, we need to understand the world trade economy that attracted traders to the Philippines:

!

Spices have played an essential economic role in civilizations since antiquity. Like oil today, the European quest for spices drove the world’s economy and influenced global politics, and like oil today, spices became inextricably intertwined with exploration, conquest, imperialism. (Bergreen, pp. 11-12) The Chinese dominated trade in the Philippines long before Spain colonized the islands in the 16th century. Europe became aware of the spices and other treasures of China through the travels of Italian merchant Marco Polo and others in the 13th century, which expanded the overland “silk road” trade routes from Asia to Europe.

In 1453, when Constantinople fell to the Turks, the overland spice routes between Asia and Europe were severed. “The prospect of establishing a spice trade via an ocean route opened up new economic possibilities for any European nation able to master the seas” (Bergreen, p. 13).

!

62 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

The Portuguese were the first to establish an oceanic route around the continent of Africa, across the Indian Ocean and around the Indian continent to the Moluccas.

This fiercely-protected route was challenged by the Spanish when Ferdinand Magellan’s circumnavigation of the globe proved that the Moluccas could be reached by sailing across the Atlantic, around the tip of South America and across the Pacific. Spain’s superior sea power of the 16th century and their colonization of Mexico (New Spain) expanded to claim the Philippines, and the Mariana Islands, as part of Spain in 1565 (de Viana, p. 1).

!

The Chinese were well-established in the Philippines, bringing their goods from mainland China and trading freely throughout these islands and present-day Indonesia. Beginning in the 16th century, Manila became a center of trade where vessels from Europe and Asia converged annually to exchange silver and gold for spices, silk, porcelain and other Asian treasures (Rogers, pp. 16-17). Since the Chinese immigrants were men who arrive without families, there were many marriages between Filipino women and Chinese men. These Chinese immigrants were called Sangleys:

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !63

Sanglay comes directly from the Hokkien Chinese word seng-li (Chinese: 生理; Pe̍h-ōe-jī: seng-lí),[1] meaning “business”. Hokkien, also known as Min-nan, Amoy, Hoklo, or Holo, is the dominant language of Southern Fujian and northeastern Guangdong provinces in China, as well as Taiwan. The majority of Chinese sojourners, traders, and settlers in the Philippines during the Spanish colonial period came from southern Fujian and spoke Hokkien, as well as leaving their mark on Filipino language and culture (especially the cuisine). (Klöter, Wikipedia) Their offspring were called Mestizo de Sangley, and many of them became Christians. Native Filipinos who married Spanish or Mexicans were called Mestizo.

The term Sangley was reserved for the immigrant Chinese.

!

The Spanish colonization of the Philippines in the 17th century required more skilled laborers and they recruited Chinese immigrants from the islands. The economy became highly dependent upon the Chinese for their economic role as traders and artisans.

!

Suspicions and mutual hostility characterized the Sino-Spanish relations, exploding periodically into bloody massacres and mass expulsions. The Chinese revolted against the Spaniards in 1574, when a force of about 3,000 men and 62 Chinese warships attacked the city. In order to safeguard the city, the Spanish 64 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

authorities confined the Chinese residents and merchants to a separate district outside the walls of Manila, called Parian de Alcaceria. (Blair, p.138). Massacres took place in 1603, 1639, 1662, 1762 and 1820. The Chinese were taxed heavily. Their freedom of travel was limited, as well as their rights to a fair trial. Even the Church did not allow the Christian Chinese to be buried in Catholic cemeteries nor allowed them to act as godfather to natives. (Blair, p. 139 )

!

The Spanish abandoned [the Moluccan island of] Ternate in 1662, the last of their strongholds in Asia. From that time, Spain focused on the galleon trade between China and Acapulco that converged in Manila (Lach and Van Kley, p. 24).

!

The Manila Galleon trade route began in 1565, when Miguel Legaspi discovered the circuitous route whereby winds carried the galleons northward from the Philippines to the temperate zone near Japan, where winds blew eastward and pushed them to the American west coast, which they followed down to Acapulco.

Spices, porcelain, silks and other goods from China were unloaded and carried overland to Vera Cruz in the Gulf of Mexico where they were then shipped to Europe. In April and May each year, the galleons were loaded with Mexican silver and gold and followed the prevailing winds southwest across the Pacific, reaching the Mariana Islands in about 40 to 52 days (Levesque, Vol 2, p. 517); then sailing west another two weeks to Manila. Annually, beginning in 1573, Chinese junks and Moro Praus arrived in Manila Bay with valuable Chinese cargo to trade. By 1580 Manila was the center of commerce for Asia (Farrell, p. 135).

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !65

A Profile of Choco Based on this history, we can build a profile of Choco. Choco would have been an immigrant from Fujien province in China, engaged in trade or working as an artisan in the Philippines when he was cast ashore in the Mariana Islands in about 1648. The missionaries reported that he arrived in a sampan. The exact size or type of his vessel was not described; and reports by missionaries and Spanish officials reveal that the term sampan was used loosely, to describe a variety of boats. The literal translation of the word “sampan” is “three planks”, meaning a flat bottom boat with a plank to form each side (Wikipedia/sampan). Drawings and photos of sampans show this smallest, simplest version for one-person use, and larger variations with cargo holds, deck shelter, and even up to three sails. The largest style looks very similar to the Chinese sailing junk, or cargo vessel. Based on missionary reports, Choco’s vessel was large enough to accommodate a crew of three or more: Choco… “had killed one of his companions, with whom he had been shipwrecked in these islands; that is why, when the others had repaired the ship, he, fearing justice and the friends of the deceased, preferred exile over a certain execution” (Coomans, p. 23). This suggests that his shipmates left Saipan in the rebuilt sampan. The fact that there were others aboard tells us that the vessel was of a larger size of sailing vessel.

!

Sources state that Choco married a woman of Saipan and started a family, and lived with her in the village of Pa’a in Guahan. There is no mention of how or why he moved with his wife to Pa’a. Did his wife have clan connections to Pa’a? Was Choco himself adopted as a clan member with ties to Pa’a?

!

In a passage describing Spanish fortifications in 1671, a tower called Castillo de San Francisco Xavier was built, “where the gun was placed that remained from the shipwreck that had cast Choco on these shores...” (Garcia, p. 238). Is the reference saying that the gun was salvaged from the shipwreck 20 years earlier? Who would have salvaged and saved it? The missionaries hadn’t yet arrived. It is conceivable that the gun found its way to the maga’lahi of the Saipan village where their ship was wrecked. It would have been a valuable piece of metal that could be used as a trade item. Twenty years later this gun was in the possession of the priests.

!

Father Peter Coomans described Sangleys like Choco as ‘overly astute and perverse;…only interested in profits and grabbing Spanish silver by means fair and foul’ (Coomans, pp. 23-24). This generalization points to his prejudice against nonChristian Chinese – a prejudice shared by religious authorities in Manila at the time.

!

66 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

During this time Choco gained great influence over the Chamorros, claiming to be a strong sorcerer (Farrell, p. 155). His ability to forge iron would also impress them, because they valued metal to use for tools and fish hooks, as documented by early visitors and missionaries.

!

Choco had obviously established himself as a valued member of Chamorro society during his 20 years in the islands prior to the arrival of the Spanish missionaries. If he had wished to return to the Philippines he could have approached those who sailed the Spanish galleons, stopping at Guahan on their annual voyage from Acapulco to Manila. This suggests that Choco found his new life to be superior to his old life as a Sangley in the Philippines. Based on the long history of Chinese persecution by the Spanish in the Philippines, Choco would have resented the Spanish intrusion into his new home and elevated status in Guahan.

!

17th Century Chamorro Society How would 17th century Taotao tano’ (people of the land; natives) have responded to the arrival of an outsider (taotao lågo)? We have recorded instances of actual responses from the time of Magellan’s visit in 1521 and that of several subsequent explorers and visitors. Pigafetta, who chronicled Magellan’s voyage around the world, labeled the natives as thieves (ladrones) because they took anything they pleased from the ships, particularly metal, which they greatly valued. This was after 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !67

they had generously fed the starving crew. Gonzalo Alvarez de Vigo and two companions deserted from Magellan’s flagship Trinidad in Maug in the Northern Mariana Islands in 1522. His two companion deserters were killed, but he lived to tell his story to members of the Loaysa expedition in 1526 (Rogers, p.10). Of the original seven ships of the Loaysa expedition, only the Santa Maria de la Victoria, under the command of Alonso de Salazar, reached the Marianas. The ship was reprovisioned by the people of Rota (Luta), who received bits of metal in return for baskets of food and water in bamboo poles that were hoisted aboard ship. In return for this hospitality, Salazar kidnapped 11 Chamorros to serve as crew (Farrell, p.

126).

!

In January 1565, the islands were officially claimed for Spain by Miguel Lopez de Legazpi. He reportedly sailed into Umatac Bay and brought a large contingent on shore where they cut wood for crosses and placed them on coconut trees, after which a short ceremony and mass was held to attest to the claim (Rogers, 1995: 14).

Legazpi and several members of this voyage described Chamorro trading practices at the time, including an incident that defined the nature of Chamorro society as perceived by the Spaniards. The following is attributed to Fr. Martin Rada, dated May 1565:

!

They are a people inclined to behave badly, and whenever they carry out some wicked thing they show great happiness at having done it. …Thus, it was seen a few times, when the General gave a few things to the Indians that looked like chiefs, things like jingle bells, mirrors, and trade goods, they fought with the one receiving them and they snatched them from one another’s hands and took flight.

They always went about looking for something to steal. They removed a piece of iron from the rudder of the patache San Juan and they tried to pull the nails from the sides of the ships. One day, an Indian dared to jump from his canoe into the skiff that was tied alongside to the rigging with a cable. He untied it and, returning to the canoe, was pulling the skiff by the cable in order to take it away.

He was about to succeed when they shouted at him from the ship; the Indian burst out laughing. (Levesque, Vol 2, p. 161-2) Accounts throughout this period of early contact describe the natives’ delight in playing tricks on one another and on outsiders. A common response to being caught seemed to be that of treating the incident as a joke. In this way, confrontation was diffused. Perhaps in instances of not being caught, the act not only had material rewards but indicated the ultimate in successful trickery. The openness by which Chamorros took things from one another indicated that these acts weren’t perceived as theft. A particularly non-Western set of values was being 68 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

witnessed and misunderstood by Europeans. This reveals Chamorro reciprocal relations which will be discussed later. This same account also tells about a more violent incident in which an obvious act of revenge was being portrayed. There had been a few skirmishes in which the Spaniards had fired their arquebuses at the natives. During a period of peace, however, some crew members had gone ashore to obtain water, and they inadvertently left behind a ship’s boy on shore when they returned to the ship. He was tortured and killed by the natives, who then taunted the crew who came to rescue the boy. “However, even while this was going on, there was always a large quantity of proas trading around the fleet” (Levesque, Vol 2, p.

163).

!

Had this cabin boy insulted or provoked the natives which caused them to treat him so violently? Or had Legazpi’s party insulted a particular clan who chose to seek revenge in this way? Later references by Fray Juan Pobre (Driver, p. 213) point out the peaceful nature of the people and state that killings only occurred in retaliation for violence by the intruders.

!

Fray Antonio de Los Angeles was aboard the galleon San Pablo when it stopped in the Ladrones on its way to Manila in 1596. Moved to “seek the salvation of those barbarians,” he boarded one of the many small canoes that surrounded the ship offering woven palm mats, coconuts and fish to trade for pieces of iron. He and two companions who followed him lived among the people until they were taken aboard the next ship that passed that way the following year. He emphasized the kindness of the people, their great greed for iron and various native customs:

! ...When they visit, it is their custom to take one another gifts; he who takes the best one is the most honored. As soon as a guest arrives, he is given hot water with which to wash, and when he leaves, he is [also] presented with a gift of some kind. If there is business to transact, as the guest departs, he is called aside and the matter is then taken care of. They are a very happy people and fond of tricks. (Driver, 1977, p. 19-21) The next available account of the islands and its people during this period is by Fray Juan Pobre de Zamora, a lay brother of the Franciscan order of Discalced Friars. Enroute from Acapulco to the Philippines, to which Fray Juan Pobre was returning to resume his missionary duties, he and a companion jumped ship in Rota in 1602. He enticed the occupants of one canoe to take them ashore:

!

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !69

As soon as the ships were out of sight, the indio who had Fray Juan Pobre and his companion in his vessel took them directly to his village of Tazga, which is located between two other villages, one named Guaco and the other Atetito, where Rodrigo de Peralta and 10 or 12 other Spaniards from the Santa Margarita had been killed.

The indio disembarked in front of his house, very pleased with his prize of the two missionaries. Such a large number of curious people gathered to see the religious that ‘I was astounded to see the multitude of indios on that small island. The indio took us to his house, which was one of the best of the village, for he was among the principales of the island’. (Driver, p. 204) He learned of other shipwreck survivors living on Saipan and Tinian and was eventually visited by Sancho, a survivor who lived on Guam.

!

Sancho and Fray Juan each spoke of the man of the family he lived with as his “master”. Whether they realized it or not, it seems that these foreigners had been adopted into their Chamorro families. These two Spaniards freely travelled between villages in their host islands, and Sancho was brought by canoe from Guam to visit Fray Juan on Rota. Fray Juan’s master was called Sunama, a leader in the village of Tazga in Rota. Sancho was brought from the village of Pago on Guam to the village of Guaco in Rota. The fact that they didn’t travel directly to Tazga indicates that there must have been kinship ties between Pago and Guaco which made that the first place to visit, rather than in Tazga. Sancho and Fray Juan refer to being treated kindly as long as they treated the Chamorros with kindness, and were told by islanders that the reason other Spaniards were killed was because they had killed or mistreated people who had hosted them (Driver, pp. 212-13 )

!

Sancho told Fray Juan about the customs of the people of the Ladrones as he observed them in 1602: “They keep peace, love each other, and care for one another.

Yet, they are not Christians as we are (Driver, p. 207). In 1668, when Diego Luis de San Vitores established their mission in the Marianas, Chamorro initial responses to the arrival of the missionaries had been welcoming and generous. They called the visitors guirragos (gilagos), meaning [from overseas], and called Padre San Vitores Ma’gas Padre, meaning “great priest”. Maga’lahi Quipuha had given them land in Hagåtña on which to build a church and had initially increased his prestige by hosting Padre San Vitores in his village. Other maga’lahi vied for the honor of hosting missionaries. They received gifts of iron and items of clothing. It is likely that they hoped to be the recipients of new knowledge brought by the missionaries, the possession of which would increase their power and prestige (Rogers, p. 48).

!

70 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Since Choco and his companions were not killed after being cast ashore in Saipan, we know that their actions were acceptable to their hosts. Was Choco adopted into a Chamorro family? We only know that he married a woman from Saipan and subsequently moved to Pa’a in Guahan. Based on Sancho’s village of Pago in Guahan being somehow associated with Guaco in Luta, does this mean that there were kinship ties between the woman’s village in Saipan and the village of Pa’a? If Choco was adopted, perhaps his family had ties to Pa’a.

!

Child Rearing and Socialization “The men and women are hard workers, not lazy, and have little regard for those who do not work” (Driver, p. 210). A mutual support system of reciprocal service involved children from a young age, who participated as well as observed rituals proper to certain activities. They inculcated these values in their children through their own example. Children learned proper social behavior by observing the actions of those around them and imitating them. In this way they probably learned the expressions of courtesy observed by Frey Juan Pobre in 1602: “They are loving by nature and when they greet a person, they kiss on the face and make great signs of affection”(Driver, 1977: 19).

!

Upon reaching puberty a young man became uritao (bachelor) and moved to his mother’s clan, under the supervision of his mother’s brother. He moved into the guma’ uritao, or ‘men’s house’ of the clan, which served as his home from the time of puberty until his marriage (Cunningham, p. 183-4). During this time the uritao learned life skills as well as how to interact with women. It was considered prestigious for the family of one of their daughters was selected to serve in the guma’ uritao. Her family received valuable gifts such as turtle shell from the uritao, which increased their wealth and status. She served for a set period of time, and this service was called ma uritao. When she returned to her family, she was considered as ready for marriage. If she was pregnant, she became more valued because she proved her ability to have children. Any children born from ma uritao were welcomed into the family (Cunningham, p. 184). This practice was abhorred by the missionaries. One of the requirements for baptism was that the villagers destroy their guma’ uritao, or men’s house which the missionaries condemned because of the sexual freedoms between young men and women which were practiced there (Garcia, p. 393).

!

The uritao carried walking sticks which they called tuna [tunas – meaning straight] which were “curiously carved and colored with the root of a plant called mangu [ mango’ – turmeric]. At the head of this they affix through a hole three streamers half a yard in length made from the soft bark of the trees with heavy threads in the form of tassels” (Garcia, p. 408). Based on comparative cultural evidence with similar sticks used in Chuuk (Truk – 500 miles to the south), it seems likely that the 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !71

tunas may have been used as a “love stick”. The uritao would make sure that the girl of his choice saw the distinctive carvings of his stick, which he would use to poke through the wall or floor of the room where she slept. If she was not interested in him, she would push the stick back out. If she wanted to see him, she would either go out to meet him or pull the stick inside to indicate that he should join her (Cunningham, p. 44).

!

Older youths sharpened their fighting skills by performing hand-to-hand combat in front of their leaders:

!

Sometimes they take hard falls. When this happens, the friend of the one pinned underneath comes forth and, with great arrogance, says, ‘Now, you will have to fight me’, and he begins to fight with the victor. In this way, one follows another and some are so arrogant that they say, ‘you are mere children and should fight with children and not with me.’ This is the way they prove their strength... This is the way they brag before the leading citizens. (Driver, p. 212) Adults also indulged in fights and other activities to prove their strength. They were “happy people and mockers,” who usually settled their differences peacefully or with only minor skirmishes. Garcia elaborates on the nature of battles between rival villages:

!

One town gets ready to go against another with much shouting but without any leader or order or any discipline. They are usually two or three days on campaign without attacking, observing one another’s movements. When they finally join battle, they very quickly make peace, because when one or two are killed on one side, that side gives up and sends ambassadors to the other carrying tortoise shells in token of surrender. The victors celebrate the triumph with satiric songs, exalt their valor, and make fun of the conquered.. (Garcia, p. 170) The use of intrigue and maneuvering for position rather than direct confrontation in battle is in character with their general tendency towards non-confrontation.

(This trait can still be observed in contemporary Chamorro society.) Although deliberate murders within a village were infrequent, such social transgressions were dealt with by the exile of the perpetrator and presentation of gifts from the family of the assassin to the family of the victim. Once the gifts have been accepted, the exile is free to return (Driver, p. 212).

!

72 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Satirical songs and debates seemed to be the more popular way to settle differences:

!

They also come together to debate. The people of one party take their places inside some sheds and the other party likewise. One gets up and begins to debate and to throw verses and tell witticisms in their style against whomever is in front of him or against the other town and after he has finished another from the opposite side begins to debate against the former one. In that manner many towns come together as I have said to debate against one another. This dispute or debate persists from 8 in the morning until 2 when they eat what they have brought although usually the town where the gathering takes place gives them food. (Levesque, 1992: III: 180) This excerpt is from a longer account by Fray Juan Pobre concerning celebrations.

The use of this art form in celebrations points out the value attributed to these ‘debate verses.’ Accounts indicate that huge feasts were organized around the central activity of poetic debate and song. Perhaps these ‘debate verses’ were a form of exchange or mutual offering between clans, a sort of reciprocal speech-making.

!

Sancho stated that during the time he had spent with the Chamorros they displayed reciprocal practices that allowed everyone to benefit from shared labor.

He gave examples of what he called their very compassionate nature, such as sharing their fresh catch with the family of a fisherman who is ill, gathering together to help repair or rebuild a house. “The situation is that, what I do for my relatives and friends, they will also do for me (Driver, p. 210-11).

!

How was Choco able to present a reciprocal balance in his new home? What did he have that contributed to the wealth and status of his new family and village? In order to attract a wife, he had to have something to offer Chamorro society. One source says he claimed to be a sourcerer. What could he have used from his Chinese background and experiences to convince them of this? His ability to forge iron into tools was an obvious attribute that Chamorros needed and admired. They admired hard workers, feats of strength, poetry and debate, and even trickery.

!

Interactions with gilågu (outsiders) was a risk to the Chamorro hosts. If members of their clan were harmed or insulted in any way, their response was in the form of emmok (revenge), as shown in the death of Legaspi’s cabin boy. Other clans who were not threatened continued to trade with them. As shown in the Juan Pobre account, the taotaotano’ viewed foreign visitors as a possible resource of knowledge or compensation in material goods, which would increase the status of their clan.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !73

They were therefore ready to take the risk associated with interaction with gilågo – as long as they were not threatened or insulted.

!

Visitor accounts repeatedly told of initial acts of hospitality, particularly the feeding of new arrivals, called ayudu (assistance) or inafa’maolek (making it good for everyone). This act required an equal act of reciprocity by the guests. Beads and other trinkets obviously weren’t considered adequate to restore the reciprocal balance. The hosts felt justified to help themselves to the items they valued most – iron (lulok). Their love of intrigue and trickery further confused the gilågu. In their society, a non-confrontational way to get out of a bad situation was to treat the act as a joke. Based on my observation of present-day actions of this nature, both the perpetrator and the victim know that certain actions were done out of greed, but the situation is resolved by stopping the activity and laughing it off as a joke.

!

Conflict resolution through debate in poetic verse was reportedly much admired.

Based on these accounts and on surviving practices I have observed, I would venture to say that the prestige of a clan or village depended in part on the skill of their poets. There was obviously a competitive element in their performance. Early chronicles called this art form mari (Levesque, Vol 3, p.180), and it has survived into the 21st century in the form of what Laura Thompson (1938) called chamorita (little verses) or kantan chamorita (songs of little verses).

!

Exchange and Reciprocity Reciprocal obligations were very strong in Chamorro society. Each action required a reaction –a gift or service given incurred a debt for the receiver that must be paid at a future time. In the same way, an insult or injury required an act of revenge, called emmok, by the victim or his family, lineage, or clan (Cunningham, p. 188-9).

Both of these forms of reciprocity are evident in many of the chronicles, such as the skirmishes between villages and clans in retaliation for embarrassments or insults, and equally in their systems of sharing the daily catch of fish and in the repairing or building of a house. The actions observed by visitors during this period and condemned as thievery or deceit were probably due to reciprocal practices which were misunderstood.

!

Kinship in a Matrilineal Society In the Chamorro system of matrilineal inheritance, a woman’s children, because they belonged to her clan, would have a close, loving relationship with her brother – their uncle (mother’s brother). A man’s eldest sister as well as his mother’s eldest sister was held in high esteem because their children were in the line of 74 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

inheritance after his younger brothers (Cunningham, p. 91). There would have been close bonds between these women and children of his clan out of respect for their title as well as for their rank according to age. Sancho stated in another part of his account that “it is the brothers and not the children who are the inheritors” (Driver, p. 215). This statement supports the system of matrilineal inheritance whereby the leadership would pass from an older brother to a younger brother and then to his sister’s eldest son. What is described here is a matrilineal inheritance system. The fact that the women had great power in Chamorro society is documented in the following example:

!

In each family the head is the father or elder relative, but with limited influence. Thus, a son as he grows up neither fears nor respects his father. As with brute animals, the father has this advantage: he has the place where he gives them their food. In the home it is the mother who rules, and the husband does not dare give an order contrary to her wishes or punish the children, because if the woman feels offended, she will either beat the husband or leave him. Then if the wife leaves the house, all the children follow her, knowing no other father than the next husband their mother may take. (Garcia, p. 172) This account tends to give an extreme example, although one which was observed on more than one occasion. There undoubtedly was respect and love among husbands and wives as well as between children and their father. The tenderness Fray Juan Pobre observed with which both parents disciplined their children is an example of the balance created by this type of social structure. This passage, however, points out that men lost a great deal when their wives left them, and it would cost his clan dearly to gather wealth for another bride price should he wish to remarry. Therefore, husbands tended to treat their wives with respect, and his family encouraged his good behavior because of their stake in the marriage as well.

!

Status “The highest rank in an ancient Chamorro society was maga’lahi. He was the oldest male chamorri in the highest-ranking lineage of the clan that controlled a village.

The highest-ranking woman in the village was the maga’haga”. Wealth and power were, in many ways, determined by the control of land, which was inherited through the mother’s line. “A maga’lahi who died was succeeded by his brothers in order of birth. If there were no younger living brothers, then his eldest sister’s eldest son or his mother’s eldest sister’s son became chief” (Cunningham, p. 91).

Researchers differ on the structure of Chamorro society. Early theory proposes that there were three distinct castes; while a second theory is that there were two, less structured classes of Chamorros (Farrell, p. 90). It is clear that the matua comprise 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !75

the higher class of warriors, canoe makers, latte builders, and traders. A matua, for just cause and consensus among village leaders, could be lowered to the cast of atcha’ot. These two classes comprised the Chamorri, or noble cast. The manachang did not mix with the matua and the atcha’ot. They were primarily farmers and could trade their produce for fish from the matua. They could not eat or drink or even pass near the houses of the matua (Farrell, pp. 90-91).

!

The statements made by Fray Juan Pobre and by Garcia both indicate that status entailed differential power or specialization of some kind. An example of specialization is that of a village in Tinian, which at one time had the exclusive right to string alas, a kind of shell valuable. Other accounts claim that this was the exclusive right of some chiefs (Cunningham, 1992: 78). Fena, an inland village of Guam in the pre-colonial era, gives evidence of its high status by the remains of the biggest latte stones found on the island (Cunningham, 1997: personal written communication). Regarding ranking in Chamorro society, he believes that each district had both castes, and that the ranking of villages was in constant flux.

!

Using the analogy of the status of villages being determined by the status of the matao residing there can perhaps help us understand the difference between individual ownership and clan ownership. Could it be that individuals who gained individual prestige by their ability to collect turtle shells (by whatever physical or other resources they had) lent that prestige to their clan? The resources of an individual could be called upon in times when the clan needed to show its collective wealth, thus maintaining or increasing its status. Likewise, the individuals within the clan probably maintained or increased their status by their ability to contribute to the collective resources of the clan.

!

The important point to be noted from the above discussion is the reciprocal nature of Chamorro society, regardless of the particular nature of the ranking of its members. Manachang were not serfs or slaves. They were free to leave one area and to move to another. Nevertheless, a caste is a group into which one is born and from which one cannot move. There are no marriages between castes. By this definition Chamorros had castes (Cunningham, 1997: personal written communication). The reciprocal obligations of the chamorri to those who gave tribute resulted in a society in which the basic needs of all were of primary concern.

! !

76 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Beliefs and Rituals Ancient Chamorros did not worship any idols, according to Fray Juan, but they had reverence for the skulls of their ancestors, especially those of their parents and grandparents. He makes a remark about not worshipping idols but rather “ancestral locations,” but does not elaborate further. Such a practice would conform to the surviving belief that the ancestral spirits reside in the jungle, in specific places most often associated with the banyan tree. Land was passed down through generations of clan members, and was therefore ancestral land. Like the surviving belief of asking permission to pass near the ancestors who reside in the banyan tree, ancient Chamorros probably asked permission to enter the ancestral lands of another clan (Cunningham, 1992: 100).

!

Several chroniclers state that the Chamorros had no religion, probably referring to the lack of edifices dedicated to worship of any deity. They did, however, have specialists in the manipulation of and intervention between the physical and spiritual world, called makahnas [contemporary spelling]. Although every family evidently kept skulls and performed rituals with them, the makahnas were reported to have many skulls with which they conferred regularly. As opposed to individual clan members who revered and talked to their antes – or ancestors, a makahna could commune with anites – spirits of clans other than his own and who could be malicious to members outside their clan (Cunningham, 1992: 100). Makahnas promised health, rain, successful fishing, and similar benefits by invoking the skulls of dead persons that they kept in little baskets in their house (Garcia, p. 174).

!

It is ironic that these seventeenth-century Europeans would not recognize another concept of spiritual intervention which in many ways paralleled beliefs of their own civilization at that time. This was the time of witchcraft trials in Europe and America, when many women were tortured and killed for allegedly exhibiting signs of black magic. It was also a time when the Spanish Catholic church advanced the cause of their religion through frequent exorcism rituals to triumph over the devil, and through the verification of miraculous acts to glorify the divinity of their god.

The chroniclers could only explain spiritual intervention of another culture by ascribing the acts to their own devil.

!

From the actions described, however, we can begin to understand that the Chamorro sense of proper behavior and respect revolved around community beliefs that were interpreted and regulated by the makahna. One’s sense of personhood developed from his expected role within these regulations. Mockery and ridicule were ways of keeping members of society within expected roles.

Punishment for transgressions became in a way self-imposed through peer condemnation.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !77

Garcia made reference to their worship of idols and skulls [my emphasis], which they discouraged during the missionization period. He stated that the natives told him that worship of idols was a recent influence of a Chinese idolater who was cast ashore in a storm and who had lived among them for twenty years. He taught them to “show reverence for the bones and skulls of the dead, whom they paint on the bark of trees and blocks of wood” (Garcia, p. 174). One of the figures had three heads on its shoulders (ibid, p.188). This reference to a recent introduction of carved idols has credence in that the Fray Juan Pobre accounts of 1602 do not mention the existence of wooden idols or paintings on trees but give detailed observations on the reverence paid to skulls. Garcia related one of the first acts of the missionaries in the Marianas as that of destroying idols, describing the action of one of Padre San Vitores’ assistant priests:

!

He put to the fire a good-sized mound of these idols on his first visit to the island of Guam [and] had them bury the skulls of their ancestors, which was his condition for dealing with them as God’s people. (Garcia, p. 356) During a battle between the Chamorros and the people of the mission, the Chamorros built portable barricades upon which they placed “skulls and the Devil’s banners…Father Francisco Solano went out with great fervor to break the eyes off them, breaking the skulls as the people watched” [Levesque’s note: This statement, about the Devil’s banners and the breaking of eyes, makes me think that some skulls, but more probably some wooden figurines, had eyes made of pearl shells, etc..] (Levesque, Vol 5, p. 398). If the introduction of idols was attributed to Choco by the natives, his influence on Chamorro society was significant.

!

Summary The accounts of Fray Juan Pobre and others who were welcomed as adopted members of Chamorro society provide evidence of the nature of the Chamorros to be generous and non-violent. The Chamorros had their own motives for hosting these outsiders, among which were those of gaining prestige associated with their presence and the possibility of rewards when the visitor was returned to his people upon the arrival of the next ship. The extension of kinship relations was valued, and stories of shipwreck survivors tell of people who became permanent members of Chamorro society, living the remainder of their lives as full members of their adopted clan. When Padre Diego Luis de San Vitores arrived on Guam in 1668 to establish a mission, his party of fifty people, including priests, lay ministers, and soldiers, was welcomed (Rogers, p. 45-7; Garcia, p. 177). Choco’s influence was powerful enough to almost defeat the early missionization efforts.

!

78 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Choco was obviously an astute observer of social behaviors and was able to conform satisfactorily to the social expectations of his new family. Our knowledge of ancient Chamorro society can give clues to what he might have done. He obviously understood and followed Chamorro etiquette, rituals, and beliefs; which he was then able to expound upon for his own purposes. He had skills in forging iron that the natives greatly valued. This gave him wealth and status. Such attributes would make him an asset to the family or clan who took him in.

!

Considering the sexual freedoms of the period, it would have been easy for him to marry an eligible woman. With his relative wealth and status, a family would have accepted his presentations of gifts and valuables to secure a wife. Considering the fact that in Chamorro society the wife moved to the clan of her husband, we can assume that Choco was invited to live in Pa’a. His attributes would have increased the wealth and status of any village of which he was associated. Any sons from their union would have gone back to their mother’s clan. Any daughters would have remained in Choco’s adopted clan of Pa’a.

!

He must have been very persuasive and skillful in the making of images. Perhaps this is where his claim to sorcery originated. Missionary documents refer to many carved and painted images that people attributed to him. Therefore his influence was significant. Because of his wife’s clan connections to Saipan, Choco was able to spread his influence throughout Guahan and Saipan; and others spread his words and images throughout the island chain.

!

He must have learned the Chamorro language very quickly and became fluent to the extent that he could debate with San Vitores in front of his community at Pa’a.

After 20 years of emersion in Chamorro society, Choco’s language skills would have been as good as that of a native speaker (based on personal experience). Coupled with his obvious persuasive skills, he would have been able to hold his own in a debate that would have entertained and persuaded his Chamorro audience. San Vitores, a gilågo with much less language emersion, was apparently even more persuasive, and won the three-day debate – according to missionary documents.

!

Both of these gilågo were using Chamorro practices to advance their own personal agendas. Choco knew that gatherings traditionally didn’t last for more than two or three days at the most, because the hosting of debates (mari) involved feeding the gathering. Furthermore, the attention of the audience would have dissipated by the third day. I propose that Choco pretended to give in and to convert so that the mari would be concluded. As a member of the host village, he would not lose face by 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !79

conceding. To do otherwise would stretch the resources of his clan and reduce their wealth. As the missionaries found out later, he was “just joking”.

!

It is evident that Choco helped in the Chamorro uprisings against the Spanish as new battle weapons and maneuvers were noted in the missionary documents. There is no mention of Pa’a after San Vitores’ debate with Choco. There was an aggressive campaign against rebellious villages in Guahan in 1674, led by the garrison’s new commander, Damian de Esplana. Villages and crops were destroyed and captives were tortured and killed. Many Chamorros fled to Luta where they were ignored for the next decade (Russell, pp. 301-2). Pa’a could have been destroyed at that time, and Choco could have been killed. Alternately, he may have fled to Luta. He is not mentioned as being captured or killed. In 1680, natives were forced to settle in one of six villages during the reduccion (Russell, p. 305), and any people who remained at Pa’a would have been resettled in the village of Inalahan.

!

Conclusion It is often brief references to incidences that provide interesting footnotes to history. The research on this particular incident in Mariana Island history helps us to understand that the story of our islands is intertwined with global events that brought outsiders to our shores. By personalizing Choco, we can better understand the relationship between the Mariana Islands and the Philippines, and furthermore to understand the role of the Chinese in the Philippines; and how these many players affected and were impacted by the world spice trade of the 17th century.

80 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Presentation Slides

!

 

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !81

!

82 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !83

!

84 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !85

!

86 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !87

!

88 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !89

References Bergreen, Laurence 2003 Over the edge of the world: Magellan’s terrifying circumnavigation of the globe.

New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

!

Blair, Emma Helen & Robertson, James Alexander, eds.

1904 The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898 (in Spanish). Volume 15 of 55 (1609). Completely translated into English and annotated by the editors. Cleveland, Ohio: Arthur H. Clark Company.

!

Coomans, Fr. Peter 2000 History of the mission in the Mariana Islands, 1667-1673. Translated and Edited by Rodrigue Levesque. Saipan: Northern Marianas Division of Historic Preservation.

!

Cunningham, L. 1992 Ancient Chamorro society. Honolulu: Bess Press

!

de Viana, Augusto V. 2004 In the Far Islands: The role of natives from the Philippines in the conquest, colonization and repopulation of the Mariana Islands 1668-1903. Manila: University of Santo Thomas

!

Driver, M. 1977 The Account of a discalced friar’s stay in the islands of the Ladrones. Guam Recorder, 2d Ser. 7: 19-21. Translation from Spanish of Marcelo de Ribadeneira.

Historia de las islas del Archipelago Filipino y reinos de la Gran China, Tartaria, Cochinchina, Maluca, Siam, Cambodge y Japon. Edited by P. Juan R. de Legisima, O.F.M., Capitulo XIX. Madrid: Editorial Catolica, 1947.

1989 Fray Juan Pobre in the Marianas, 1602. Mangilao, Guam: Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam.

!

Farrell, Don A. 1991 History of the Northern Mariana Islands. Saipan: Public School System of the Northern Mariana Islands.

!

Garcia, F., S. J. 2004 ([1683]). Life and martyrdom of the venerable Father Diego Luis De SanVitores of the Society of Jesus, first apostle of the Mariana Islands and events of these islands 1668-1681.

Translated by Margaret M. Higgins, Felicia Plaza, M.M.B., Juan M.H. Ledesma, S.J. Edited by James A. McDonough, S.J. Mangilao: Richard F. Taitano Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam.

!

Klöter, Henning 2011 The Language of the Sanglays: A Chinese vernacular in Missionary sources of the seventeenth century. Brill Leiden: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ History_of_Manila#Prehistory_and_indigenous_civilizations

!

Lach, Donald F. and Van Kley, Edwin J. 1993 Asia in the making of Europe, Vol III: a century of advance. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press 90 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Levesque, R., ed.

1992 History of Micronesia: A collection of documents. Vols. 1 to 6. Gatineau, Canada: Levesque Publications.

!

Rogers, Robert F. 1995 Destiny’s landfall: A history of Guam. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

!

Russell, Scott 1998 Tiempon I Manmofo’na: ancient Chamorro culture and history of the Northern Mariana Islands. Saipan: Division of Historic Preservation

!

Wikipedia 2004 “Sampan”. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampan (accessed 2 November 2013).

! !

--Judy Flores, PhD, is a folklorist, historian, teacher, and visual artist who has lived and worked in the island of Guam since 1957. A child of school teachers, she grew up in the southern village of Inarajan, and speaks fluent Chamorro. She earned a BA from the University of Guam and an MA from the University of Washington. She taught secondary school art for 10 years, then served as folklorist for the Guam arts council for another 10 years. She helped found Gef Pa’go, Guam’s only living museum of Chamorro culture; serving successively as advisor, director and president over a 20-year period. She earned a second MA in Micronesian Studies from the University of Guam; and PhD in Arts of Oceania from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England. She returned to teach at the University of Guam, from which she retired in 2005.

!

She is widely recognized as a professional visual artist of batik paintings that depict Guam’s culture and history that can be seen in many of Guam’s public buildings.

In 2011, she published Estorian Inalahan: History of a Spanish-Era Village in Guam.

She is currently in the process of restoring an early-1900s building in Inarajan historic district, to house a history center.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !91

!

92 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

1800’s in the Marianas A Nation in the Making

!

By Carlos Madrid, PhD Researcher and Assistant Professor University of Guam cmadrid@uguam.uog.edu

! !

Abstract: Nation-building is one of the byproducts of the colonization processes that the Spanish Crown practiced in the 16th-19th Centuries. The transculturation of chunks of both European and Indigenous-American heritages into the indigenous culture of the Mariana Islands happened in a prolonged, ambiguous process that left indelible marks. Historically, the Spanish component of that identity has been manifested in a complex of superiority towards the indigenous, corresponding now with what could be regarded as a complex of inferiority. A proper understanding of this unique process of appropriation and indigenization is worthy of attention and further study, inasmuch as it can help to neutralize some of the identity tensions existing in Guam in the 21st Century.

Editor’s Note: This paper, presented at the Marianas History Conference, was not made available for publication.

! !

--Carlos Madrid Álvarez-Piñer, researcher and assistant professor at the University of Guam’s Micronesian Area Research Center, graduated PhD cum laude in Contemporary History from Universidad Complutense de Madrid. He has been conducting archival research on the Philippines and Micronesia since 1996. He is formerly a member of the board of directors of the Asociación Española de Estudios del Pacífico. Carlos has volunteered at the CNMI Museum of Culture, at Guam’s Historic Preservation Office, and at the Belau National Museum. In the Philippines, he was Academic Coordinator of the SPCC at Instituto Cervantes de Manila. He was editor-in-chief of Filipiniana.net, Vibal Publishing House.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !93

!

94 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Demons Described, Demons Discredited How the 17th Century Jesuit Missionaries to the Marianas Addressed Indigenous Beliefs

!

By Nicholas Chow Sy MA History Student Ateneo de Manila nicholas.chow.sy@gmail.com

! !

Abstract: Despite the beatification of one missionary in 1985 and the canonization of his lay assistant in 2012, the Jesuits’ method of conversion in the Marianas has not been extensively studied. Their seventeenth century mission attempted to impress a fundamentally foreign set of beliefs on a people with an age-old conviction in an independent reality. It was not an easy task. The present work combs through three decades of missionary accounts (1668 to 1699) to outline their strategy in dealing with indigenous Chamorro beliefs. It also contextualizes their actions within the logic with which they were performed. The study’s focus is limited to missionaries’ experiences of their effort. However, by describing the oral, visual, and experiential stimuli to which the Chamorro were exposed, it also aims to provide building blocks for future work on the Chamorro experience of the conversion.

“Indigenous beliefs” as discussed in this work, are those that the missionaries perceived as religious in nature (described as superstitious or proto-idolatrous in their texts) i.e. ancestor veneration. The 17th century Chamorro practiced ancestor veneration. The Christian missionaries who came to them in 1668 attempted to teach them otherwise. What ensued was the attempted transformation of the concept and veneration of the Ante, by a Christian ideology bent on hegemony. This article is about the methods and meanings involved in that pursuit.

!

Ancestral Veneration – As Understood by the Chamorro1 From the Chamorro perspective ancestral veneration is understood as “an extension of basic human relationships from this world to the supernatural world”.2 The ancestor continued his presence in the world even after death. He

1 !

Applied in this study are basic understandings of ancestor veneration drawn from primary and secondary sources. I recognized that the indigenous dimension can best be studied after a comprehensive analysis of seventeenth century indigenous values. Unfortunately resources constraints mean that this effort is not possible at present.

!

2

Lawrence Cunningham, Ancient Chamorro Society (Honolulu 1992), 97.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !95

held influence over “the natural world and the course of events”.3 His spirit was generally human in its interaction with those left behind. It was treated with the reverence and respect befitting the elders of the family. It protected, aided, or punished people according to their fulfillment or non-fulfillment of kinship obligations. These spirits were called on for help, thanked for their assistance, and invited to for ceremonies as kinsmen.

!

Every person could communicate with the ancestors. Central in this interaction with the spirits were the ancestral skulls, as well as other figures made of wood, or drawn on bark. It was to these representations that requests and offerings were made when the living needed help. It was to them that thanks and honor were given when assistance was granted. The makahnas were spiritual leaders particularly attuned to these spirits, and could be relied on for assistance in dealing with them.4

!

There were variations in the characters of these spirits. There were those understood as members of the family, members of a different family, or spirits that generally inhabited locations. There were those who were spirits of the recent dead, of past chiefs, and of the creators of the universe. Despite these variations all were generally ancestral spirits that could give or take away their support, and that could harm if they were not respected. The difference between them depended mainly on “the amount of familiarity or distance between these spirits and the living Chamorros”5

!

The seventeenth century Jesuit missionaries imposed Catholic meanings on these beliefs and practices. In the emerging colonial context, the Chamorro would negotiate and appropriate these meanings.

!

The Study of Seventeenth Century Christianization on the Marianas Historical works have studied Christianization during the seventeenth century along two overlapping trends: those that focus on the recounting and assessment of events, and those that focus on the critique of meaning. Many works of the first trend discuss the intertwined histories of colonial Church and State, and highlight the mission’s social and political realities. Important examples of this category are !

3

Michael Bevacqua, ‘Chamorro ancestor worship’, (2010b), available online at http://guampedia.com/ chamorro-ancestor-worship/, accessed May 2013.

4 !

Cunningham, Ancient Chamorro Society, 97, 102, 104; Bevacqua, ‘Chamorro ancestor worship’; Michael Bevacqua, ‘Chamorro ancestor worship’, (2010b), available online at http:// guampedia.com/chamorro-ancestor-worship/, accessed May 2013.

!

5

Michael Bevacqua, ‘Taotaomo’na’, (2013), available online at http://guampedia.com/taotaomonataotaomona/, accessed May 2013.

96 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

the studies of Fr. Julius Sullivan OFM,6 Paul Carano and Pedro Sanchez,7 Francis Hezel,8 Francis Hezel and Marjorie Driver,9 and Robert Rogers,10 and Augusto De Viana.11 Narratives propel such works. Generally they begin with the arrival of its founder Fr. Diego Luis de Sanvitores SJ in 1668. They then take the reader along a plot of emerging hostilities, military involvement, and demographic decline, until a definitive political subjugation and resettlement of the archipelago’s population in 1699.

!

Elements of the evangelization process, such as the missionaries’ methods and approaches, are dealt with in other works wholly dedicated to the subject.

Examples of these works are those by Fr. John Schumacher, SJ,12 James Tueller,13 Hezel,14 and Michael Bevacqua.15 Elements of evangelization are also dealt with in works that discuss them as subsections meant to contextualize a different topic under study. Examples of these works are those by Laura Thompson,16 Charles Beardesly,17 and Vicente Diaz.18 In the above works discussions of method and of

6 !

Julius Sullivan, OFM, The Phoenix rises: A mission history of Guam (New York 1957).

!

7

Paul Carano and Pedro Sanchez, A complete history of Guam (Tokyo 1964).

!

8

Francis Hezel, SJ, From conquest to colonization: Spain in the Mariana Islands 1670-1740... prepared for the Historic Preservation Office of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands..., typescript copy, in author’s possession, Ledesma Collection, Doc199; Francis Hezel, SJ, ‘From conversion to conquest: The early Spanish mission in the Marianas’, Journal of Pacific History, 17:3 (1982).

!

9

Francis Hezel, SJ, and Marjorie Driver, ‘From conquest to colonization: Spain in the Mariana Islands 1690–1740’, Journal of Pacific History, 23 (1988).

!

10

Rogers, Robert, Destiny’s landfall: A history of Guam (Honolulu 1995).

!

11

Augusto De Viana, In the far islands... (Manila 2004)

!

12

John Schumacher, SJ, ‘Blessed Pedro Calungsod, martyr...’, Philippine Studies, 49:3-4 (2001).

!

13

James Tueller, ‘Los Chamorros de Guam y la colonización Española: Una tercera etapa 1698 a 1747’, in Ma Dolores Elizalde, Josep Fradera, and Luis Alonso (eds.), Imperios y naciones en el Pacifico, 2 vols (Madrid 2001), II, 385-94. Also published in english elsewhere.

!

14

Francis Hezel, SJ ‘Integration of Catholicism into Guam and its people’, (2005), available online at http://micsem.org/pubs/articles/religion/frames/intcathguamfr.htm, accessed May 2013.

!

15

Michael Bevacqua, ‘Transmission of Christianity into Chamorro culture’, (2010a), available online at http://guampedia.com/transmission-of-christianity-into-chamorro-culture/, accessed June 2013.

!

16

Laura Thompson, Guam and its people…, 3rd ed. (Princeton 1947)

17 !

Charles Beardsley, Guam: Past and Present (Tokyo 1964)

! Vincent 18

Diaz, Repositioning the Missionary…, (Honolulu 2010) 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !97

approach usually overlap, usually tackle only a handful items, and usually are done in relation to the process a whole.19

!

Only a handful of works discuss these elements as applied to specific missionary goals within the process of evangelization, such as the subject of this study: the challenge of ancestor veneration. Assessments regarding this goal have been made in passing by Thompson,20 Beardesly,21 and Hezel.22 A more detailed discussion has been given by Bevacqua.23 This last author’s main focus though lies not with the missionaries but with the Chamorro experience. His objective is to challenge the prevalent notion of a pure and authentic Chamorro culture by describing

19 ! The

mission’s methods have been discussed within a variety of scopes. Fr. Ernest Burrus, SJ (1954) introduces and reproduces the provisional grammar and catechism written the mission’s founder on his way to the Marianas, giving insight into the purpose of the text. Paloma Albala y Hernandez (’Canciones españolas en las islas Marianas’, in Ma Dolores Elizalde, Josep Fradera, and Luis Alonso (eds.), Imperios y naciones en el Pacifico, 2 vols (Madrid 2001), II, 433-42) publishes a short reproduction and linguistic analysis of Spanish songs still sung in present day Marianas. These songs are all religious in content. In explaining their origin she points to the use of music in the evangelization. Fr. John Schumacher, SJ (2001a; 2001b) in his two-part study on the motives, origins, training, and roles of the mission’s lay companions, discusses the mission’s method of baptism, analyzing the procedures and the theological principles behind it. James Tueller (2001) discusses the missionaries’ promotion of exemplars within social networks developing in the new colonial context. He points out that the Jesuits did not have a monopoly on Christian exemplars.

Other Christians, whether old or new, also created them. Hezel (2005) in a short article on the integration of Catholicism into Guam, highlights the replacement of traditional Chamorro remedies as given by local spiritual leaders, with Spanish/Creole Christianity’s array of rituals and religious items. He also discusses the important role of the mission’s resettlement policy, the reduccion. Michael Bevacqua (2010a) discusses native agency in resisting and adapting to impositions from the missionaries. In discussing these impositions he gives specific focus to the missionaries demonization of the indigenous’ spirits, the banning of their spiritual leaders, and the destruction of their icons in an effort to stamp out local beliefs.

The missionaries’ general approach (as opposed to their specific methods, i.e. strategy as opposed to tactics) to evangelization has been discussed by just a handful of authors. Laura Thompson (1947), who studies the administrative challenges faced by the American government in post-war Guam, describes the old Jesuit approach to native customs and beliefs as one of suppression in tandem with the inculcation of Catholicism. Charles Beardsley (1964) discusses modern and pre-hispanic Chamorro spiritual beliefs in chapter seven of his work, linking these beliefs to those found in other societies. He then briefly sums up the missionaries policy against these beliefs as abolition and substitution. Vicente Diaz (2010) in his dissection of the meanings and narratives on the mission and martyrdom of Sanvitores, revisits this particular missionary’s evangelical method. He discusses the surprise and spectacle Sanvitores presented by his preaching in the simplest, most graphic, and entertaining modes. He also takes a closer look at Sanvitores’ demeanor, and argues that his sentiments and characterization as meek but determined, distracts historians from the man’s passive aggressive approach in dealing with people standing between him and God’s will.

According to Diaz, it was this approach that allowed Sanvitores to categorize as hostile, and to silence all who did not conform to his plan. ! Thompson, 20

Guam and its people…, [180]

!

21

Beardsley, Guam: Past and Present, 90.

!

22

Hezel, From conquest to colonization: Spain in the Mariana Islands 1670-1740, 27; Hezel, ‘Integration of Catholicism into Guam and its people’

!

23

Bevacqua, ‘Transmission of Christianity into Chamorro culture’

98 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Chamorro resistance and adaptation. This results in only a partial discussion of missionary methods, and limited discussion of the meaning that informed them.

Meaning here is used to refer to the concepts they tried to impose, and the logic behind their methods of imposition. The discussion on meaning has become essential, as recent scholarship by Diaz,24 Alexandre Coello,25 Bevacqua,26 and Frank Quimby27 have emphasized its critique.28

!

Now the study of the indigenous dimension actually has much to benefit from a systematic understanding of the missionary dimension. Only by a clear picture of what was communicated to the Chamorro, and how it was communicated, can Chamorro thoughts and actions at the encounter really be understood. And only

!

24

Diaz, Repositioning the Missionary…

!

25

Alexandre Coello, ‘Colonialismo y santidad en las Islas Marianas: Los soldados de Gedeón (1676-1690)’, Hispania. Revista Española de Historia, 70:234 (2010); Alexandre Coello, ‘Colonialismo y santidad en las islas Marianas: La sangre de los mártires (1668-1676)’, Hispania Sacra, 63:128 (2011)

!

26

Bevacqua, ‘Transmission of Christianity into Chamorro culture’

!

27

Frank Quimby, ‘The Hierro commerce: Culture contact, appropriation and colonial entanglement in the Marianas, 1521-1668’, Journal of Pacific History 46:1 (2011); Frank Quimby, ‘Islands in the stream of empire: Spain’s ‘Reformed’ Imperial Policy and First Proposals to colonize the Mariana Islands, 1565-1569’, paper presented at the 1st Marianas History Conference: One archipelago, many stories (2012).

!

28

Diaz (2010) unearths and examines a multiplicity of alternative and competing meanings and narratives on the mission and martyrdom of Diego Luis de Sanvitores, and the different investments in the promotion or stifling of these narratives.

Alexandre Coello (2010; 2011) looks into missionary narratives in play. He discusses the ways the missionaries and their hagiographers understood and characterized the natives, their military support, and themselves, and read in their accounts the discourse martyrdom, and the use of literary archetypes familiar to them. Coello explains that these understandings fused the mission’s objectives with the colonial objectives of the civil-military authority. They served to transform the peripheral space of the archipelago “into central references for the triumph of Christian dogma" (Coello 2011, 4).

Bevacqua (2010a) and Frank Quimby (2011; 2012) focus on the indigenous dimension. The first questions the prevalent notion of a pure and authentic Chamorro culture situated in the preHispanic past, and argues that culture should be seen as dynamic and constantly adapting, with every adaptation in itself authentic. Within this perspective, he describes Chamorro resistance and adaptation in the face of the missionaries’ imposition of Catholicism. Quimby (2011; 2012) meanwhile discusses the development of a “mediating contact culture” between the Spanish and the Chamorro along the continuum of encounters and exchange they had in the context of the iron trade. His discussion emphasizes the progressive learning that took place as experiences in each encounter added to collective experience with which these parties understood and approached each other. Quimby argues that the cultural understanding that developed was what encouraged both the missionaries to come to the Marianas, and the Chamorro to welcome them.

The Chamorro did not anticipate that the missionaries were operating on a new plane of interaction; one more intrusive and later more coercive.

Among these authors, it is Bevacqua (2010a) who examines in detail the struggle for the meaning of ancestral veneration. But, as mentioned above, he did so from the indigenous perspective, with little analysis into the missionaries own meanings and to their efforts to impose them.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !99

with a full understanding of the encounter can we begin to question the ways in which the colonial hegemony still holds sway today.

!

The current state of the art has given limited focus and only partial discussion of the missionaries’ method and meaning. The present work addresses these limitations first by systematically detailing the missionaries’ methods. Second, it explores their struggle to impose meaning at the evangelical encounter.29 It was a struggle, which was by no means easy or entirely successful given the vitality of native agency.

!

The present study takes a primarily missionary focus, though it seeks to position their experience within the presence of alternative readings. The hope is that through its analysis of the missionary dimension it can contribute to future work on the Chamorro experience of the encounter.

!

The present work’s chronology is limited to the years 1668 to 1698, a period of relatively homogeneous insecurity, which by 1699 had been replaced by firm colonial control. The data for this paper is gathered from primary sources written by the missionaries themselves and by a handful of relevant contemporaries. 30 Almost all the sources used in this paper are from the seventeenth century. Some sources from the eighteenth were used in examining conditions of which earlier writers either were unaware of or left out of their reports. The task of more systematically going through these later documents though is left for future work.

Lastly, only sources that are available in English and in Spanish have been used for this paper.

!

Methodology Direct contact with the missionaries’ preaching is often limited to snippets of observation and interaction scattered across mission accounts. These recorded oral, visual, and experiential attempts to engage the natives in evangelical discourse were collected and synthesized according to the main themes they present. These

! The 29

present study is a exploration in the recognition that only a study which develops both missionary and indigenous sides of the encounter can be considered a full study.

! The 30

present research utilized copies of documents compiled, transcribed, and translated by Rodrigue Lévesque in his multi-volume History of Micronesia (HM), supplemented by documents from the Micronesian Area Research Center (MARC) in Guam, and by the files of the Ledesma Collection (LC) originally kept by the Jesuit Archives of the Philippine Province.

The Ledesma Collection is a collection of the surviving documentation used by Fr. Juan Ledesma S.J. as he worked towards the beatifications of Pedro Calungsod and Fr. Diego Luis de Sanvitores S.J. These documents are in the form of copies in various stages between Ledesma’s draft and final output. A great number of documents were copied from the MARC in Guam. The collection is currently in the author’s possession.

100 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

themes were afterwards contextualized according to possible models for their use as referred to in missionary accounts. The Chamorro understandings and misunderstandings of what was being communicated survive as scattered mentions across these accounts. These data were similarly synthesized according to the main themes they presented. These were then contextualized in reference to elements of Christianity they had been exposed to, as well as within a basic understanding of ancestral veneration.

!

Because accounts can be misleading, statements have been crosschecked across sources and criticized internally, keeping two things in mind. First, missionary texts are only the ‘residue’31 of the dynamic interaction between two independent cultural realities. Second, in trying to traverse the gap between the natives’ reality and their own, the Jesuits’ perceptions as well as their representations, were governed by the ‘contingent factors’32, generic/rhetorical, institutional/political, and cultural/historical, of their own contexts.33

!

Found useful this article are the concepts of hegemony and ideology as defined by Jean Comaroff and John Comaroff in volume one of their work Of Revelation and Revolution.34 The hegemony is understood as an empowered system of meaning

drawn from the cultural field, which by becoming axiomatic sets the bounds for the credible and the natural. The ideology is understood as elements from a system of meaning, which, in the face of contradiction, are articulated and contested. Both are reciprocally interdependent as one dissolves into the other along a continuum

31 !

Louise Burkhart, The Slippery earth: Nahua-Christian moral dialogue in sixteenth-century Mexico (Tucson 1989), 185.

!

32

Daniel Reff, ‘Contextualizing missionary discourse: The Benavides memorials of 1630 and 1634’, Journal of Anthropological Research, 50:1 (1994), 53.

!

33

For insight into the contingent factors that governed missionary depictions of their subjects see Reff, Daniel. 1994. Contextualizing missionary discourse: The Benavides memorials of 1630 and 1634. Journal of Anthropological Research 50(1): 51-67. as well as Reff, Daniel. 1995. “Predicament of culture” and Spanish missionary accounts of the Tephuan and Pueblo Revolts. Ethnohistory 42(1): 63-90. To see some of these factors in operation in Jesuit Marianas see Coello, Alexandre. (2011).

Colonialismo y santidad en las islas Marianas: la sangre de los mártires (1668-1676). Hispania Sacra 63(128): 707-45.

!

34

Jean Comaroff and John Comaroff, Of revelation and revolution…, 2 vols, (Chicago and London 1991), I.

!

35

Ibid., 23-24, 29 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !101

of degrees of consciousness.35 The colonial encounter is seen in the present work as a space of competing hegemonies and ideologies. 36

!

Ancestral Veneration – As Understood by the Missionaries Both the seventeenth century missionaries and the Chamorro took for granted the supernatural’s agency in reality.37 This deceptively similar plane disguised to both

the other’s complexity. It was in this plane that that each side would attempt to place meanings on the other. 38

!

Now, the missionaries’ reality assumed both God and Satan’s existence and active involvement in the world. Backed by their legions of saints and of demons, they engaged in a very real struggle for men’s souls.39 In the context of the Marianas, the devil was seen as employing all sorts of falsehoods to trick people. His demons disguised themselves as the Chamorro’s ancestors, the Ante. With the help of the makahnas, they spread pataratas, or hoaxes, using false promises to convince the

natives to invoke them for help. With these beliefs, judged by the missionaries as

!

36

Each party at the encounter had their own axiomatic systems of belief. When faced with each other these hegemonies were articulated into ideologies in order to communicate with the "other". In the missionary case such forms of articulation were tried and tested methods applied from missionary experience abroad. In the Chamorro case, their (mis)use of Spanish terms to refer to their own spirits, and their (mis)use of Chamorro terms to refer to the missionaries and to crosses, would evidence their own struggle to set meaning as they were forced on the spot to articulate their beliefs. Although Both hegemony and ideology functioned in colonialism, the imposition of meaning by the former was a much a deeper colonialism, which structured peoples ways of “seeing and being” See Ibid., 314.

!

37

Daniel Reff, ‘Jose de Acosta. 2002. Natural and Moral History of the Indies’ , book review, Anthropological Quarterly , 76:3 (2003), 547.

38 !

See Serge Gruzinski, The conquest of Mexico..., tr. Eileen Corrigan (Cambridge 1993), 186

!

39

Reff, “Predicament of culture”…, 81

102 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

almost idolatrous superstitions, the demons would steal the natives’ worship and drag their soul into hell.40

!

A long Christian tradition that assumed the universality of their beliefs and that infantilized the indio, closed the door to real argument about these definitions.

Faced with opposition to its hegemonic tenets, seventeenth century Christianity accounted for much of irreconcilable indigenous complexity by approaching it as a senselessness given sense only by the devil’s manipulations.41 The makahnas were trivialized as tricksters, and native leaders hostile to them were called as agents of the devil.

!

The missionaries’ role in the struggle was as a soldier of God who with his help would overcome the demons.42 The missionaries’ goal was to convince the Chamorro that they were being deceived, and to bring them to the truth. The question is though, how did the missionaries attempt to impose these meanings at the encounter?

!

!

40

Diaz, Repositioning the Missionary…, 123-4; Diego Luis de Sanvitores, Luis de Medina, Luis de Morales, Tomás Cardeñoso, and Lorenzo Bustillo, Islas Marianas, resumen de los sucesos del primer año..., typescript copy, in author’s possession, Ledesma Collection, Doc214, 22; Rodrique Levesque, History of Micronesia: a collection of source documents, 20 vols (Gatineau, Que´bec 1992– 2002), IV, 526, 604; [From here on the Ledesma Collection and the History of Micronesia will be abbreviated to LC and HM respectively]; Levesque, HM, VI, 606-7; Garcia, The life and martyrdom, LC, Doc255A, 292-3, 303, 400; Pedro, Murillo, SJ, Historia de la Provincia de Philipinas de la Compañia de Jesus: Segunda parte... desde el año de 1616 hasta el de 1716, typescript copy, in author’s possession, LC, Doc253, 25; Francisco Solano, SJ, Copia de una carta que el P.e Francisco Solano superior de la mission delos Ladrones, ya Marianas, escrivio de dichas Islas a la Ciudad de Manila, photocopy of manuscript, Guam, MARC, ARSI Fil. 13, fol. 84R. The missionaries’ understandings of the Chamorro’s ancestor veneration fall into two blocks. The first was defined in Sanvitores’ proposals and petitions for support for the mission. In them the Chamorro’s reverence was recognized but given a consistently positive light. Sanvitores emphasized that the archipelago did not have sorcerers, pagan priests, rites, idols, or any sort of religion (See Levesque, HM, IV, 266-267). Ancestor veneration itself was an “error” (see ibid., 396) but an error coming from “God’s kindness” (ibid.) that would facilitate their understanding of the immortal soul and other Catholic truths.

The missionaries would alter this definition soon after their arrival. Although the islands were confirmed as having no divinities, no religion, and no priests, (See Levesque, HM, V, 71; Sanvitores et al., Noticia de las Islas Marianas de los años de 1670 a 1671, LC, Doc242, 17), ancestor veneration began to be seen as superstitious proximate occasions of idolatry (See Levesque, HM, IV, 592). Although not idolatrous in itself, it had the high risk of inspiring idolatry. This “superstition” was inspired by Devil with the help of his ministers (See Levesque, HM, V, 127; ; Sanvitores et al., Noticia de las Islas Marianas de los años de 1670 a 1671, LC, Doc242, 17). !

41

See Comaroff and Comaroff, Of revelation and revolution…, I, 27

!

42

Dominique Deslandres, ‘Exemplo aeque ut verbo: The French Jesuits’ missionary world’, in John O’Malley, Gauvin Bailey, Steven Harris, and Frank Kennedy (eds.), The Jesuits: Cultures, Sciences and the Arts, 2 vols (Toronto 1999, 2006), II, 260-1.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !103

The Imposition of Meaning The key concepts that the missionaries communicated to the Chamorro have been outlined above. They were synthesized from snippets of recounted preaching, as well as Jesuit definitions cross-referenced with accounts of native understandings of Christianity, of which the Jesuits approved. It is safe to assume that oral instruction in the contexts of masses and schools played a big role in the transmission of these meanings. Without surviving catechisms and sermons though,43 it is difficult to ascertain their actual content and argumentation. In lieu

of these texts, descriptions of the visual aids they used, do give insight into how the Jesuits intended to communicate particular ideas across the cultural divide.44

!

In 1671 Sanvitores requested for !

an image . . . of Saint Michael with his scales and sword of flame and, prostrated at his feet, the devil, very ugly and throwing fire from its mouth. Another, of the Guardian Angel . . . in the form of one inducing to hear the doctrine of the fathers in competition with the demons, painted at the other end, pulling and dragging towards the flames...painted below45

With their descriptions and images the missionaries would have been able communicate a certain aesthetic with which to see hostile spirits. It was an aesthetic that no doubt informed later Chamorro visions of “horrible figures in

!

43

Except for that published by Burrus (Burrus, ‘San Vitores’ grammar and catechism’), which is in Latin. Garcia (Garcia, The life and martyrdom, LC, Doc255A, 282-4.) meanwhile describes in detail Sanvitores’ use of visual representations, both artificial and naturally available, in catechism.

This recounted mode of proceeding is not found in any source aside from this hagiographic work.

Given the primary data available, and knowing the standard use of images during this period (see Burkhart, The Slippery earth, 56; Gruzinski, The conquest of Mexico..., 186), that general practice described was most likely correct. This correctness though is more likely because Garcia was familiar with the standard procedure for missionaries everywhere, rather than because he had actual record of Sanvitores preaching that way.

! These 44

statues and images were either made in the Marianas or sent for from overseas (Levesque, HM, VIII, 330). The missionaries carried them along on the trail (Levesque, HM, IV, 389), and stocked their churches with them. The latter is made evident by the references to those stolen or saved during attacks on these churches in Guam in 1676, 1678, and 1684 (See William Repetti, SJ, The death of Father Sebastian Monroy, S.J...., typescript copy, in author’s possession, LC, Doc246, 14; William Repetti, SJ, ‘Conditions in Guam in 1678’, The Catholic Historical Review, 32:4 (1947), 433; Levesque, HM, VIII, 204).

There were many obstacles on the way from New Spain to the Marianas (See Levesque, HM, VII, 32, 264, 621; Levesque, HM, IX, 454, 499). There is only limited evidence that specifically requested items did arrive. Nonetheless, these requests reveal the ideas the missionaries found the need to communicate using visual aides. The mission crafted its own figures and images as well, so if the items did not arrive, the Jesuits would have found a way to make do. !

45

Diego Luis de Sanvitores, SJ, Tocante a las Islas Marianas..., typescript copy, in author’s possession, LC, Doc136, 6. trans. mine.

104 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

flame”.46 More importantly they would have vividly introduced the two distinct camps of the missionaries’ reality: one Christian and one demonic.

!

Situating the Chamorro in between, the missionaries zeroed in on the natives’ working arrangements with the latter camp. Forms of respect given to the ante were understood as “signs of vassalage”47 enforced by the demons; its practice falling under the general header of superstition.

!

How they addressed these superstitions seemed to vary in relation to the missionaries’ understanding of the logic behind the practice. Those that were seen as simply prohibitions were confronted with very public violation, whether by eating the fish that should not be eaten, or by talking loudly where the “aniti prohibited speech”.48 Sometimes this effort also involved their debunking of what they saw as an unfounded belief in cause and effect.49 To the missionaries these beliefs were rules and laws imposed by the Devil, which the Chamorro needed to be taught to disregard.50

!

Those superstitions that involved natives invoking the ante were confronted with the denouncement of these practices as hoaxes. To the missionaries, help from the demons were ploys by the Devil to trick the Chamorro into worshipping him.51 The Chamorro needed to be first undeceived, and second convinced that it was only from the Christian God, and by extension his saints, that true help would come.

Some missionaries went as far as to explicitly assure divine aid; a risky promise which did not always work out.52 Useful in their effort to promote reliance on God were the devotions that they sought to introduce among the natives. These devotions were supported by devotional figures and images they were shown, and devotional items that the Jesuits circulated.53

!

!

46

(Levesque, HM, IX, 578).

!

47

Diego Luis de Sanvitores, SJ, Copia de una carta para el Padre Provincial de la Compañia de Jesus en Philipinas escrita de la Mission de Islas Marianas, acerca de la vida y religiosas virtudes del Padre Luis de Medina..., typescript copy, in author’s possession, LC, Doc97, 53.

!

48

Ibid., 54-5.

!

49

See Levesque, HM, VII, 307; Levesque, HM, X, 178.

!

50

Sanvitores, la vida y religiosas virtudes del Padre Luis de Medina, LC, Doc97, 54.

!

51

Levesque, HM, IV, 604.

52 !

Garcia, The life and martyrdom, LC, Doc255A, 368; Luis de Morales, SJ, Historia de las Islas Marianas..., photocopy of manuscript, in author’s possession, LC, Doc135, 77; Sanvitores, la vida y religiosas virtudes del Padre Luis de Medina, LC, Doc97, 85.

!

53

Levesque, HM, VIII, 330; Levesque, HM, IX, 421, 501; Hezel, conquest to colonization, LC, Doc199, 26; Murillo, Historia de la Provincia, LC, Doc253, 37.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !105

The Chamorro’s ancestral skulls were a recognized impediment to getting them to rely on God. These skulls were central to the invocation of the ante, and were readily present reminders to call on them. Iconoclasm served not only to demonstrate that the ante were powerless, they also took away the islanders’ ability to recourse to them.54 With this same logic they urged islanders to replace their local funeral rites with Christian burials, which prevented the Chamorro from keeping their skulls on hand.55

!

The missionaries also targeted a certain Chamorro fear of ancestor spirits. In the Chamorro context, hostile spirits were likely composed of ancestors with whom the natives had neglected kinship obligations. To the missionaries such complexity was subsumed under the understanding that demons were eager to frighten and to harm the natives, to threaten them away from Christianity.56 These demons’ sometimes appeared in the form of the aniti, or in “various… horrible shapes”.57.

Other times they would possess a native and challenge the missionary with “astute argument[s]”.58 The missionaries met these spirits with distinctly Christian symbols: gestures, objects, or prayers that drove away the demon, or broke his hold over the local.59

!

In expelling these demons, and teaching the natives how to expel them, the missionaries would try to teach the Chamorro that these spirits as a whole were no match for Christianity and that they could be warded off with Christian means.

Crosses were important for this purpose. The missionaries made and distributed them, demonstrating to the Chamorro that with these Christian items they could make the demons disappear.60

!

Now one should not assume that these methods were used uniformly. Reading the homogeneous front they represented in official accounts, it is easy to forget that their community was composed of Jesuits from a variety of nations and ages, and various areas and lengths of exposure to missions.61 On the separate question of

!

54

See Levesque, HM, V, 398; Levesque, HM, VII, 307. Iconoclasm would destroy their ability to reproduce meaning.

!

55

Levesque, HM, VI, 82.

56 !

Levesque, HM, IV, 525; Sanvitores et al., resumen de los sucesos del primer año, LC, Doc214, 22-3.

!

57

Levesque, HM, IV, 304-5.

!

58

Levesque, HM, VI, 92; In all of its renditions, this case seems to be due more to simple tenacious resistance to the missionaries’ ideas than to the alleged supernatural hijacking.

!

59

Levesque, HM, VI, 304-5, 341; Sanvitores et al., resumen de los sucesos del primer año, LC, Doc214, 22-3.

60 !

Levesque, HM, VI, 305.

!

61

Levesque, HM, IV, 671-676.

106 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

education for example, they had differing opinions about how children should be brought to schools, what should be taught in these schools, and even if there should be schools at all.62 Their accounts hint at and sometimes explicitly indicate heterogeneity of practice. The same heterogeneity should be expected in how the missionaries dealt with ancestral veneration.

!

At the same time their methods should be considered within the bigger picture of evangelization strategy, and the colonial context. On the level of meaning: schools, confessions, exemplars, devotions, and celebrations all served to impose meanings such as of sin, and of heaven and hell. On the material level, the Chamorro experienced intensive population decline and mass migration. A large noncooperative population would sail to the northern islands, while those who remained were increasingly concentrated into reducciones. The growing ratio of missionaries to natives and the civil-military administration’s growing political power, situated the Chamorro within an increasingly colonial material reality. This reality’s social pressures would further perpetuate imposed Christian meanings.

!

Possible Models of Their Methods The methods in which the missionaries articulated their reality had long been crystallized through their community’s extensive experience in the New World and in the Philippines. The scattered similarities of these methods with those employed other missions are easy to point out,63 but understanding the actual connection

between such possible references and the methodology carried out in the Marianas is harder to do. Mission accounts are usually mum on the provenances of their methods, unless these were contested or needed to be rationalized. How was their method of addressing native beliefs influenced by their formal educations, exposure to other missions, or adopted missionary manuals? The present work can give a partial answer to this question in relation to the early years of the mission.

!

In 1666, in a letter to his provincial, Sanvitores cites four references as his guides to the Marianas mission.64 Of these references it is the De Procuranda Indorum Salute,

62 !

Levesque, HM, VI, 562; Levesque, HM, VII, 464; Levesque, HM, IX, 287-88.

!

63

See for example Burkhart, The Slippery earth, 53-57; John Leddy Phelan, The hispanization of the Philippines... (Madison 1959), 53; Jaime Valenzuela Márquez, ‘Ambigüedad de la imagen en la cristianización del Perú... ‘, Investigaciones sociales, 10:17 (2006), 494.

!

64

Diego Luis Sanvitores, SJ, Carta del Padre Diego Luis de Sanvitores, de la Compañia de Jesús, al Padre Domingo Ezquerra, Provincial de Manila..., photocopy of manuscript, Guam, MARC, AHPA 4, Documentos de la Micronesia, Marianas, Parte 4a, Doc.3, E-I-c5[o], 2.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !107

by Fr. José de Acosta SJ that outlines instructions on how to deal with native beliefs.65

!

What part of this manual Sanvitores intended to use though is not clear. The De Procuranda is an extensive work. Its six books deal with topics ranging from the governance of indios to the administering of sacraments among them. There is no certainty that Sanvitores considered its section on idolatry in particular as relevant.

In fact, when he first stated his intention to use the book, he did so before the establishment of the mission. At the time his assessment of the natives’ condition was as free from any hint of idolatry. He may have been as yet unaware that he would even need Acosta’s instructions on how to deal with it.

!

Nonetheless, that Sanvitores believed the work to be relevant to the mission as a whole is clear. In 1669, after a year of daily exposure to the Chamorro, he again requests for a copy, in this way indicating its continued relevance.66

!

More importantly for the present study, there is also an intriguing resemblance between Acosta’s instructed methods and the methods the Marianas missionaries

A product of the preoccupations that led to the III Council of Lima (1583-1584), the De Procuranda describes the disaster and failures of Christianity in the New World of its time, examining its roots, and prescribing remedies (See Jose de Acosta, SJ, De Procuranda indorum salute: Educacion y evangelizacion, 2 vols, ed. Luciano Pereña (Madrid 1984, 1987), II, vii-xi/). It was a missionary manual born in a time of heavy confrontation between Christianity and a persistent local idolatry.

Sanvitores would also indicate his intention to use the compiled letters of St. Francis Xavier as a guide (See also Sanvitores, Carta… al Padre Domingo Ezquerra, Provincial de Manila…, MARC, AHPA 4, Documentos de la Micronesia, Marianas, Parte 4a, Doc.3, E-I-c5[o], 2). He would request for a copy for each member of the mission, and accounts exist of them consulting their copies when confronted by difficult decisions (See Levesque, HM, IV, 537; Sanvitores, la vida y religiosas virtudes del Padre Luis de Medina, LC, Doc97, 100-1).

Other glimpses of applied general models do sometimes appear. In 1682, for example, the mission’s superior, Fr. Manuel de Solorzano SJ reported to the Father General that the mission “followed the same methods and proceedings that are used in our missions of the Philippine province...

Hence I have introduced them from the beginning of the enterprise” (Levesque, HM, VII, 541, editions mine.). How different Solorzano’s methods were from those of the past superiors is not clear. Most of the mission’s superiors though had had exposure to the Philippine missions, and probable that evangelical methods used there would have influenced those they applied in the Marianas.

65 !

!

66

Levesque, HM, IV, 537.

108 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

employed. 67 Acosta’s advice to keep explanations brief, easy and visual, can be likened to the Marianas missionaries’ own use of visual aids in their preaching. His instructions to destroy idols, and to substitute idolatrous rites and recourses with Christian ones, can be compared with the missionaries’ destruction of skulls, and their distribution of devotional items. Acosta’s advice to reveal the demonic nature of these spirits and to denounce their help as treachery, can be compared with the missionaries’ own revelations that the ante were demons disguised as ancestors, and that the help they offered were hoaxes. The only instructions that did not have equivalents in mission accounts are the use of confession to squeeze out information on indigenous beliefs, and the use of violent suppression. Although the latter was seen in the Marianas in later years, it does not surface in seventeenth century accounts.68

!

Throughout the seventeenth century the Marianas missionaries used these methods: the disregarding of taboos, the redirection of invocation, iconoclasm, and the expulsion of demons. All were oriented along a consistent emphasis on the invalidity of ancestral veneration in the face of the universal validity of Christianity.

That both methods and their orientation find equivalents in a coherently outlined missionary manual points to their actions as having been a community’s systematic approach to an issue, rather than a unplanned amalgamation of individual actions.

!

!

67

Acosta tells his readers to attempt to expel idolatry from the hearts of the locals, and especially from the hearts of their leaders, by getting their listeners to see for themselves the invalidity of idolatrous beliefs. This invalidity can be demonstrated by attacking idols’ artificial natures, and impotence, and by pointing out that these objects have never been able to actually help them. The missionaries were advised keep explanations brief, easy, and visual; repeating them, amplifying them, and appealing to their subjects’ own experiences in order to firmly impress those ideas on them.

If the idols actually spoke and threatened, the missionaries were to show the natives that these were deceptions by the devil. They were to explain who the devil was and about his treachery, in order to turn fear of these idols into hate. To further depreciate these idols’ worth, they were to present the great difference between these demons and God. Acosta advised missionaries to focus on the locals’ specific superstitions. These beliefs were said to invade all aspects of life, so the locals were to be very carefully questioned to root them out, including during confession, to correct them, and to teach the locals to fear such errors. All representations and vestiges of their inherited superstitions were to be taken and destroyed. Then Christian recourses (holy water, religious images, rosaries, cirios, and other things that the church approved of and frequently used) were to be introduced and encouraged to get the people to adhere to Christian practices and to drop their old beliefs. Acosta advised that the use of force, when used with careful judgment, was acceptable among those already Christian. But should not be used among non-Christians unless they scandalized others (Acosta, De Procuranda…, , II, 259-277). !

68

Hezel, conquest to colonization, LC, Doc199, 27. It is possible the latter has to do with the vulnerable position of the mission during this century, and their inability at the time to stop people simply fleeing into to the northern islands.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !109

Understanding and Being Understood But what meaning did the Chamorro give to the missionaries’ concepts? In the encounter between two hegemonies the Chamorro would themselves struggle to set meaning, both to articulate and to appropriated it. As proud as the Jesuits were of the islanders’ veneration of crosses and their reliance on the missionaries, 69

surviving accounts of the natives terming both as Macana, puts things into perspective.70 The Chamorro’s acquisition of crosses for their houses, and their prayers to these crosses, were reminiscent of the invocation of the ante through their skulls. Their promises to attend confessions as a sign of devotion resembled the kinship obligations fulfilled towards ante.71 Even their invocation of Mary to help protect them from the malignant spirits, should be seen in terms of the Chamorro’s invocation of their own ancestral spirits to protect them from the aniti of other clans.72 The missionaries’ ease of connection with the Christian God and his saints, as well as his ability to expel aniti, would have seemed similar to the functions of the makahnas.73 The Chamorro would also appropriate Christian terms to understand and communicate indigenous realities. In one incident, a chief

!

69

As discussed earlier they had been distributing these items to encourage devotions, and a reliance on the help from the Christian God. The requests for crosses and their proliferation of the crosses placed on the roofs of houses, was seen as something wonderful to write home about See Levesque, HM, VI, 197.

!

70

Levesque, HM, VIII, 247, 460 ; Antonio de Ledesma, SJ, Sucessos de las Isalas Marianas desde el año de 69 hasta el presente de 72, y martyrio del V.e P.e Luis de Medina, photocopy of manuscript, Guam, MARC, ARSI Philip 13, 90L.; Levesque HM, IV, 605.

These understandings or misunderstandings are not surprising considering evidence that the missionaries’ use of their crosses they carried as deliberately parallel, if opposing, counterparts to the skulls of the Chamorro. They called the crosses on their walking sticks babao Dios, in reference to the babao on which the natives put their skulls (Levesque, HM, IV, 605; Solano, carta que el P.e Francisco Solano superior de la mission delos Ladrones, ya Marianas, escrivio de dichas Islas a la Ciudad de Manila…, MARC, ARSI Fil. 13, fol. 85R). ! When, 71

with the encouragement of the priests, they kissed the cross and were healed; when they used crosses to scare away malignant spirits; when they carried their nets to the church to pray to a sacred image for fish; all these are reminiscent of the invocation of skulls which they had practiced for most of their lives (Levesque, HM, VI, 304, 443). Their praying to the Lord for a large catch, and for protection from sharks and the risk of their canoes capsizing; their promises to attend confession and communion every feast day of Mary for a year in order to gain her help in curing their illnesses; these things were reminiscent of their invocations of the Ante and the kinship obligations they fulfilled towards them (Levesque, HM, VI, 304; Levesque, HM, IX, 421).

!

72

Levesque HM, VI, 221.

!

73

As some modern day Chamorro acquaintances have pointed out to me, it is also possible that a neutral definition of macana as referring to someone endowed with spiritual energy was held by the Chamorro. And so, as I understand it, by extension their terming of the missionaries as macana was more neutral than particularly indigenous in meaning. I think a deeper examination of the dynamics of Chamorro spirituality than I have done in my work is necessary to truly address this possibility. I place this note to acknowledge the possibility and apologize if I have yet to fully understand it or its implications.

110 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

used the term “Dioses” to refer to his icons, much to the disquiet of the missionary present. 74

!

As a whole, the missionaries did not seem overly concerned by the risk that the Chamorro were learning about crosses, priests, and saints in indigenous rather than Christian ways. In part this had to do with their only partial appreciation that indigenous meanings were assigned to Christian acts. In part it also had to do with the understanding that these Chamorro meanings were not meanings in their own right, but rather errors. As Fr. Gerardo Bouwens SJ would say in 1673,

!

As for the divine cult, when they do not disdain it, they observe nothing correctly… Finally, the above and the other vices of the people, are not such that they cannot be easily eradicated, when a Master would make use of religious zeal and the fear of correction to animate and push them by stiffening their nature and leading them slowly but surely toward the cult of God. There is no doubt that in this manner they can become good and fervent Christians75

With proper guidance there was nothing that could not be corrected.

!

This simple dismissal of these understandings and appropriations as error distracts one from the proliferation of meaning at the encounter. Other dismissals of the Chamorro’s unreliable visions of the supernatural, evidence this proliferation.76

Various Christian visions, even when they referred to “buenos espiritus y de la Santa Virgen”77 were dismissed for not conforming to the missionaries’ standards of believability or reality.

!

Such standards in the face of a multiplicity of meaning delineated the Christian hegemony. They hint at a more subtle imposition with which the Chamorro would in time be drawn into Christian forms of discourse; a discourse that privileges some criteria of reality over others.78 As the Chamorro began to offer “legitimate”

evidence for their visions “in case he [the priest] might think that they had been

!

74

Levesque HM, IV, 592. The use of the term in Spanish is probable given the missionaries’ clear understanding, and even panic at the use of the term, despite its never having been used before by the natives.

!

75

Levesque HM, V, 595.

!

76

Levesque HM, VI, 93; Sanvitores et al., resumen de los sucesos del primer año, LC, Doc214, 14; Solano, carta que el P.e Francisco Solano superior de la mission delos Ladrones, ya Marianas, escrivio de dichas Islas a la Ciudad de Manila…, MARC, ARSI Fil. 13, fol. 83L.

77 !

Sanvitores et al., resumen de los sucesos del primer año, LC, Doc214, 14

!

78

Comaroff and Comaroff, Of revelation and revolution…, I, 213 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !111

dreaming this up”79 we become conscious of a deeper more crucial struggle for meaning.

!

Conclusion The findings of this work allow us to re-evaluate previous assessments of the missionaries’ approach as abolition and suppression.80 At least for the seventeenth

century, both were contingent results of an approach that was more concretely structured to impose a definition of invalidity. At the same time, these findings allow us to view methods of addressing ancestor veneration, as discussed individually or in batches by the existing scholarship, within the full set of methods the missionaries consciously employed. It also situates the entirety within a possible systematic logic behind their actions.

!

Just as importantly though, and perhaps of more significance in the long run, we are able to glimpse through the door into the indigenous dimension that was opened by Vicente Diaz,81 and by Frank Quimby.82 Increasingly, we become aware that even as the missionaries and the Chamorro very audibly and visibly struggled for the meanings of ancestor veneration and of Christianity, a quiet and invisible struggle was also taking place for the rules and limits of reality.

! !

!

79

Levesque HM, VI , 112.

! Thompson, 80

Guam and its people…, [180]; Beardsley, Guam: Past and Present, 90.

81 !

Diaz, Repositioning the Missionary…

!

82

Quimby, ‘The Hierro commerce…”; Quimby, ‘Islands in the stream of empire…’; ‘

112 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Presentation Slides

!

 

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !113

!

114 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !115

!

116 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !117

!

118 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !119

!

120 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !121

!

122 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !123

!

124 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !125

!

!

--Nicholas Michael Sy is an MA History student from the Jesuit-run Ateneo de Manila. He worked briefly at the National Historical Commission of the Philippines and has just completed a year-long research grant from the Spanish Ministry of Culture on the Jesuit mission in the Marianas. His interest in the mission began when he encountered several large boxes of documents at the Jesuit Archives in Manila.

These papers turned out to be the sources and drafts towards the Positio for Sanvitores’ beatification. His continuing research has resulted in countless hours in libraries and archives in the Philippines and in Guam.

!

Note: This work is a much revised and expanded version of a study funded by the Spanish Program for Cultural Cooperation in 2010-2011. It was presented at this conference with the support of the Philippine Social Science Council, and of the Office of the Dean of the School of Social Science of the Ateneo de Manila University.

126 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

The Early Spanish Period in the Marianas, 1668-1698 Eight Theses

!

By Francis Hezel, SJ Former Director Micronesian Seminar fxhezel@gmail.com

! !

Abstract: The presentation offers another look at the conflict during the early mission period in the late 17th century. It explores the real causes of conflict, as well as the divided response by local people. It also takes up the question of the changes in the composition of the Spanish garrison and how the troops in the garrison had also become victims of an emerging colonial structure. It will also offer a tally of the casualties over a 30period of the deaths of Chamorros and Spaniards. Overall, the point of the presentation is to offer a new perspective on this much debated period of initial sustained contact in the Marianas and in the Pacific as a whole.

After reviewing the early sources once again, I have just completed a monograph offering a reinterpretation of the period. This will be submitted to the Northern Marianas HPO for publication as a companion piece for my booklet, From Conquest to Colonization, published in 1989 and republished in 2000.

!

The 30-year period described in the booklet cannot be understood unless we see the dynamics involved through this period. History is by definition dynamic and changing. In my publication I hope to capture some of these dynamics–how things changed and why–even during this short period of time.

!

Since I cannot hope to offer a complete presentation of this new piece, let me simply present a few thoughts in the form of theses.

!

1) San Vitores brought no military troops with him in 1668, only mission helpers.

San Vitores believed that the presence of a military guard would compromise his message of peace. For this reason, he resisted demands to bring a military guard.

Instead he chose 31 mission helpers, including 19 Filipinos and 12 Mexicans, for their good lives and the skills that could be used for community development.

!

The Filipinos included two survivors from the Concepcion, a galleon wrecked off Saipan years earlier, who were to serve as interpreters for the mission party. The 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !127

Filipinos ranged in age from a 60-year old farmer to a 12-year old boy who was a singer. They included a stone mason, a carpenter, and persons who could serve as teachers in the schools he hoped to open.

!

The group were to give witness through their Christian lives and to teach skills to the people. Only secondarily was this group to serve as a militia if necessary.

Initially, they were equipped with only three or four muskets. Some of the others had bows and arrows.

!

2) The cause of initial conflict may have been Choco’s stories about baptismal water and the missionaries’ resistance to the ancestral worship, but conflict soon centered on personal insults that was fueled by village rivalries.

The tale that the waters of baptism were killing children was widespread during the early years, according to the mission accounts. Children who were baptized did, in fact, die at a high rate because they would have been in danger of death for the missionaries to baptize them. Choco’s tales about the poison waters of baptism may have had a little more impact in the northern islands, but they really didn’t have much staying power, except perhaps among people who had no real contact with the missionaries. After the first year or two, the stories are seldom mentioned in missionary letters.

!

The missionary campaign aimed at smashing the skulls of ancestors and destroying the shrines to the aniti, or spirits, created more serious problems for the missionaries. This was a crucial point of conflict between the Jesuits and the local people because the destruction of these shrines: 1) seemed to oppose the respect paid to ancestors; 2) attacked deeply held religious beliefs in the efficacy of the ancestors in providing assistance to the living in time of need; 3) threatened the social status of the makanas, who often spoke for the ancestors (as they did in other Micronesian cultures). The makanas, or sorcerers, would have been strong forces in resisting Christianity. It’s worth noting that the trouble which broke out on Guam in 1671 was attributed by Garcia to the destruction of the shrines to aniti rather than to poison water stories.

!

Most of the hostility was generated by personal offense, as was true everywhere in the Pacific. This could include personal insults, but could also include revenge for relatives killed by the Spanish or for property destroyed by the troops. Other people with kin or other ties to those with grievances against the Spanish were drawn into the conflict. [On Guam in 1671, the arrest of key figures in Agana for the murder of the Mexican boy escalated the reaction of local people.]

!

128 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

In later years, as the composition of the militia changed, reasons for conflict would have included abuses by the soldiers, perhaps extorting food or material possessions from them or making sexual advances toward the women.

!

All this would be compounded by the inter-village rivalries in the islands: “The enemy of my friend is my enemy”, and vice versa.

3) The policy of Spanish retaliation escalated through the 1670s, only easing up in 1680 and afterwards.

During the first years of the mission, San Vitores tried to carry out his work without military protection. After the early outbreaks of violence, however, he had members of his “militia” accompany priests to the villages. He believed that the mere presence of the troops would serve to deter attacks on the missionaries. San Vitores seemed ready to pardon the wrongdoers rather than exact justice. No attempt was made to retaliate for the deaths of mission personnel.

!

By 1674, with the arrival of a new commander, the Spanish take the position that matters will only get worse unless they seek out the wrongdoers and punish them.

At first, the Spanish retaliate whenever one of their number is killed, lest the local people think that they can kill with impunity. Then, the retaliation occurs whenever there is an outbreak of violence in a village, regardless whether lives are lost. Soon, the Spanish begin marching on villages that are thought to be resisting Spanish claims to authority, especially those harboring criminals. As this retaliatory policy was carried out, Chamorro resistance seems to have broken down.

!

By the late 1670s, villages had begun freely handing over “criminals” to the Spanish, sometimes killing these men themselves before handing over their heads to the Spanish. The villages on Guam were politically divided, as always, and their conflict with one another could be legitimized under the new Spanish law making it a crime to harbor a criminal wanted by the Spanish.

!

4) By 1680, after only twelve years of Spanish presence, the reduction of the Guam population into seven towns was achieved. This was as much due to the cultural attraction of town life as it was to Spanish force.

The Spanish certainly encouraged the people from small hamlets to move into the larger villages, if only to be closer to the church. The Spanish exercised a certain push, as they rounded up people and moved them into town.

!

But there was also a pull for local people. The attractions included titled positions of authority bestowed on Chamorro leaders, and land in town as well as the right to 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !129

continue farming their land outside. Once islanders were assured they would not lose their land, they were more easily persuaded to move to town. New crops (especially corn) were introduced and livestock and farm animals as well. Cotton was woven to make clothes and tobacco was grown to be smoked and used as currency.

!

5) The composition of the military changed for the worse even as their poverty increased, leading to morale problems and abuses on the local population.

The militia of San Vitores might be described as mission helpers more than soldiers. But the composition of the garrison soon changed. As the number of troops grew from the mid-1670s on, many of the new troops were recruited on shipboard. Some were convicts assigned to prison in the Philippines. They were adventurer types, many from Mexico, trying to make a future for themselves in the Spanish colonies abroad.

!

As the number of troops increased, so did their poverty–they were paid a fraction of the salary due them as the force outstripped the number of paid positions (plazas) and as governors chose to pay them off in inflated material rather than in cash. The troops, for their part, began preying on the islanders, even as they chased island women. Their behavior became more of a problem from the mid-70s on, worsened in the 80s (at least if we are to believe Quiroga), and continued to be something of a problem throughout the pacification of the islands. “The scum of the earth” is what one missionary called them.

!

6) The local population was divided from the beginning over support for the Spanish missionaries, but by the late 1670s, as the Spanish troops went on the offensive, the majority of those on Guam swung to the side of the Spanish.

By the late 1670s, villages had begun freely handing over “criminals” to the Spanish, sometimes killing these men themselves before handing over their heads to the Spanish. The villages on Guam were politically divided, as always, and their conflict with one another could be legitimized under the new Spanish law making it a crime to harbor a criminal wanted by the Spanish.

!

The attractive features of the new settlements and the conversion of many to the faith also helped tilt the balance on Guam. The same thing would happen on Rota, and eventually on Saipan as well.

!

By the mid-1680s, the size of the Chamorro militia under the four Chamorro officers who sided with the Spanish was greater than the size of the colony’s Spanish garrison.

130 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

7) The loss of Chamorro life in hostilities throughout the course of the “Chamorro-Spanish Wars” was less than the loss suffered in a single epidemic.

The number of Chamorro deaths in battle reported in the Spanish accounts is 57, but there are probably about 110-120 Chamorro lives lost in hostilities over a 30year period. This would average out to 4 a year throughout the entire period 1668-1699.

!

The Spanish would have lost 12 Jesuits and 26 mission helpers, in addition to some soldiers throughout the same period. The death count for the Spanish party averaged out to about two a year.

!

By comparison, a single epidemic in 1689, with colds, stomach aches, fever and diarrhea, claimed more than 166 lives before the end of the year. This is more than the number of Chamorro lives claimed during the hostilities with the Spanish throughout the entire 30-year period.

!

It is clear that the depopulation of the Marianas during this period was due far more to epidemics spread by European ships than to the muskets and swords of the Spanish.

!

8) The worst indignities suffered by Chamorros may have occurred after warfare ended as the governor gained control of the economy and turned it to his personal benefit.

The real sins of the Spanish during their early mission initiative in the Marianas were not the spectacular sort that have so often been attributed to them–massive bloodletting, Inquisition-like torments for forcing islanders to accept the faith, and cruel punishments for refusal to submit to the Spanish yoke. The most serious damage occurred as the governors began to gain a choke-hold on the economy and turn the subsidy intended to support the colony into a personal investment fund.

!

As violence subsided after 1684, Spanish officials began to exercise an authority that often reduced local villagers and Spanish troops alike to the status of household servants. This had a debilitating effect on the colony and its people for years.

! !

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !131

Presentation Slides

!

 

132 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !133

!

134 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !135

!

!

--Francis Hezel is the former director of Micronesian Seminar and the author of several books on Micronesian history, as well as dozens of articles on economic and political issues in contemporary Micronesia. 

136 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

The Mariana Islands Militia and the Establishment of the “Pueblos de Indios” Indigenous Agency in Guam from 1668 to 1758

!

By David Atienza, PhD Professor of Anthropology University of Guam datienza@uguam.uog.edu

! !

Abstract: After the death of Blessed Diego Luis de San Vitores, an intermittent and violent conflict broke out in the Mariana Islands.

Centuries later this conflict would be baptized as the “Spanish-Chamorro wars”. The ethnohistory of the Chamorros traditionally has been considered closed after the defeat of the native forces in 1684 and the final “reducciones” and pacification of the Gani islands at the end of the 17th century. In this paper, I will present some elements that I consider to prove the socio-political continuity of indigenous agency beyond the final Christianization and “Hispanicization” of the island.

In making apologetics of the missionary activity, the seventeenth and eighteenth century Marianas’ Jesuitical historiography1 will present the near total assimilation of Christianity by the ‘poor’ Chamorro as a historical fact. This stereotype of the ‘poor’ Chamorro as eligible, submissive, and ready to receive the Gospel, will be used later by other colonial powers, enemies and rivals of the Spanish Crown, as we have argued before2, to discredit the Spanish missionary activity, portraying it as violent and fanatic. Some persons labeled the Spanish activity in the Marianas as a ‘scandal’ 3 that erased the indigenous population, replacing it with a ‘mestizo’ and abandoned population4. This narrative will deny the historical continuity of the Chamorro agency that is fundamental to legitimate the ancestral rights of an actual native population.

!

!

1

García, Vida y martyrio del padre Diego Luis de Sanvitores, de la Compañia de Jesus, primer apostol de las islas Marianas y sucessos de estas islas.; LeGobien, Histoire des isles Mariannes, nouvellement converties à la Religion Chretienne; & de la mort glorieuse des premiers Missionnaires qui yont prêché la Foy; Murillo Velarde, Historia de la provincia de Philipinas de la Compañia de Jesus. Segunda parte. Desde el año de 1616 hasta el de 1716.

!

2

Atienza, “La evangelización de las ‘pobres’ islas Marianas y su uso simbólico en Occidente.”

! Joseph 3 !

4

and Murray, Chamorros and Carolinians of Saipan, 11.

Hornbostel, “The Island of Guam and Its People’s Tragic History,” 80.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !137

Current historiography has coped, in some cases, with this vision of a lack of ‘original’ inhabitants and a lack of ‘authentic’ cultural practices5 placing the origin of this ‘absence’ of indigenous Chamorro in events like the “Spanish-Chamorro Wars” of extermination6 and the ‘Spanish Genocide’ 7, ideas widely popularized by some school manuals in Guam8. During this process, some stereotyped narratives have been generated. In them, the Spaniards exterminated ‘real’ Chamorros after a heroic resistance and substituted them by a mixed hispanicized population. These Manichaean structures threaten the ‘emic’ self-comprehension of the Chamorro people, endangering their self-history and self-identity that is surely much more complex and dynamical.

!

Without a doubt, the colonial impact was tragic for the inhabitants of the Marianas, taking the lives of more than 90% of the population by epidemics, violent conflicts, displacement, reducciones policies, or lack of births. Nevertheless, this catastrophic contact did not create a passive and submissive population that was totally in the hands of the colonial power. A detailed ethno-historical analysis of the sociopolitical dynamics of the Mariana Islands invites us to think differently. We find native people making decisions and playing unexpected roles; we find an indigenous agency and a continuity of the Chamorro cultural experience. This concept of continuity makes obsolete the debate on ‘authenticity’ 9 since there is not a total break with pre-colonial past but a continuous identity that may be reconstructed historically, identifying the pre-colonial elements and the process that has generated actual symbolical structures10.

!

Natives of the Marianas, like other indigenous people who faced similar violent colonial processes, were capable of assuming an active historical role incorporating and re-semanticizing previous elements of the contact in a new colonial scenario.

In such a way, they gave continuity to a vital experience11 giving birth to a new way of being in the world, original and owned by the indigenous themselves. This is to say that they indigenized European practices and westernized indigenous elements in a complex historical dialogue. The Mariana natives’ denial of this capacity of indigenous agency, in spite of the violence of the contact, is a response to a

!

5

Alkire, An introduction to the peoples and cultures of Micronesia, 20; Dobbin, Summoning the Powers Beyond, 12.

!

6

Beardsley, Guam Past and Present, 133.

!

7

Carano and Sanchez, A Complete History of Guam, 17.

!

8

i.e. Cunningham and Beaty, A History of Guam, 94–108; Sanchez, Guahan Guam, 37–45.

!

9

see Underwood, “Excursions into Inauthenticity; the Chamorros of Guam.”

!

10

i.e. Atienza and Coello, “Death Rituals and Identity in Contemporary Guam (Mariana Islands).”

! Wilde, “Poderes 11

138 ! ・

2nd

del ritual y rituales del poder,” 204.

Marianas History Conference 2013

conscious or unconscious ideological strategy. In any case, this denial of indigenous agency threatens objectivity, which is a requirement for social science studies.

!

Some examples of this strategy are the “Spanish-Chamorro Wars” (1672-1698) and the subsequent ‘reduction’ policies; processes, which were supposed ethically ‘good’ or ‘evil’, are historically well separated and classified. Spaniards is equal to evil; Chamorro is equal to good. However, the reality is much more complex, and sides were not so easily defined. Among the “Spaniards” who arrived to Guam in 1668, more than half of the troops and catechists were Filipinos, many of them Pampangan and Visayan. In fact, the captain of the troops during the early years was a married Filipino blacksmith, not a professional soldier, by the name of Juan de la Cruz Panday,12 and one of the first catechists to die a martyr was a Cebuano named Calungsod. Among these “Spaniards” were also some from New Spain, Mexico, probably mostly mestizos. There were also some peninsular, men from the

Iberian Peninsula—or Castilians. The first priests were nearly all Castilians, but soon Jesuits began arriving from Belgium, Italy, France and Bohemia. The term “Spaniard” was soon expanded to include even the children of those Filipinos, Mexicans or Castilians who married local women.

!

Finally, several Chamorros had fought side by side with the ‘Spaniards’. These Chamorro soldiers were fundamental for the survival of the colony. The existence of more than a few ‘indios amigos’ – friendly Indians – among the Christian troops reveals the lack of a centralized power or sense of central identity, and the political fragmentation involving indigenous clans who were probably fighting against each other for better access to power and resources.

!

For the Jesuitical chronics, the indigenous support was basically caused by sincere ascription to the truths of faith, but probably the alignment of some indigenous with the Europeans interests was more related with inter-ethnic dynamics and the political fragmentation of the clans. Already in 1521, Pigafetta13 showed his surprise at the lack of indigenous solidarity when, after the killing of seven Chamorro natives, several other Chamorros continued friendly trading with the Spaniards.

Meanwhile, on the shoreline, the family of the Chamorro victims cursed and cried for the deaths of their loved ones. Juan Pobre de Zamora mentioned the lack of central power and structure and a paramount chief. Even in the religious sphere a lack of centralization existed.14 Garcia noted that while the Jesuits were burning idols, “other Marianos, who were looking on, laughed also, for not all of them

!

12

A description of the helpers than arrived with San Vitores may be found in ANH 09-02676-04

!

13

Primer Viaje Alrededor Del Mundo, 233.

!

14

Martinez Perez, Fray Juan Pobre De Zamora, 446.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !139

venerate the skulls of their ancestors and cared less when the fathers told them that their souls were burning in hell.”15

!

This general fragmentation or lack of central power allowed for individuals or chiefs and clan heads to make freelance alliances. We have several cases of indigenous chiefs establishing coalitions with the colonial forces. The first is Quipuha, principal of Agatna16 who gave part of his land to build the first permanent mission. He was baptized as Juan ‘in honor of Saint John the Baptist, patron Saint of that island [Guam].’ Juan Quipuha received the honor reserved solely for people of noble birth ‘to be buried in the church, since he had given the ground on which the first church was built.”17 Don18 Juan Quipuha died six months after the arrival of Diego Luis de San Vitores without experiencing the revolts and fights that followed the death of the proto-martyr. Nevertheless, his clan remained loyal to the missionaries.

!

Antonio Jaramillo, in a letter to the King of Spain dated on December 20, 1680, explains the appointment of another Chamorro principal, Don Antonio Ayihi, as captain of ‘one part of the mountains’ and ‘was invested with a baton’ 19 as sign of his office. Ayihi ‘granted other indians with the grade of squad corporals for him’, and together they ‘patrolled the land capturing enemies’.20 Other Marianos imitated this action and finally the Governor of the Filipinas, D. Juan de Vargas, granted one of the highest military degrees to Don Antonio Ayihi, the title of Maestre de Campo de los indios21, a recognition that the King of Spain himself later

confirmed as “Maestre de Campo y Teniente de Governador y Capitan General de los

!

15

García, The Life and Martyrdom of the Venerable Father Diego Luis De Sanvitores of the Society of Jesus, First Apostle of the Mariana Islands and the Happenings in These Islands from the Year of One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-Eight, to That of One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-One, 188.

!

16

Murillo Velarde, Historia de la provincia de Philipinas de la Compañia de Jesus. Segunda parte. Desde el año de 1616 hasta el de 1716, Libro IV:10.

!

17

García, The Life and Martyrdom of the Venerable Father Diego Luis De Sanvitores of the Society of Jesus, First Apostle of the Mariana Islands and the Happenings in These Islands from the Year of One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-Eight, to That of One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-One, 188.

! The 18

title of ‘Don’ was reserved exclusively to noble people so it recognizes the nobility of the indigenous that use that term. According to the Spanish law principal and nobles indigenous were exempt from paying taxes or military service.

! This 19

was already a traditional symbol of power that the Chamorros integrated perfectly. According to Freycinet, “[…] tinas, sticks or staffs painted and then encircled at the top with plant filaments and long strips of palm-leaf – something like that phallus of the pagans in ancient times. These staffs were carried about during the native festivals as symbols of debauchery in the ulitaos” Freycinet, An Account of the Corvette l’Uraine’s Sojourn at the Mariana Islands, 1819, 33. ! Letter of Antonio Jaramillo to the King, Manila, December 20, 1680. (CITA) 20 !

21

This grade existed between the offices of Captain General and Master Sergeant. This officer was responsible of a whole Tercio in the battlefield. More or less, 3000 infantry soldiers comprised this military unit, the Tercio.

140 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

suyos”22 - Maestre de Campo and Lieutenant Governor and Captain General of their

own. Many governors, such as Saravia or Esplana, honored him, and he resided at the garrison with the rest of the troops23. Don Antonio Ayihi’s furnishment of provisions to the garrison during the revolt of Agualin is an exemplary incident demonstrating the fundamentality of Ayihi for the survival of the colony. Ayihi himself entered into combat shoulder to shoulder with the colonial forces and collaborated in the epic conquest and conflagration of Picpuc and Talofofo at the end of 167824. Don Antonio Ayihi’s death on April 15, 1701 was a moment of bereavement for the Spaniards. All made a procession of homage, the captains of the garrison carrying the body aloft, the remainder of the village following, and Don Josè Quiroga y Losada at the front. The people carried out the burial with great solemnity25.

!

Don Alonso Soon participated in the battle of Picpuc and Talofofo alongside Ayihi.

The Spaniards proclaimed Alonso as Principal y Sargento Mayor de Indios de los Partidos de Agat y Umatac26 - Principal and Master Sergeant of the Indians of the

Districts of Agat and Umatac. García27 mentions that the ‘criminals’ so greatly hated and feared Don Alonso Soon that ‘when they heard someone say, “Soon says it”, they obeyed and kept quiet’. Even José Quiroga came to send Alonso Soon to lead eight troops in an exploratory journey to the Carolina Islands in 1689.28

!

In order to regulate the Marianas militia and political organization of the partidos and reducciones’, and also to incorporate the clan structure of the native Chamorros in the colonial system, the Captain General D. Antonio de Saravia convened the chiefs and ‘principales’ of Guam in Agatna in 1681. A pompous military performance, composed of salutes, parading about, a solemn religious ceremony of processions, chants and speeches expounding upon the loyalty due to God and the King of Spain, Saravia installed an oath of fidelity for the principal heads of the clans of the Chamorros. After the oath, the chiefs would be granted the offices of !

22

ARSI Phil 14 f80 Informe anual Jesuita 1689-1690 por Pr. Bustillo también en Levesque Vol 9 pp.

396-409.

!

23

García, The Life and Martyrdom of the Venerable Father Diego Luis De Sanvitores of the Society of Jesus, First Apostle of the Mariana Islands and the Happenings in These Islands from the Year of One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-Eight, to That of One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-One, 481.

!

24

Ibid.

!

25

Murillo Velarde, Historia de la provincia de Philipinas de la Compañia de Jesus. Segunda parte. Desde el año de 1616 hasta el de 1716, Libro IV:351–355.

!

26

ARSI Phil 14 fol77 Informe anual de los Jesuitas 1689-1690 Pr. Bustillo.

!

27

García, The Life and Martyrdom of the Venerable Father Diego Luis De Sanvitores of the Society of Jesus, First Apostle of the Mariana Islands and the Happenings in These Islands from the Year of One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-Eight, to That of One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-One, 481.

!

28

Hezel and Driver, “From Conquest to Colonisation,” 147.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !141

Maestres de Campo, Captains, Second Lieutenant, and Bailiffs - Maestres de Campo, Capitanes, Alféreces y Alguaciles29 and receive different signs confirming and

displaying their power and responsibility. In this way, the indigenous structure of power was re-semanticized in colonial terms, integrating all structures into a new system. The traditional structure will not disappear, but will be merged and intertwined with Western categories in a complicated religious and military work of social engineering in which the indigenous agency will have a crucial role.30

!

One of the principales that received the grade of Master Sergeant of the Marianas militia in 1681 was Don Ignacio Hineti who had grown up in Sinahana 31.

Commanding an indigenous militia consisting of more than fifty Chamorros, Hineti protected the colony from obliteration by the revolt of Yura in July of 1684. The Master Sergeant, ‘shedding many tears’ over the deaths that the Yura revolt produced, ‘offered his person and all his people to the service of both Majesties’:32 the Governor and the King. Some students from the school of Letran joined the

resistance as well, as did numerous others ‘indios amigos’ -friendly indians.

!

Hineti and his men engaged in combat with the Chamorro rebels on several occasions during the time that the conflict lasted, from July to November of 1684.

The conflict ended when, after four months of siege, Quiroga managed to return from Saipan and put an end to the revolt. Ignacio Hineti and his men, all members of the Marianas militia, were considered the real heroes of the resistance and survival of the colony.33

!

Aside from these individual allies, many ‘indios amigos’ -Indian friends- as the Spaniards called them, acted on behalf of the Spaniards. In all likelihood, some natives acted ‘friendly’ to the Spaniards out of fear, but many others did it certainly because of shared goals with the colonial agenda and the expectation of some benefits to be given back in a process of reciprocation. For instance, some Chamorros from Rota brought to the garrison in Agatna the dead body of Matapang, the killer of Diego Luis de San Vitores. In the same way, some handed

!

29

De Morales and Le Gobien, Historia De Las Islas Marianas, 251.

!

30

Morales/Le Gobien mentioned that Ibid. '[Saravia] Established governors in the main villages of the island, justice agents, and police agents, to maintain severe discipline. He gave these offices to the Chamorris that showed more love to the Spaniards, and as head of the whole nation, he put the famous Antonio Ayihi.'

!

31

Murillo Velarde, Historia de la provincia de Philipinas de la Compañia de Jesus. Segunda parte. Desde el año de 1616 hasta el de 1716, Libro IV:251.

!

32

Ibid.

!

33

See “Relacion de los sucesos de las missiones Marianas desde 25 de Abril de 84 hasta primero de Mayo de 1685”

142 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

over the murderers of Fr. Antonio de San Basilio from Tarragui. It seems that this time of revolts and conflicts engendered the future political organization of Guam.

It is probable that Chamorros did not primarily intend their first step towards the militias, but the militias were later supported by the colonial government and blended, in some way, with the cultural idiosyncrasy of the Chamorro people. In the same way, the Jesuits considered this form of government appropriate in the effort to resolve socio-cultural issues and deal with the highly fragmented structure, inherent to the Mariana islanders. The militias were included in the organization of the reducciones, in the pueblos de indios.

!

In conclusion, it looks to me inaccurate to name the series of revolts that followed the death of San Vitores and lasted for almost 30 years, “Spanish-Chamorro Wars”.

First, the ethnical composition of the two sides was not uniform but actually extensively complicated. Second, the lack of clear sides and the intensity and intermittent flow of the conflict creates a difficulty to talk about them as a regular war. In any case, this conflict engendered a political dynamic that affected the development of the colony. For many years, the Jesuits considered the Marianas a land of frontier and a seedbed of martyrs,34 allowing the indigenous militias to be present and have an active role in the colonial and missionary development. These militias were not dissolved when the conflict ended, but rather they were integrated in the socio-political organization of the island and continued to act as a channel of cultural adjustment and negotiation of power and representation.

!

Socio-Political Organization and its Links with the Indigenous Militia Marianas’ people were centrifuge societies formed by different clans with no central state or paramount chiefdom. Non-consensual power was systematically refused and chiefdom rights were received through rules of matrilineal kinship.

How did the Jesuits reduce them to villages? Was it possible only by way of a violent process: the “Spanish-Chamorro War”, which destroyed native power and kinship structures totally replacing them with colonial Western structures? Without resting importance on this extremely violent conflict that we have seen, there are some elements that may help us think in a different way if we allow native agency to exist as part of the process.

!

As a result of the 1582 Synod promoted by the Bishop of Manila, Fray Domingo de Salazar (1512-1594), the government issued a document promulgating the Real Cédula of 11 June 1598, addressed to the General Governor of Filipinas Gómez Pérez Dasmariñas (1519-1593). This document ordered that:

!

34

Coello de la Rosa, “Colonialismo y Santidad En Las Islas MarIanas.”

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !143

!

“No es justo que los indios principales de Filipinas sean de peor condición después de haberse convertido, antes se les debe hacer tratamiento que les aficione y mantenga en fidelidad para que con los bienes espirituales que Dios les ha comunicado, llamándolos a su verdadero conocimiento, se junten los temporales y vivan con gusto y convivencia. Por lo cual, mandamos a los Gobernadores de aquellas islas que les hagan buen tratamiento y encomienden en nuestro nombre el gobierno de los indios de que eran señores y en todo lo demás procuren que justamente se aprovechen haciéndoles los indios algún reconocimiento en la forma que corrían al tiempo de su gentilidad con que esto sea sin perjuicio de los tributos que a Nos han de pagar, ni de los que tocase a sus encomenderos.” (Recopilación de Leyes de Indias, Libro VI, título 7o, ley 16a.) “[It is not fair that the principal indios of the Filipinas would have to be in a worse situation after conversion, but they should be treated in a way that may maintain their loyalty. And together with the spiritual goods that God has communicated to them, calling them to His true knowledge, they may enjoy their temporal goods, and live with pleasure coexisting with us. So, we order to the Governors of those islands to give them good treatment and entrust to them the government of the indios, which they were already commanding.

And in everything else, they should try to give them some acknowledgement in the same way they had it in the time of their gentility, without losing the taxes they should pay Us and pay to the encomenderos.]”

A process that would reach the Marianas a century later began with this Real Cédula. This Royal Decree would develop and receive local installation by a medium of laws published by the governors of the Filipinas. The Mariana Islands existed as a province of the Spanish Empire politically dependent on the Filipinas, so it follows that Marianas would adhere to the same laws propagated for the Filipinas, but such did not fully take place until the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1769.

!

Two government ordinances might have affected Mariana Islands: the ordinances promulgated by Sebastián Hurtado de Corcuera in 1642 and the reform of the Governor and Captain General Fausto Cruzat y Góngora in 1696. A new form of government for the ‘pueblos de indios’ arose, incorporating the decrees promulgated by the King but now adapted to a local environment. These new political structures of command will incorporate the Real Cédula of 1594, which is an attempt to grant some form of participation for the native principales. The new form of command also Law III from the same Title number 7. This law declares that indigenous successions systems, which were considered to be patrilineal in the Spanish way,

144 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

should be respected35, but nothing was said about the ritual and religious power that was removed from the indigenous chiefs and transferred directly to the presbyters of the Catholic Church.

!

In indigenous contexts, normally political representations and power are closely related to ritual expressions in a complex political-religious system difficult to unravel36. Also, at least in Micronesia, the access to leadership and positions of political and ritual responsibility is not directly linked to kinship lines of hereditary successions like in Europe, but are negotiated by a complex system that integrate elements like prestige, age, rank, property, and lineage37. Besides, in the Chamorro case, rights of succession are received through the matrilineal side, a situation that was not contemplated in the Laws of the Indians, due to the strong patrilineal tendency of the Iberian Peninsula.

!

According to Petersen38, Micronesian societies seem to have developed an apparently ambiguous and contradictory socio-political system to access to authority and power positions. This provides to the system the flexibility needed to endure natural disasters like earthquakes, typhoons, wars, and any other sort of calamity. In this way, they have answered successfully to colonial and post-colonial situations. Nevertheless, some scholars have denied this auto-poetical capacity of indigenous agency to the Chamorro people,39 asserting that Chamorro people suffered a total defeat, destruction, and substitution which led to a complete hispanicization and loss of any trace whatsoever of its Austronesian socio-political and ritual system.

!

However, in spite of the forced reductions to villages suffered by the indigenous Marianos during the seventeenth century, the socio-political traditional system did not disappear but was transformed gradually. In the same way, the Jesuits did not totally implement the Spanish ordinances affecting the indigenous villages because they understood they were working with a distinct cultural environment from their own. The system developed during the Jesuit period (1668-1769) mixed the practices of the indigenous with the missionary experiences that have created in other places a specific colonial process that Wilde has named ‘missionary ethno-

!

35

Wilde, “Prestigio Indígena y Nobleza Peninsular.”

!

36

ver Wilde, “Poderes del ritual y rituales del poder.”

!

37

Alkire, An introduction to the peoples and cultures of Micronesia; Petersen, “Sociopolitical Rank and Conical Clanship in the Caroline Islands”; Petersen, Traditional Micronesian Societies, 125–158.

!

38

“Sociopolitical Rank and Conical Clanship in the Caroline Islands.”

!

39

i.e. Alkire, An introduction to the peoples and cultures of Micronesia, 20; Dobbin, Summoning the Powers Beyond, 12.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !145

genesis’ 40. Jesuits successfully put into practice the indigenous militias in the seventeenth century among the Guarani in el Chaco to face the Lusitanian threat and repel the attacks of non-Christian tribes. They will partially transfer this experience to the Marianas, there implementing the militias mainly as an organizing structure to maintain the socio-cultural cohesion. Using the militias together with Christian Catholicism, they integrated Chamorro’s matrilineal and politically fragmented societies into ambilineal reducciones, organizing communal

work and ritual life.

!

The Jesuits established the titles of Maestre de Campo, comisario, capitán, tenientes, alféreces, and sargentos in the Guarani militias, superimposing the authority of these to the power of the traditional Caciques41. All of them were bestowed with symbols of power, for example batons, flags, and halberds, for integration in new symbolic structures42. The Jesuits in Paraguay did not invent this military organization but channeled an indigenous idiosyncratic structure, considering the high bellicosity of the Guarani who were continually involved in inter-tribal warfare fighting for resources. This characteristic practice facilitated the ‘election of adequate leaders’ out of which would emerge ‘temporary chiefdoms under a powerful Cacique that will be respected by several communities until further segmentations’ 43, an occurrence which appears similar to Marianas’ political organization.

!

Observing the accounts of indigenous alliances in the Marianas during the first years of the contact, these coalitions will be established mainly in war contexts and under occasions of war.44 Territorial and clan chiefs will reach agreements under the pressure of reaching specific military goals, agreements that would last only for a limited time, as long as the threat or a common enemy exists. Due to each one’s circumstantial nature, these alliances will flux and change continuously. Such was the case during the revolts of 1671, 1676 or 1684, with leaders like Hurao, Agualin, or Yula, respectively. It is probably this experience that became one of the causes that led the Jesuits, and some governors like Saravia, to develop and maintain a system of political offices based on the militia and not in the Spanish-Filipino legislation, where there was no reason to maintain military structures. They surely

!

40

Wilde, “De Las Crónicas Jesuíticas a Las ‘etnografías Estatales’: Realidades y Ficciones Del Orden Misional En Las Fronteras Ibéricas,” 22.

!

41

Quarleri, “Gobierno y Liderazgo Jesuítico-guaraní En Tiempos De Guerra (1752-1756),” 103.

!

42

Wucherer, “Jesuitas, Guaraníes y Armas. Milicias Guaraníes Frente a Los Indios Del Gran Chaco,” 283.

!

43

Quarleri, “Gobierno y Liderazgo Jesuítico-guaraní En Tiempos De Guerra (1752-1756),” 103.

!

44

see García, The Life and Martyrdom of the Venerable Father Diego Luis De Sanvitores of the Society of Jesus, First Apostle of the Mariana Islands and the Happenings in These Islands from the Year of One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-Eight, to That of One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-One.

146 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

understood the most intelligent way to build stable socio-political systems in the reducciones was for different clans, which tended to be dispersive by nature, to live and work together, as it was utilizing traditional tools of the Chamorro nature.

!

The organization of the indigenous Marianas’ militia commenced during the so called “Spanish-Chamorro Wars”.45 Certain Chamorros received military titles like Maestre de Campo (Antonio Ayihi), Sargento Mayor (Ignacio Hineti) and Capitan.46

The Military Governor Antonio de Saravia (1681-1684) would expand the use of this system to the government of the villages in Guam and Rota, and the system would be inserted in the life of the reducciones. The Jesuits will maintain the use of this structure until their expulsion from the Spanish Empire.

!

For example, on the date of 22 March 1710, four English ships under the orders of the Captain Rogers arrived to Humatac and “entreated the Spaniards to provide them with food, refreshment […] lest they raze the island to the ground along with their inhabitants”47. The governor at that time, Pimentel, convened a War Council which he did not attend and eventually negotiated with the pirates. In this context the principales Alonso Soón, Maestre de Campo, and Antonio Ayo, Master Sergeant of

the indian militias ‘committed to gather 2000 men from the partidos of Hagat, Humatac, Malesso, and Inalahan to launch an assault against the English ships.’ 48 Pimentel finally rejected this proposal but still this event spoke on the existence and the function of the militia and its leaders.

!

In the 1758 census, close to the time the Jesuits were expulsed, we may still find a clear military structure link to the indigenous government of the pueblos de indios.

We find the military grades of Maestre de Campo, Sargento Mayor, Capitán and Asistente (assistant) assigned to indigenous people in each one of the 12 partidos of the Marianas (eleven in Guam and one in Rota). Nevertheless, going through this census we can observe that two or three Maestres de Campo existed in each partido, as well as two or three Sargentos, Capitanes, and Asistentes. This duplication of offices may indicate the existence of cargos vivos (active positions) and cargos pasados (retired positions); however, this information was normally made explicit in the !

45

See Francis Hezel “The So-Called “Spanish-Chamorro War”” in the 2nd Marianas History Conference, Guam 2013.

!

46

Morales/Le Gobien noted that “the Government established one captain for every village to govern the people and give account of what was happening in each village” but Driver in “Quiroga’s Letter to King Phillip V, 26 May 1720,” 101. mentions that this Captains or Mayors were military foremen that supervised farming and livestock activities. See de Morales and Le Gobien, Historia De Las Islas Marianas, 247.

!

47

Coello de la Rosa, “Corruption, Greed, and the Public Good in the Mariana Islands, 1700–1720,” 208.

!

48

Ibid., 209.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !147

documents and it is not the case in the 1758 census. On the other hand, among the traditional indigenous cultures of Micronesia it is usual to find chiefs for different levels: territorial chiefs, linage chiefs and ‘seniors or high-ranking individuals’ 49 who may be considered leaders or chiefs as well.

!

PARTIDO DE PAGO

!

Maestre de Campo

Phelipe Ena

Sargento Mayor

Joan Eo

Capitan

Francisco Guatafe

Ayudante

Pablo Taihaia

Maestre de Campo

Matheo Memis

Maestre de Campo

Pablo Atoti

Maestre de Campo

Mathias Gaion

Sargento Mayor

Luca Ytutup

Sargento Mayor

Joseph Taiguaha

Sargento Mayor

Marcos Mafnas

Sargento Mayor

Clemente Taytinfog

Capitan

Francisco Melo

Capitan

Gaspar Fagani

Fiscal

Bernave Añao

!

Table 1. Offices from the village of Pago. Source: Census of 1758.

This cultural characteristic and native agency or collaboration may explain the Census of 1758 and the transit from dispersed clans to reducciones. My hypothesis is that the indigenous chiefdom and leadership was re-semanticized and incorporated into Hispanic military categories to maintain the hereditary clan structures and the native and traditional power system. In the partidos (villages) one could easily find chiefs and principals from different clans and levels forced to live together in only one village after the reduction. To make sense of this new situation, to create a coherent socio-political organization, a solution acceptable to the indigenous and for use by the colonial power, the plan was to turn to forms of traditional war alliances that were executed normally with concrete goals and for a limited time.

Now the goals were to organize the communal work or polo,50 to maintain the moral

!

49

Petersen, “Sociopolitical Rank and Conical Clanship in the Caroline Islands,” 369.

!

50

Military terminology associated to communal work and leadership is still in use among some Guarani people like the Mby’a from Misiones. Other indigenous organization on Bolivia are still organize following militia’s names like the Consejo de Capitanes Guaraníes de Chuquisaca or Capitanes Chiriguanos from Chaco Combés, among others.

148 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

order and religious obligations in the villages,51 and probably to serve as examples of Christian life. The time was now unlimited.

!

These same structures, which worked well in the socio-political sphere, were introduced also in the religious domain, giving honor seats in the Church to the officials and the early creation of Marian indigenous congregations, since 1690. The Jesuits created the first congregation, for those who were faithful to the Spaniards during the revolt of 1868, and was under the advocacy of Dulcísimo Nombre de María.52 In the Marianas, as in Paraguay, ‘the ritual became the transactional context

[…] where the possibility existed to mix traditional and new elements and to define a dynamic equilibrium’ 53.

!

As Makihara and Schieffelin have pointed out, ‘though shaped by asymmetrical power relations’, colonial encounters were ‘dynamic and complex.’ 54 These complexities in the Marianas have drawn a continuum picture that has reached contemporary times, and were the indigenous agency has been always present.

Manichean structures cannot represent reality in an accurate way and are mainly ideological: they might be licit into a political fight, but are definitely not historical.

Reality is much more rich and challenging. In 1818 the Russian captain Vasíli Mijáilovich Golovnin, commander of the Kamchatka, mentioned surprised that:

!

‘All local officials are appointed and promoted by the Governor from among the native inhabitants. I learned about this from the Governor himself in a rather peculiar manner: when he first invited me and my staff to dinner he quietly asked me, before sitting down, whether we would object to eating at the same table with his staff, consisting of natives appointed to their posts by himself, while we were all Europeans appointed to our ranks by our Sovereign.’ 55

I think I have proved enough that it is necessary to have further analysis on the indigenous agency or collaboration during the Jesuitical period or first Christian period of the Marianas. We have a point of departure on 1681 with Saravia’s military organization of the villages, and a clear structure on the 1758 census, few

! The 51

indigenous principal and Captain Manuel Tayitup from Sinahaña denounced to the superior of the mission the immoral behaviors of some ‘naturales’ from his village because he said “do not want a be accomplice of their sins’ (ARSI Phil 14, fol. 80.)

!

52

ARSI Phil 14 fol. 82

!

53

Wilde, “Poderes del ritual y rituales del poder,” 215.

!

54

Makihara and Schieffelin, “Cultural Preocesses and Linguistic Mediations,” 14.

!

55

Wiswell, Chapters on Hawaii and the Marianas in V.M. Golovnin’s Voyage Around the World, 81.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !149

years before the Jesuits expulsion from the island. Now we have to do research on what happened in between.

!

Presentation Slides

!

150 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !151

!

152 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !153

!

!

154 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

References Alkire, William H. 1977 An introduction to the peoples and cultures of Micronesia. California: Cummings Publishing Company.

!

Atienza, David 2012 “La evangelización de las ‘pobres’ islas Marianas y su uso simbólico en Occidente.”

In La violencia del amor, edited by Desiderio Parrilla, 191-216. Madrid: Asociación Bendita María.

!

Atienza, David de Frutos, and Alexandre de la Rosa Coello 2012 “Death Rituals and Identity in Contemporary Guam (Mariana Islands).” The Journal of Pacific History 47, no. 4: 459-473.

!

Beardsley, Charles 1964 Guam Past and Present. Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Company.

!

Carano, Paul, and Pedro C. Sanchez 1964 A Complete History of Guam. Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Company.

!

Coello de la Rosa, Alexandre 2010 “Colonialismo y Santidad En Las Islas Marianas: Los Soldados De Gedeón (1676-1690).” Hispania 70, no. 234: 17-44.

2013 “Corruption, Greed, and the Public Good in the Mariana Islands, 1700-1720.”

Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints 61, no. 2: 193-222.

!

Combés, Isabelle 2005 “Nominales Pero Atrevidos: Capitanes Chiriguanos Aliados En El Chaco Boliviano (siglo XIX).” Indiana 22: 129-145.

!

Cunningham, Lawrence J., and Janice J. Beaty 2001 A History of Guam. Honolulu: Bess Press.

!

De Morales, Luis, and Charles Le Gobien 2013 Historia De Las Islas Marianas. Edited by Alexandre Coello de la Rosa. Madrid: Ediciones Polifemo.

!

Dobbin, Jay D. 2011 Summoning the Powers Beyond: Traditional Religions in Micronesia. Honolulu: University of Hawai`i Press.

!

Driver, Marjorie G. 1992 “Quiroga’s Letter to King Phillip V, 26 May 1720: A Translation of the Hitherto Unpublished Manuscript in the Archives General of the Indies, Seville.” The Journal of Pacific History 27, no. 1 (1 June): 98-106.

!

Freycinet, Louis Claude Desaulses de 2003 An Account of the Corvette l’Uraine’s Sojourn at the Mariana Islands, 1819. Saipan: CNMI Division of Historic Preservation.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !155

García, Francisco 1683 Vida y martyrio del padre Diego Luis de Sanvitores, de la Compañia de Jesus, primer apostol de las islas Marianas y sucessos de estas islas. Madrid: Juan Garcia Infanzon.

2004 The Life and Martyrdom of the Venerable Father Diego Luis De Sanvitores of the Society of Jesus, First Apostle of the Mariana Islands and the Happenings in These Islands from the Year of One Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-Eight, to That of One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty-One. Mangilao, Guam: Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam.

!

Hezel, Francis X., and Marjorie C. Driver 1988 “From Conquest to Colonisation: Spain in the Mariana Islands 1690–1740 ∗.” The Journal of Pacific History 23, no. 2: 137-155. doi:10.1080/00223348808572585.

!

Hornbostel, Hans G. 1930 “The Island of Guam and Its People’s Tragic History.” The Mid-Pacific XL, no. 1: 73-80.

!

Joseph, Alice, and Veronica F. Murray 1951 Chamorros and Carolinians of Saipan: Personality Studies. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

!

LeGobien, Charles 1700 Histoire des isles Mariannes, nouvellement converties à la Religion Chretienne; & de la mort glorieuse des premiers Missionnaires qui yont prêché la Foy. Pepie.

!

Makihara, Miki, and Bambi B. Schieffelin 2007 “Cultural Preocesses and Linguistic Mediations.” In Consequences of Contact.

Language Ideologies and Sociocultural Transformations in Pacific Societies, 3-29. New York: Oxford University Press.

!

Martinez Perez, Jesus, ed.

1997 Fray Juan Pobre De Zamora: Historia De La Pérdida y Descubrimiento Del Galeón San Felipe. Diputación Provincial de Avila - Institución Gran Duque de Alba.

!

Murillo Velarde, Pedro 1749 Historia de la provincia de Philipinas de la Compañia de Jesus. Segunda parte. Desde el año de 1616 hasta el de 1716. Vol. Libro IV. Manila: Imprenta de la Compañia de Jesús.

!

Petersen, Glenn 1999 “Sociopolitical Rank and Conical Clanship in the Caroline Islands.” Journal of the Polynesian Society 108, no. 4: 367-410.

2009 Traditional Micronesian Societies: Adaptation, Integration, and Political Organization.

Honolulu: University of Hawai`i Press.

!

Pigafetta, Antonio 2002 Primer Viaje Alrededor Del Mundo. Edited by Leoncio Cabrero. Madrid: Historia 16.

!

Quarleri, Lía 2008 “Gobierno y Liderazgo Jesuítico-guaraní En Tiempos De Guerra (1752-1756).”

Revista De Indias LXVIII, no. 243 (4 August): 89-114. doi:10.3989/revindias.

2008.i243.648.

156 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Sanchez, Pedro C. 1990 Guahan Guam: The History of Our Island. Agana, Guam: Sanchez Publishing.

!

Underwood, Robert A. 1985 “Excursions into Inauthenticity; the Chamorros of Guam.” Edited by Murray.

Chapman and Philip S. Morrison. Pacific Viewpoint 26, no. 1. Mobility and Identity in the Pacific (April): 160-183.

!

Wilde, Guillermo 2003 “Poderes del ritual y rituales del poder: un análisis de las celebraciones en los pueblos jesuíticos de Guaraníes.” Revista Española de Antropología Americana 33 (1 January): 203-229.

2006 “Prestigio Indígena y Nobleza Peninsular: La Invención De Linajes Guaraníes En Las Misiones Del Paraguay.” Jahrbuch Für Geschichte Lateinamerikas= Anuario De Historia De América Latina (JbLA) no. 43: 119-145.

2011 “De Las Crónicas Jesuíticas a Las ‘etnografías Estatales’: Realidades y Ficciones Del Orden Misional En Las Fronteras Ibéricas.” Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos Debates (30 November). http://nuevomundo.revues.org/62238.

!

Wiswell, Ella 1974 Chapters on Hawaii and the Marianas in V.M. Golovnin’s Voyage Around the World.

Miscellaneous Work Papers. Honolulu, Hawaii: Pacific Islands Program, University of Hawaii. http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/15410.

!

Wucherer, Pedro M. O. Svriz 2011 “Jesuitas, Guaraníes y Armas. Milicias Guaraníes Frente a Los Indios Del Gran Chaco.” História Unisinos 15, no. 2 (5 September): 281-293.

! !

--David Atienza received a PhD in Anthropology from the Complutense University of Madrid in 2006. He has taught history, philosophy, anthropology and applied linguistics at different institutions and universities in Spain. Dr. Atienza’s research interests focus on Cultural Identity, Ethnohistory, and Linguistic Anthropology. He has authored several publications, including Viaje e Identidad: La Genesis de la Elite Quichwa-Otavalena en Madrid, a product of fieldwork conducted in Otavalo, Ecuador, and Spain, and his latest article in The Journal of Pacific History, “Death Rituals and Identity in Contemporary Guam (Mariana Islands).” Currently, he is an assistant professor of Anthropology at UOG.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !157

!

158 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Where is the Gold? Silver and Copper Coins from Two of Guam’s Historic Sites

!

By Darlene R. Moore Archaeologist Micronesian Archaeological Research Services, Guam dmoore@guam.net

! !

Abstract: One of the questions that archaeologists working in the Marianas are asked is, “Are you searching for gold?” This article briefly reviews the Manila Galleon trade with respect to the transport of gold and silver, examines the catalog of items recovered from Spanish Period shipwrecks in the Marianas, and describes archaeological investigations at two Spanish Period historic sites on Guam that yielded one silver and two copper coins. The historic backgrounds of the coins are examined in order to better understand their stories and the contributions they make to our understanding of Guam’s history. Although most land-based archaeological projects in the Marianas are not designed to seek treasure, our endeavors often result in the discovery of nuggets of information about the past that has its own intrinsic value.

Introduction One of the first questions people ask archaeologists working in the Marianas is, “Have you ever found gold treasures?” While finding gold coins or gold objects is an intriguing idea, it is not the focus of most archaeological research projects.

Deposits of gold ore do not occur naturally in the Mariana Islands. If gold, or other valuables, were recovered during the course of a land-based archaeological investigation, most likely it would belong to the government or the land owner, not the archaeologists. Maritime firms have recovered gold and silver items, as well as other valuables, from the ruins of Manila Galleons that wrecked in the Mariana Islands in the 1600s. Galleons similar to those that wrecked, sailed annually at Spain’s direction, back and forth across the Pacific Ocean between the Spanish colonies in the Philippines and Acapulco, Mexico from about 1565 to 1815, and they carried rich cargoes that included gold and silver (Schurz 1989; Quimby 1991a, 1991b, 1991c). Perhaps it is information about the riches aboard these vessels that prompt people to ask if we archaeologists have found gold. The archaeologists at Micronesian Archaeological Research Services (MARS) have not found gold during our land-based projects, but three old coins have been recovered.

!

This article presents a brief section on the background of Spain’s Manila Galleon trade, reviews recent underwater salvage efforts on the remains of three galleons 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !159

that perished in the waters of the Mariana Islands, and describes archaeological investigations at two different historic sites on Guam that yielded three old coins.

Background information is provided for the silver coin recovered from the old Spanish village of Pago (Moore 2007) and for the two copper coins recovered from a pre-WWII residence in Hagåtña known as the Rosario House (Moore et al. 1993).

These coins are not gold and are not even particularly valuable from a coin collector’s perspective due to their worn conditions. Nonetheless, they have fascinating tales to tell. The tales add to our understanding of Guam’s history.

!

Manila Galleon Trade During the early years of the Manila Galleon trade, China favored silver over gold (Lugar 1990:21). In order to purchase goods from the Chinese merchants in Manila, Spain’s galleons carried silver coins from Spain and from Spain’s American colonies on their three-month-long westward voyages across the Pacific Ocean from Acapulco to Manila (Fig. 1). The goods mostly brought on Chinese junks from China to the trading center in Manila, included gold jewelry and other gold items, silk and other textiles, ivory, pearls, gems, and porcelain (Schurz 1939). These were loaded on the galleons for the grueling five-to-eight-month-long eastward voyage to Acapulco (Lugar 1990:18). From Acapulco some of the merchandise was transported overland to Mexico City and some went to the east coast port of Vera Cruz where it was shipped eastward across the Atlantic Ocean to Spain.

!

On their westward voyages, the galleons also carried silver coins from the Spanish Royal Treasury for the support of the Philippine Colony. After 1668, when a permanent Spanish presence was established on Guam, the island’s annual allotment of funds was included on the westward bound ships, which were directed to pause on Guam. The annual situado (subsidy) for the Mariana Islands was about 20,000 pesos (del Valle 1991:8). The funds were intended to cover the salaries of the government officials and members of the garrison; another 10,000 pesos was provided to support the Catholic mission (Hezel 1988).

!

Salvage of the Manila Galleons in the Marianas At least three Manila Galleons wrecked in the Marianas in the 1600s (Fig. 2). In recent years there have been attempts to recover their cargoes. The lists of items recovered during these salvage efforts provide information about the riches they carried. In 1601, on her way to Acapulco, the Santa Margarita foundered off Rota’s north coast. Historical accounts indicate that the Chamorro people took control of the ship, recovered its goods including gold chains which they “hung…to the trees or wore…round their necks...” (Barratt 2003a:80). In 1987 Pacific Sea Resources located the probable wreck site near Teteto Beach where ballast stones, porcelain 160 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

and stoneware sherds, glass beads and portions of five bronze clavos were found that were thought to be from the ship (Butler 1988:440-441). In 1995 IOTA Partners was permitted to salvage the wreckage, but encountered legal difficulties once their recovery efforts damaged the coral reef (Junco, http://www.themua.org/collections/ archive/files, 3/9/2012). Items recovered from the wreck before the salvage ceased included a few gold pieces, ivory, porcelain, and gemstones including garnets (Ty 1995:16-17; http://www.katu.com/news/local, 3/9/2012).

!

!

Figure 1. Map of the Pacific Ocean showing the sailing routes of the Manila Galleons from Acapulco on the east to Manila on the west (from Rogers 1995:17).

After encountering a violent storm on her way to Acapulco, the Nuestra Señora de la Concepción wrecked off the coast of Saipan in 1638. Beginning in 1989, Pacific Sea Resources implemented a recovery program, and gold items were among the valuable goods collected from the underwater remains (Mathers et al. 1990). More than “1,300 pieces of 22.5 carat gold jewelry including a variety of chains, rings, buttons, plates and other decorative gold items set with diamonds, rubies, sapphires and emeralds” were recovered (Mathers et al. 1990:529). Some of these treasures are on display in the Saipan museum. Interestingly, only a single silver coin, in the denomination of one real, was among the recovered items (Mathers et al. 1990:532). The lack of silver coins suggests that they were not commonly carried on the eastward voyages. Alternatively, silver coins in the cargo could have been recovered earlier. Salvage efforts by the Spanish in 1684 and again in 1703 were aimed at recovering the bronze cannons which had been aboard the Concepcion (Quimby 1991b:40). During these early efforts, other items may have been collected too.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !161

!

Figure 2. Showing the location of four ships that wrecked in the Mariana Islands during the Spanish Period. 1 is the Santa Margarita (1601), 2 is the Nuestra Señora de la Concepción (1638), 3 is the Nuestra Señora del Pilar(1690), and 4 is a Spanish frigate (1814). (Figure Adapted from Butler 1995:7).

!

The Nuestra Señora del Pilar sank off Guam in 1690 en route to the Philippines. The wreck was partially salvaged in the 1990s. In 1989, prior to beginning their salvage efforts, the Pilar Project located a record in Spain that indicated some 5,000 coins had been recovered from the wreck shortly after it sank (Junco, http:// www.themua.org/collections/archive/files, 3/9/2012). It is likely that most of the coins recovered during this initial effort were silver. The recent Pilar salvage work recovered 36 additional silver coins with marks indicating that they had been minted in Mexico City, Lima (Peru), and Potosí (Bolivia). The Guam Museum collection includes some of the silver coins recovered from the Pilar (Fig. 3). Iron nails, cannon balls, musket shot, fragments of storage jars and stone ballast were also recovered (Junco, http://www.themua.org/ collections/archive/files, 3/9/2012).

!

162 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

Figure 3. Silver coins recovered from the Pilar. (courtesy of the Guam Museum)

In 1814 a Spanish frigate sailing from Callao, Peru to Cavite, Philippines struck rocks in Apra Harbor, Guam (Rogers 1995:90). She was carrying 500,000 silver pesos. Shortly after she sank, Guam’s Spanish governor organized a salvage effort and recruited skilled swimmers who recovered most of the coins by free diving (Rogers 1995:90).

!

Based on the goods recovered from these shipwrecks and according to the historic accounts, Spain’s silver coins were transported westward across the Pacific Ocean, while gold jewelry and other gold objects along with fabrics, spices and other goods were transported eastward. Most of the westward-bound silver originated in the Spanish colonies in Mexico and South America. Some of the eastward-bound gold originated in China and Indonesia, and some originated in the Philippines where nuggets of placer gold had been traded and/or formed into objects of adornment even prior to the islands being colonized by Spain (Lévesque 1992:173; http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Cultural_achievements_of_pre-colonial_Philippines, 6/25/2012).

!

While gold and silver were transported across the Pacific Ocean during the Spanish Period, it was the westward bound ships that stopped on Guam and left silver coins for the support of the colony. The eastward bound ships carrying gold were not required to pause in the islands. Therefore, it seems likely that any gold to be found in the islands would have had to arrive via the salvage of the wrecks of the eastward bound ships or by some other means.

! !

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !163

Old Pago Village Spanish Coin One silver coin was collected from the ground surface of a newly-cleared access road in Pago Bay, Guam, near Frank Perez Beach Park (Hunter-Anderson and Moore 2008; Moore 2007) (Fig. 4). Pago was one of the six villages established on Guam by the Spanish in 1680 (Lévesque 2002[19]:217). As with the other Spanish villages founded on Guam, Pago’s population was made up of people who were forced to move from the surrounding areas to the village. Pago Village was described as a large settlement divided by the Pago River. In addition to the homes of the new villagers, a wood and thatch church and a priest’s house were built (Lévesque 1994:361). A census taken in 1710 reports that 404 people lived in Pago Village (Hezel 2003:Appendix 4). At the time, the village administrator was Captain Andres de Arceo (Lévesque 1998[12]:595).

!

In 1769 the Jesuit missionaries, who founded the Catholic mission on Guam in 1668, were expelled from all of Spain’s colonies and a group of Augustinians was sent to replace them on Guam. At some point in the late 1700s apparently a stone church with a palm-thatch roof was built in Pago. It may have been one of several construction projects initiated by the Augustinians (Driver 2005:39-41; 2000:x). A description of the church has not been located, but Haynes and Wuerch (1990:8-9) suggest that all of the churches dating to this time frame had a shape and size similar to the coral masonry ruins of the old Umatac church. Umatac’s stone church was completed in 1770 (Driver 2005:40) and destroyed by an earthquake in 1849 (Rogers 1995:65). The ruins of the Umatac church remain visible today. They may provide a possible model for understanding the physical structure of the Pago church.

!

164 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

Figure 4. Map of Guam showing the locations of the former Pago Village and the Rosario House archaeological projects completed by Micronesian Archaeological Research Services.

When members of the Freycinet expedition visited Pago Village in 1819, the village had a population of 210, a church, a monastery, a boys’ school, a girls’ school and a governor’s residence (Barratt 2003b:115, 121; Lévesque 2002[19]:366). The illustrations made by the Freycinet expedition include the plan and front elevation of the governor’s residence which was built of stone and roofed with clay tiles (Lévesque 2002[19]:124,125; MARC map collection). The Freycinet map of Pago Village shows structures situated on both sides of the Pago River. The actual location of the church and the governor’s house are not shown, but it is likely they were among the more numerous structures depicted north of the river.

!

In September 1855 a typhoon hit the island and destroyed the structures in Pago Village. The governor’s residence lost its roof and its walls collapsed (Ibanez et al.

1976:4). The church was damaged to such an extent that its foundation was partially destroyed. It was thought that the center of the storm passed directly over the church (Ibanez et al. 1976:4-5). A smallpox epidemic the following year significantly decreased the island’s population including that of Pago. The 1857 population 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !165

figures report 245 deaths for Pago Village (Driver 2000:37). The village was largely abandoned after 1857 and the remaining parishioners were transferred to HagĂĽtĂąa (Driver 2000:37). Over the following years information about the precise location of the village and its stone and wooden structures has been lost.

!

Archaeological investigations completed on the north side of Pago Bay by Micronesian Archaeological Research Services (MARS) encountered prehistoric as well as historic materials, but shaped building stones and foundations of the former stone buildings of Old Pago were not identified. The historic materials recovered include bottles, glassware and porcelain fragments, broken clay tiles, and portions of large kiln-fired storage jars of the type commonly carried on the galleons (Moore 2007). Pieces of three different griddles made of basalt (a type of igneous rock) also were recovered (Hunter-Anderson and Moore 2008; Hunter-Anderson 2007). They indicate that people prepared food on griddles during the time that the historic village was occupied. One of the Freycinet illustrations shows a kommat, the Chamorro term for griddle (Topping et al. 1975) after the Mexican term comal, being used on Guam (Fig. 5). As illustrated, a flat griddle was placed over a small fire.

Supports on either end of the griddle raised it above the flames. Flat cakes or tortillas were cooked on its upper surface.

!

The griddles were part of the assemblage of items brought to Guam during the Spanish Period. They were accompanied by corn, the three-legged stone metate and mano (used to grind the corn), and the stone or brick beehive oven, (hotnu in Chamorro, Topping et al. 1975; Moore and Steffy 2008). Corn tortillas (titiyas in Chamorro) were among the foods cooked on the griddles. On Guam metal griddles, also called kommat, have replaced the earlier versions of stone and possibly clay.

While archaeologists have not positively identified fragments of clay griddles on Guam, it has been suggested that some very flat pottery fragments could represent plates or griddles (Moore 2002; Spoehr 1957:110).

!

166 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Figure 5. One of the Freycinet Expedition’s illustrations showing titiyas being prepared on the right and cooked on a kommat elevated over a fire (left), courtesy of the Guam Public Library System.

!

The prehistoric materials recovered from archaeological investigations at old Pago Village include Latte Period pottery, stone and shell tools, bone tools, sling stones, and shell ornaments (Moore 2007). The historical account of Fray Juan Pobre (Driver 1989), who jumped ship when it stopped near Rota in 1602, indicates that Sancho, one of the survivors of the galleon Santa Margarita which had wrecked near Rota in 1601, was living with a Chamorro family in Pago. Upon hearing the news that two Spaniards were on Rota, Sancho and other Pago residents set sail for that island. They landed on Rota’s north coast at the village of Guaco (also Guata, Guato, see Butler 1988:106) where the Pago people had connections (Driver 1989:30). Given the apparent relationship between Pago and Guaco (which is near Teteto Beach where the probable shipwreck was identified offshore, Butler 1988:440), one might expect items recovered from the Santa Margarita shipwreck to be found in Pago village. However, nothing that could be directly tied to the Margarita or to the Nuestra Senora del Buen Viaje which supposedly sank in Pago Bay in 1754 (Quimby 1991b:44) was identified during the archaeological investigations at Old Pago. The Buen Viaje has not been the focus of a salvage project.

!

The results of the archaeological studies in Old Pago indicate that the Spanish village had been built on a Latte Period village site. Three radiocarbon dates were obtained on material recovered from the MARS excavations. The earliest date, A.D. 870-1020, was obtained from coconut shell charcoal recovered from a fire pit. The date indicates that the area was used near the beginning of the Latte Period. The middle date, A.D. 1290-1420, and the most recent date, A.D. 1440-1640, were obtained on charcoal recovered from other parts of the site, indicating that use of the area continued through the Latte Period and into early historic times (Moore 2007).

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !167

According to markings on the silver coin (the “M” with a small circle above it) recovered from Pago’s newly exposed ground surface, it was minted in Mexico City in 1779 during the reign of Spain’s King Carolus III (King Charles, 1759-1788) (Moore 2007) (Fig. 6). Coins with a portrait of King Carolus III were minted from 1772 to 1789 (http://www.wikicoins.com/ Spanish-Colonial_Reales, 4/19/2012). The coin is a milled bust type, machine-struck on a round planchet (a metal disk to be stamped as a coin). The obverse side (in coin terminology the side with the head or portrait [http://coins.about.com/od/coins glossary/g/obverse defined.htm, 3/12/2012]) displays the bust of King Carolus III (left in Fig. 6). The opposite, or reverse side, displays a pair of pillars separated by a simple shield with lions, castles, a pomegranate, and a crown with three centralized fleurs-de-lis (http:// www.newworldtreasures.com/milled bust.htm, right in Fig. 6). The diameter of this coin is 2.7 cm (1 and 1/16 inch), and it weighs 6.4 grams. It is worth two reales, or 2/8 of a peso.

!

Prior to A.D. 1732 pieces of silver, called cobs, were hand struck to create the desired image on the coins (see Fig. 3). After 1732 the silver was rolled into strips and cut into round disks known as a planchet. The planchet was then weighed to make certain it conformed to the uniform weight for its assigned value. Then it was placed between two dies and struck to produce a coin. Coins manufactured by this method were called milled coins. The Pago coin, minted in 1779, is milled.

!

Figure 6. Spanish silver two reales coin, dated 1779, recovered from Old Pago Village. MARS photo

by Rick Schaefer.

!

The Mexico City mint, where the Pago coin was made, is known as the Casa de Moneda de Mexico. In 1536 Spain authorized Viceroy Antonio de Mendoza to establish the Mexico City mint which was the first to be founded in Spain’s American colonies. In 1562 the mint was moved to a large building in Mexico City’s 168 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

central square (www.coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ ColCoinIntros/Sp-Silver.intro.html, 3/01/2012), where it remains today as the oldest mint in the Americas.

!

Several denominations of silver coins were minted in Spain’s American colonies.

One was a silver peso worth eight “royals” or reales in Spanish, so it was often referred to as “pieces of eight” (Weatherford 1997:117). In addition, silver coins with values of one-half, one, two, and four reales were minted (Patacsil 1998). The two reales Pago coin is worth one quarter of a peso. It is the forerunner of the U.S. quarter (http://www.wikicoins.com/Spanish-Colonial_Reales, April 19, 2012). In today’s market, its approximate value on one internet site ranges from $6.95 to $39.99 (http://www.ebay.com, October 8, 2012).

!

The Pago coin probably was made from silver ore taken from one of Spain’s silver mines located in Mexico or South America. Several new silver deposits were discovered in Mexico in 1770 (http://mygeologypage.ucdavis.edu/cowen/ ∼GEL115/115ch8.html, 3/1/2012). It is likely that silver from one of the newly opened mines was used to manufacture this coin. Due to the abundance of the new ore deposits, the number of silver coins produced in the Mexico City mint increased significantly in the late 1700s, peaking in 1804 (Brading 1970).

!

It is not known when the 1779 coin arrived on Guam, or how it ended up in Pago.

It may have been part of the island’s annual allotment of funds which arrived on an irregular basis from Mexico due to vessels being lost at sea, or due to unfavorable wind and sea conditions which prevented them from making stopovers on Guam.

!

Lévesque (2000[16]) lists the names of some of the ships that made the Pacific crossing in 1779 or shortly thereafter. The galleon San Pedro left Acapulco and arrived in Guam March 1, 1779 and reached the Philippines on March 11, 1779 (Garcia et al. 2001). The San Jose left the Philippines May 1, 1779 and reached Acapulco in November 1779 without stopping at Guam. In 1780 a packet named San Antonio alias el Principe carrying 150,000 pesos from the Royal Treasury arrived in Cavite, P.I. in April 16, 1780 without stopping at Guam. The San Jose left Acapulco in 1780 along with the Señora del Rosario, alias Princesca, and arrived in the Philippines in June 1780 after avoiding Guam. In November 1780 the Princesca left the Philippines and anchored in Umatac, Guam in May 1781 after a surviving a difficult voyage of exploration which took her south of the equator. She was reprovisioned on Guam, but information about whether she was carrying Guam’s situado is lacking. However, it is possible that in exchange for silver coins some Guam locals sold produce to the Princesca’s officers, crew, or passengers. By 1781 some persons on board the ships stopping at Guam may have been in possession of 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !169

coins minted in 1779. Apparently the San Jose had returned to Mexico in 1781 because in 1782 she sailed out of Acapulco carrying 1,846,460 pesos. No record was found to indicate that she stopped on Guam on her way to the Philippines. In October 1785 the Fidelidad carrying 300,000 pesos left Acapulco for the Philippines.

The packet San Carlos carrying another 300,000 pesos left Acapulco on November 27, 1785 for the Philippines. In 1786 the San Jose sailed from Acapulco with the situado for the Marianas (Driver 2005:50). Guam’s newly appointed governor, José Arlegui y Leóz (1786-1794), also arrived on Guam in 1786; both he and the situado may have been aboard the San Jose (Driver 2005:50). In 1787 the frigate Astrea sailed for the Philippines, stopping on Guam on April 26, 1787.

!

Apparently this nine-year-long list of voyages is incomplete because information about one or more vessel’s round trip is missing. Even though the list may be deficient, it is apparent that considerable amounts of silver were transported from Mexico to the Philippines during a period that did not involve many ships stopping on Guam. The Pago coin with its mint date of 1779 could have arrived on Guam during the 1780s, or sometime later.

!

Explanations for the coin’s appearance in Pago are that it may have been paid as wages to the governor (110 pesos per month) or other government official, a member of the military garrison (four pesos per month per man) or as support for the church (del Valle 1991:25; Driver 1999:4; Lévesque 2000[16]:92). Accurately reconstructing the wage scales paid to the men filling the various governmental positions on Guam is not a straightforward task. While the salaries for the various positions were set in Spain, the monies sent to Guam often were not sufficient to cover the actual number of filled positions (Hezel pers. comm. 2013). Even the disbursement of funds, once they arrived, was open to interpretation. For example, in 1711 Spain set the annual salary for a common soldier at 315 pesos a year (Hezel 1988), much more than the four pesos per month, or 48 pesos annually, reported above for a Guam military man.

!

In any event, it is unlikely that the coin belonged to a private resident of Pago because opportunities to acquire personal income were limited. There was little in the way of private sector enterprises. The economic situation changed somewhat in the later part of the 1700s when Governor Ceraín (1776-1786) issued a proclamation that permitted “citizens, residents, and natives of the realm to engage freely in trade and commerce...everyone who has products of the land…may buy and sell, not only amongst yourselves, but also aboard the ships when they arrive, buying and selling to your best advantage whatever you can” (Driver 2005:45-46).

Possibly the Pago coin arrived on Guam during this era of free trade.

170 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Rosario House Coins Two copper coins were recovered during archeological excavations at Rosario House in Hagåtña (Moore et al. 1993:47-48) (see Fig. 4). MARS completed the archaeological work in 1988 for the architectural firm, Taniguchi-Ruth-Smith and Associates (now Taniguchi, Ruth, Makio and Associates). Rosario House, situated between Dr. Hesler Place and Chalan Santo Papa, is part of the Hagåtña Historic District. It was placed on the Guam and National Registers of Historic Places on February 8, 1985 (Hunter-Anderson and Moore 2006).

!

The original date of construction of the house is unknown, but it is believed that portions of it were built in the 1860s or 1870s. The oldest part of the house is constructed of mamposteria (Fig. 7). Later additions are concrete. Mamposteria is a building technique introduced to Guam by the Spanish. The techniques involved in mamposteria construction are described as consisting of a “heavy, hard wood, rough hewn log frame, usually of ifil [also spelled ifit and ifet, Intsia bijuga] mortised and tenoned, or halved together and wooden pinned” (Brooks 1976).

!

Figure 7. View of the east side of Rosario House in the late 1970s (Photo courtesy Guam Museum).

!

The vertical side wall timbers supported the roof rafters which carried the roof tiles. The frame and roof were usually completed before the masonry side walls were started (Fig. 8). The side walls were built of coral rocks cemented together with a mortar made of coral sand and lime. The rocks were various sizes that fit nicely into the wall, and the larger they were, the better, because less mortar was required. When complete, the wall’s surfaces were finished with a smooth plaster.

The lime for the mortar was made locally by collecting pieces of coral or limestone, 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !171

heaping them in a pile and burning them with a wood fire until they were reduced to lime powder (Brooks 1974).

!

Figure 8. An exposed ruin of another mamposteria foundation in Hagåtña showing the hole in the corner where the wooden post had been set into the ground before the stone wall was built around it. The photo also shows a dressed limestone block in place on the exterior side of the foundation’s corner. The photo stick is one meter long. MARS photo by Rick Schaefer.

!

Rosario House is one of only a few residential structures in Hagåtña to survive WWII. Edith Rosario Blankenfeld, the daughter of Carolina Duenas Flores Rosario, lived in the house prior to WWII (Moore et al. 1993). She recalled that her mother, born in 1894, inherited the house from her parents who had inherited it from their parents. Mrs. Blankenfeld’s father served in the U.S. Navy. According to Mrs. Blankenfeld, prior to WWII the house had a tiled roof, ifit wood floors, and screened windows with shutters.

!

MARS excavated three units placed near three different corners of the Rosario House lower wall or bodega (basement). The objectives of the archaeological work were to determine whether previous structures had been built on the site, to obtain a sample of artifacts which would provide information about activity patterns at the site, and to obtain a comparative collection of historic ceramics (see Bulgrin 2010 for descriptions of the historic ceramics recovered during the excavations) and other historic materials.

!

Three postholes were exposed near the bottom of Excavation Unit 1, located near the southeast corner of the mamposteria foundation. A piece of wood recovered from one of the postholes was submitted for radiocarbon dating. It provided a calendar date of approximately A.D. 1750, which would indicate when the post was 172 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

harvested. Assuming that the wood derived from a house post set into the hole, it appears that an earlier structure had been erected on the property. Associated with the posthole were fragments of clay tiles, a square nail, and several small pieces of historic ceramics and glass. Materials such as these were introduced to Guam during the Spanish Period.

!

The date clay tiles first were used in the construction of Hagåtña homes is uncertain, but historic records indicate that by 1747 the local tile factory provided tiles for the roofs of the houses that belonged to the Spanish officers (Lévesque 1999[14]:29). Did a Spanish officer once live on the Rosario House property?

!

A U.S.-made brass military button was among the items recovered from Excavation Unit 3 (Moore et al. 1993:44). It has an exterior diameter of 18 mm and it is 6 mm thick, with a loop or wire shank on its back. The embossure, or image, on the front of the button consists of an eagle looking down while perched on an anchor.

Thirteen stars form a semi-circle around the eagle. The stamp on the back of the button includes the words “HORSTMANN” and “PHILADELPHIA.” The Horstmann Company was a major U.S. military manufacturer and dealer from 1816 to 1947 (Bazelon and McGuinn 1990:67-68). This button may have belonged to Mrs. Blankenfeld’s father, who served in the U.S. Navy.

!

Two more radiocarbon dates were obtained on material recovered from Excavation Unit 2 located near the northwest corner of the mamposteria foundation. These dates are approximately A.D. 1630 and A.D. 1840. Together, the three radiocarbon dates recovered from the excavations at Rosario House suggest that people have used this property for more than 350 years.

!

Two copper coins were recovered from Excavation Unit 1 at the Rosario House.

One is from the U.S. and the other was not identified as to country of origin during the project. The U.S. coin is an Indian head penny, dated 1907 (Fig. 9). The image on the obverse side is Lady Liberty wearing a Native Indian feather headdress with the word LIBERTY on the headband. The words UNITED STATES OF AMERICA occur around the edge of the penny. The date occurs at the bottom below the profile. The reverse side features the words ONE CENT within a wreath of oak and olive leaves tied at the base with a ribbon and a shield at the top. Pennies with these images were minted from 1859 to 1909 at the Philadelphia mint (Wikipedia).

In 1864 the alloy for the penny was changed to 95% copper and 5% tin and zinc, a mixture used until the Indian head penny was replaced by the Lincoln head penny in 1909. In 1907 the total number of Indian head pennies minted was 108,137,143 (www.//coin-collecting-guide-for-beginners.com, 3/1/2012). From a coin collector’s 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !173

point of view, because so many pennies with this date were made, they have little value today. The current value of this penny ranges from U.S. 75 cents to one dollar (http://www.coinstudy.com, 3/1/2012).

!

!

Figure 9. Indian Head Penny with a mint date of 1907 recovered from Rosario House.

The Rosario House Indian head penny was brought to Guam in 1907 or later, probably by the U.S. Navy. It may have been issued as payment or circulated as change from an everyday transaction involving someone living in the house.

According to Rogers (1995:119), in 1899 the first wages paid by the U.S. Navy to local Chamorro workers was the sum of twenty-four cents for a day of manual labor.

!

When Americans arrived to administer Guam in 1898, Mexican dollars (or pesos) were in wide circulation throughout the world (www.coins.nd.edu/, 3/2/2012). After Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821, the new Mexican government began issuing its own pesos which contained a slightly higher silver content than did Spain’s reales (Weatherford 1997:119). Mexican pesos were used in the United States and they were used on Guam along with U.S. currency. One of the first executive orders issued by Guam’s first U.S. Naval Governor Leary mandated a fine of 100 Mexican dollars (Rogers 1995:119). When a typhoon in 1900 broke the lines and drove the cruiser USS Yosemite to sea, the crew of the collier (coal transport) USS Justin found the ship, rescued the remaining sailors who were still aboard and transferred some $60,000 in Mexican gold coins to their vessel prior to scuttling the Yosemite at sea (Rogers 1995:124). It was not until July 1, 1909 that American 174 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

money completely replaced Mexican and Philippine money on Guam (Carano and Sanchez 1964:211).

!

The other copper coin recovered from the Rosario House excavations (Fig. 10) is badly worn and was not identified as to country of origin during the project. No year or identifying marks can be seen on its obverse side. On the reverse, there is a lion standing on its rear legs. The lion is enclosed within an escutcheon, or shield.

A curved line of four (or five) asterisk-shaped symbols and a banner (or crown) embellishes the area above the escutcheon and the lion’s head. This image appears very similar to an illustration of a duit, a copper coin issued by the Dutch East India Company (Fig. 11, left).

!

!

Figure 10. The probable copper duit recovered from Rosario House.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !175

!

!

Figure 11. An example of a copper duit dated 1737. These coins were minted in the Netherlands from 1724 to 1804 for use in the Dutch possessions. They were not circulated in the homeland. (http://en.numista.com/catalogue/netherland_east_indies-1.html, 3/2/2012).

The Dutch ruled Indonesia from 1602-1799. The Dutch East India Company in the 17th century imported silver coins in the form of the lion dollar, which was minted in the Netherlands as well as the Spanish dollar (the most popular trade coin of the time). The lion dollar circulated throughout the Middle East and English colonies during the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, but after 1713 they were no longer minted (www.coins.nd.edu/, 2/22/2012). In 1724 the Dutch East India Company began producing its own copper coins which were minted in the Netherlands and imported overseas in vast quantities during the 18th and into the 19th centuries. A duit had a diameter of about 20 mm and it was worth about a cent.

In today’s market, the value of a worn copper duit would be about $1.00 (http:// en.numista.com/catalogue/netherland_ east_indies-1.html, 3/2/2012).

!

If the unidentified Rosario coin is a Dutch duit, its opposite side would have been stamped with the year it was minted and the VOC logo (a large V with a smaller O on the V’s left leg and a smaller C on the right leg) that stands for “Verenidge Oostindische Compagnie” translated as “Dutch East India Company.” The position of the lion in the image on the reverse side of the Rosario coin indicates that it was struck in Holland rather than in one of the other mints that was locally operated in the Netherlands (catalogue.educationalcoin.com/images/ deluxe/ VOC4DUITALB.pdf, 4/25/13). The VOC coins were made for circulation in the Dutch possessions. They were not used in the homeland. The VOC went bankrupt in 1800. If this coin is a duit probably it would have been minted sometime between 1726 and 1794 (catalogue.educationalcoin.com/images/deluxe/VOC4DUITALB.pdf, 4/25/13). How and when did a Dutch coin end up in Spanish Guam?

!

176 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

In the early part of the 1600s several Dutch ships passed by Guam on their westward voyages across the Pacific Ocean (Barratt 2003a). The first of these occurred in 1600 when Oliver Van Noort’s ships paused briefly at Guam during their voyage around the world (Barratt 2003a:108). Other Dutch ships followed in 1616 and 1625 (Barratt 2003a:126, 148). But these visits, which involved trading with the Chamorro people in their watercraft, would have been too early for the Rosario coin. Contact had been established, but it could not have involved this coin. While its exact mint date remains unknown, the Rosario coin would have had to arrive on Guam after 1724, the year the copper coins were first minted in the Netherlands.

!

By the time the Dutch were using this coin, with whom were they trading? Rather than sailing across the Pacific Ocean to reach their headquarters in Batavia (now Jakarta, Java), the Dutch trading ships made their way around Africa and across the Indian Ocean (Fig. 12). The Dutch did not trade directly with Guam or with the Philippines, but it is possible that people working or traveling on ships that stopped on Guam could have picked up a Dutch duit in Manila or elsewhere. The duit was widely circulated and Dutch ships sailed through the region from Indonesia, because they traded for a time with Taiwan, Japan, and China.

!

Another possibility is that it came to Guam from the Philippines. From 1762-1764 the Philippine trading centers of Manila and Cavite were captured by the British and briefly administered as a British colony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historyof-the-Philippines, 3/5/2012). When Spain regained Manila in 1764, the British sailed for Batavia, the Dutch port. If the British, used duit while in Manila, then perhaps the Rosario coin came to Guam from Manila sometime after 1762.

Beginning in 1765, there were changes in the international shipping routes that enabled some Spanish ships to sail from Manila to Spain around the southern tip of Africa (Driver 2005:44-45). In 1789 access to the port of Manila opened to ships from other nations and they were permitted to trade in Manila (Driver 2005). As a result of these developments, it is likely that after 1765 coins from different countries became more common in Manila and perhaps on Guam as well.

!

With Mexico’s independence, administration of the Mariana Islands was transferred from the Viceroy of Mexico to the Governor-General of the Philippines in 1817 and Guam’s annual financial support was reduced to 8,000 pesos (Patacsil 1998; Rodao 1998:30). Thereafter, Guam’s supplies came from the Philippines.

Beginning about 1820 and continuing to the 1850s, whaling ships often stopped on Guam (Martin 1979; Patacsil 1998) and the crew members aboard these vessels could have possessed coins from various places and used them to trade on Guam.

In 1857 a Spanish Royal Mint established in Manila minted both gold and silver 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !177

coins (see Patacsil 1998). In 1899, when Guam’s Spanish treasury was turned over to the U.S. Navy, it contained coins from Mexico, Spain, Philippines, and South America (Patacsil 1998).

!

Figure 12. Map showing the trade routes of the Dutch East India company, VOC. (http:// people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch2en/conc2en/map_VOC_Trade_Network.html)

Discussion The results of the archival and archaeological research presented here remind us that the Manila Galleons typically carried rich cargoes on their Pacific crossings.

The westward bound voyages, which were to stop on Guam, carried enormous quantities of silver coins. The eastward bound voyages, which sailed north of the Marianas, carried various types of gold objects and other riches. Both silver coins and gold objects have been recovered from the underwater ruins of the galleons wrecked in the Mariana Islands. Given the shipwrecks and the historic accounts, it is plausible that silver and gold objects could exist on land. However, archaeologists working on land-based projects in the Marianas rarely, if ever, recover gold or silver items. The Spanish silver and the Dutch copper coin found at two different historic sites on Guam are unique findings for MARS archaeologists. Coins such as these were widely circulated throughout the world when the two major international trade systems they represent (Spain and Dutch) were operating in the Pacific and Indo-Pacific. The third old coin, the 1907 Indian Head penny, represents the arrival of the U.S. Naval administration to Guam.

!

178 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Because Spain regularly deposited Spanish silver coins on Guam for governmental and clerical support, to find a silver coin may not be totally unexpected. However, how and when the Dutch coin was brought to the island remains open to conjecture. It is a reminder that in the past, as now, many broadly traveled folks stopped, or resided, on the islands.

!

Although abundant gold and silver riches were transported on the ships that sailed across the Pacific Ocean for some 250 years of the Spanish Period, Guam’s local population benefitted little economically from Spain’s trade network. Neither did it benefit from other international trade networks that operated in the regions west of the Marianas. Throughout the Spanish Period in the Marianas, the local people continued to raise their own food and barter for their needs. They received no monetary payment for working on government projects, labor that was required as a form of tribute (del Valle 1991). Although eventually individuals were permitted to sell goods to passing ships, and/or to collect fees for providing room and board or other services to visiting off-duty seamen, whalers, and/or the convicts and political prisoners that were exiled to Guam during the period ranging from 1860 to 1890 (Rogers 1995), few, if any, private businesses developed as a result. What valuables arrived on island were probably carefully managed, often it seems by the island’s corrupt governors, some of whom accumulated a certain degree of wealth before their terms expired and they left the island (Driver 2005).

!

Based on information presented here, and given the number of archaeological projects completed in the Mariana Islands over the last 40 years, the likelihood that archaeologists will recover gold valuables during land-based projects seems extremely rare, though rumors of buried treasures persist to this day. While gold may elude us, it is certain that future archaeological investigations will yield many more valuable nuggets of information thereby expanding our understanding of the rich history of these islands.

!

Presentation slides begin on the following page.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !179

Presentation Slides

!

 

180 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !181

!

182 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !183

!

184 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !185

!

186 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !187

!

188 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !189

!

190 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !191

!

192 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

References Barratt, G. 2003a. The Chamorros of the Mariana Islands. Occasional Historical Papers Series, No. 10.

CNMI Division of Historic Preservation.

2003b. An Account of the Corvette Lʹ′Uraine’s Sojurn at the Mariana Islands, 1819.

Occasional Historical Papers No. 13. CNMI Division of Historic Preservation.

!

Bazelon, B.S. and W.F. McGuinn 1990 A Directory of American Military Goods Dealers & Makers 1785-1915. REF Typesetting & Publishing, Inc., Manassas, Virginia.

!

Brading, D.A. 1970 Mexican Silver-Mining in the Eighteenth Century: The Revival of Zacatecas. The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 50, No. 4.

!

Brooks, G.R. 1976 Concrete Construction in Guam. Guam Recorder 6(1):19-22.

!

Bulgrin, L.E. 2010 Catalog of Non-Utilitarian Ceramics from the Rosario House Site. Prepared for Guam Preservation Trust, Grant GPTG-08-01.

!

Butler, B.M. 1988 Archaeological Investigations on the North Coast of Rota, Mariana Islands.

Micronesian Archaeological Survey, Report No. 23.

!

Carano, P. and P.C. Sanchez 1964 A Complete History of Guam. Charles E. Tuttle, Rutland, Vermont.

!

del Valle, T. 1991 The Importance of the Mariana Islands to Spain at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century. MARC Educational Series, No. 11, University of Guam.

!

Department of Chamorro Affairs 2009 The Official Chamorro-English Dictionary.

!

Driver, M.G. 1989 Fray Juan Pobre in the Marianas, 1602. Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam, Mangilao.

1999 Cross, Sword, and Silver: The Nascent Spanish Colony in the Marianas. MARC, University of Guam.

2000 The Augustinian Recollect Friars in the Mariana Islands 1769-1908. MARC Educational Series, No. 24. University of Guam.

2005 The Spanish Governors of the Mariana Islands and the Saga of the Palacio. MARC Educational Series, No. 27. University of Guam.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !193

Garcia, R.R., H.F. Diaz, R.G. Herrera, J. Eischeid, M. del Rosario Prieto, E. Hernandez, L. Gimeno, F.R. Duran, and A. M. Bascary 2001 Atmospheric Circulation Changes in the Tropical Pacific Inferred from the Voyages of the Manila Galleons in the Sixteenth-Eighteenth Centuries. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82[11]:2435-2456.

!

Haynes, D.E. and W.L. Wuerch 1990 Historical Survey of the Spanish Mission Sites on Guam 1669-1800. Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam.

!

Hezel, F.X., SJ. 2003 Envoi: Spain and the Mariana Island in the Early Eighteenth Century. In The Chamorros of the Mariana Islands by G. Barratt. Occasional Historical Papers Series. No. 10. CNMI Division of Historic Preservation.

!

Hezel, F.X., SJ. 1988 From Conquest to Colonization: Spain in the Marianas 1690-1740. Journal of Pacific History, 23:137-155.

!

Hunter-Anderson, R.L. 2007 Lithics. In Latte Period and Spanish Period Archaeology at Old Pago, Guam by D.R. Moore. Prepared for Mr. and Mrs. Richard Untalan and Guam Preservation Trust.

Micronesian Archaeological Research Services.

!

Hunter-Anderson, R. L. and D. R. Moore 2006 Technical Survey Report on the Five Houses Comprising the Agana Historic District. Prepared for Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Historic Resources. Micronesian Archaeological Research Services, Guam.

2008 Documenting the Other Spanish Entrada: Archaeology at Old Pago Village, Guam, Mariana Islands, Micronesia. Presented at Society for Historical Archaeology annual meetings in Albuquerque, Jan. 8-10, 2008.

!

Ibanez, A., F. Resano, J. Pons, and F. Pastor 1976 Chronicle of the Mariana Islands, 1937. Translated by M.G. Driver. Micronesian Area Research Center, Publication No. 5, University of Guam, Mangilao.

!

Junco, Roberto 2012 The Archaeology of Manila Galleons. Referenced March 9, 2012. http:// www.themua.org/collections/archive/files.

!

Lévesque, R. (compiler and editor) 1992 History of Micronesia, A Collection of Source Documents, Volume 2, Prelude to Conquest. Lévesque Publications, Quebec, Canada.

1994 Belgian Jesuits in the Mariana Islands. The Letters of Father Gerard Bouwens and Father Peter Coomans, 1662-1697. Lévesque Publications, Quebec, Canada.

1998 History of Micronesia, A Collection of Source Documents, Volume 12, Carolinians Drift to Guam, 1715-1728. Lévesque Publications, Quebec, Canada.

1999 History of Micronesia, A Collection of Source Documents, Volume 14, Full Census of the Marianas, 1746-1773. Lévesque Publications, Quebec, Canada.

194 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

2000 2002

!

History of Micronesia, A Collection of Source Documents, Volume 16, The Malaspina Expedition 1773-1795. Lévesque Publications, Quebec, Canada.

History of Micronesia, A Collection of Source Documents, Volume 19, The Freycinet Expedition 1818-1819. Lévesque Publications, Quebec, Canada.

Lugar, C. 1990 The History of the Manila Galleon Trade. In Archaeological Report, The Recovery of the Manila Galleon, Neustra Señora De La Concepción. Prepared for the Government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Prepared by Pacific Sea Resources. Sutton, Vermont.

!

Martin, K.R. 1979 American Whaleships in the Mariana Islands. Guam Recorder, Vol. 9, pp. 3-9.

Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam.

!

Mathers, W.M., H.S. Parker III, K.A. Copus 1990 Archaeological Report, The Recovery of the Manila Galleon, Neustra Señora De La Concepción. Prepared for the Government of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Prepared by Pacific Sea Resources, Sutton, Vermont.

!

Moore, D.R. 2002 Ceramic Analysis. Appendix B.1, In Archaeological Survey and Excavations at Naval Ordnance Annex, Territory of Guam. Prepared for Dept. of the Navy, Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii. Prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. Honolulu.

2007 Latte Period and Spanish Period Archaeology at Old Pago, Guam. Prepared for Mr. and Mrs. Richard Untalan and Guam Preservation Trust. Micronesian Archaeological Research Services, Mangilao.

!

Moore, D.R. and R.S. Steffy 2008 Hotnun Sanhiyong, Guam’s Outside Ovens. Prepared for Guam Historic Preservation Office, Dept. of Parks and Recreation. Micronesian Archaeological Research Services, Mangilao.

!

Moore, D.R., J.R. Amesbury, R.L. Hunter-Anderson, and E.F. Wells 1993 Archaeological Excavations at Rosario House, Agana, Guam. Prepared for Taniguchi-Ruth-Smith and Associates, Agana. Micronesian Archaeological Research Services, Mangilao.

!

Patacsil, P.E. 1998 Spanish Empire Coins in Guam. Referenced April 11, 2012. http:// www.coinmall.com/CSNA/guam.htm.

2012 Spanish Coinage in Guam. Referenced April 13, 2012 © Guampedia. http:// guampedia.com/SpanishCoinageinGuam/.

!

Quimby, F. 1991a The Marianas Galleons: Superships of Pacific History, Part I. Guam and Micronesia, Glimpses, 1st Quarter, pp 5-13. Sanchez Publishing House, Agana.

1991b The Marianas Galleons, Part II. Guam and Micronesia, Glimpses, 2nd Quarter, pp 37-44. Sanchez Publishing House, Agana.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !195

1991c Manila Galleons, Like Mountains in the Water. Guam and Micronesia, Glimpses, 1st Quarter, pp 17-19. Sanchez Publishing House, Agana.

!

Rodao, Florentino 1998 Spanish Presence in the Pacific. In Pacific Islands: The Spanish Legacy, Javier Galaván, pp 27-35. Ministry of Education and Culture, Spain.

!

Rogers, R.F. 1995 Destiny’s Landfall. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu.

!

Schurz, W.L. 1939 The Manila Galleon. E.P. Dutton and Co., New York.

!

Spoehr, A. 1957 Marianas Prehistory: Archaeological Survey and Excavations on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota. Fieldiana: Anthropology 48. Natural History Museum, Chicago.

!

Topping, D.M., P.M. Ogo, and B.C. Dungca 1975. Chamorro-English Dictionary. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu.

!

Ty, A.A. 1995 Galleon’s fascinating history, discovery detailed. Saipan Tribune, Friday, June, 30.

!

Weatherford, J.M. 1997 The History of Money. Three Rivers Press. New York.

! !

--Darlene Moore has been an archaeologist with Micronesian Archaeological Research Services (MARS) since the consulting firm was incorporated on Guam in 1992. Prior to that, she worked with the historic preservation section of the GovGuam Dept. of Parks and Recreation, on archaeological projects undertaken by the Micronesian Area Research Center at UOG, and as a sole proprietor providing archaeological services to clients. MARS has completed archaeological projects on Guam, Rota, Tinian, and Saipan, and some of the other Micronesian islands. Moore completed her BA and MA degrees at the University of Guam specializing in the analysis of Mariana Islands pottery.

196 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

A Poster Presentation, 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 Guam

!

Kunsidera i Fina’pus-niha i Man’antigu na Mañainata sa’ i Estorian-niha Estoriata Lokui’ (1670-1695) Breaking the Silence: Remembering the Chamorro-Spanish War (1670-1695)

!

By Genevieve S. Cabrera1, Kelly G. Marsh2 and Monica Dolores Baza3 1Cultural Historian and Cultural and Historical Consultant, UIU Micronesia, Inc., 2 History of Guam Professor, University of Guam 3 Cultural Artist, Chamorro Artists Association kgmarsh@gmail.com

! !

Abstract: Torn from the land, lives lost, an indigenous way of life forever altered–yet the battle sites of the decades long Chamorro-Spanish wars and those who fought upon them are silent within the realm of public recognition and commemoration. This poster promotes having these battles as a part of the communities’ consciousness by crossing modern political divides and working together to understand what the elders, landscapes, and archives have to say regarding this seminal time.

! !

--Genevieve S. Cabrera’s deep-seated interest in ancient Chamorro history began as a girl when the elders told and retold old stories. Cabrera’s varied interests are culturally based, particularly focused on the archaeology of the ancient Chamorro people and preservation of the unique cultural heritage of the Northern Mariana Islands. Cabrera holds a BA in Art History and has authored articles and field survey reports on the history and archaeology of the NMI. While working as the staff historian for the Division of Historic Preservation, she published The Historic and Cultural Sites of the CNMI: The National Register Sites. 15 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !197

Kelly G. Marsh earned a BA in history and anthropology and an MA in Micronesian studies from the University of Guam.

She was the former vice-chair for the Guam Historic Preservation Review Board and worked as a History of Guam instructor at the University of Guam and at the high school level. Marsh has also authored the Guam Year-in-Review for The Contemporary Pacific: A Journal of Island Affairs for several years. She recently completed her doctorate work in cultural heritage studies in the School of Environmental Sciences at Charles Sturt University, Albury-Thurgoona, Australia. Her dissertation explores the presence of Indigenous values in Micronesian heritage and conservation efforts.

!

Monica Baza turns to drawing and painting to express the beauty around her, striving for clarity and truth regarding Guam’s history and origin. She is a founding member of the Chamorro Artists Association (CAA) and owns and operates Baza Designs, Inc. with her sister, specializing in artistic productions that interpret our unique island lifestyle through contemporary eyes. She has participated in the Pacific Festival of the Arts, CAA Art Exhibits, various Chamorro Month exhibits, and Creative Hands 2013 and has permanent collections at Coast 360 Federal Credit Union, Hotel Nikko Guam, and Pacific Modair TNK. Monica attended the University of Guam before earning her Bachelor’s Degree in Fine Arts from Concordia University in Montreal, Canada, 1987.

198 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

200 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

A Poster Presentation, 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 Guam

!

El Camino Real Guam’s Spanish Period Infrastructure

!

By Nicole Vernon, MA, RPA Archaeologist GANDA nvernon@garciaandassociates.com

! !

Abstract: El Camino Real, “The Royal Road,” was a road constructed under Spanish authority in the late 1700s to improve communication and military control between the villages of Agaña and Umatac. Research was conducted to reconstruct the road’s original route based on historic maps and documents, extant historic sites, and topography. Findings indicate that El Camino Real was a dynamic feature that evolved over time in response to interaction between indigenous and Spanish cultures, as well as the development of the Spanish Colonial Empire.

! !

--Nicole Vernon serves as a Senior to Supervisory Archeologist at GANDA’s Hawai`i office. She has archaeological field and laboratory experience in the Pacific, Midwest, and Caribbean, and has received academic training in remote sensing and the application of GIS. Ms. Vernon has been instrumental in developing innovative approaches to cultural resource management at GANDA, including the use of spectral analysis to create predictive models for archaeological site location and the documentation of archaeological features using photogrammetry. In the Mariana Is-lands she works on both academic and cultural resource management projects at sites dating to the earliest human occupation through the post-WWII period.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !201

Social Realities and Legal Regulations A Snapshot of Guam in 1886 as Seen Through the Bando General

by Governor Olive

!

By Mariana Sanders1, Francine Clement2 and Carla Smith3 1Anthropology and History Graduate Student, University of Guam 2 Secondary Education Graduate Student, University of Guam 3 Micronesian Studies Graduate Student, University of Guam marianasanders.671@gmail.com

! !

Abstract: This presentation, by UOG students in Dr. Carlos Madrid’s History 450: Topics in Pacific History (Primary Sources for the History of the Mariana Islands) summer 2013 class, assesses select sections of Spanish governor Francisco Olive’s Bando (General Edict of Urban and Rural Policy for Guam, 1886). The document addresses issues including land ownership, cattle, parties and entertainment, and traditional medicine.

This presentation situates the document as the colonial government’s response to the assassination on Guam of Governor Angel de Pazos in 1884, as well as a preventive measure against the growing interest in Micronesia of other foreign powers. Through the Bando of 1886, Governor Olive attempted to regain the trust, obedience, and patronage of the Mariana Islanders. As such, the document is revealed as a magnificent tool through which social realities, economic challenges, and indigenous responses in the late 19th Century Marianas can be read.

Editor’s Note: This paper, presented at the Marianas History Conference, was not made available for publication.

!

Presentation slides begin on the following page.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !203

Presentation Slides

!

 

204 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !205

!

206 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !207

!

208 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !209

!

210 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !211

!

212 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !213

--Mariana Sanders is a UOG senior double-majoring in Anthropology and History, while Francine Clement and Carla Smith are UOG Graduate Students – Francine pursuing a Master’s degree in Secondary Education, Social Studies, and Carla pursuing a Master’s degree in Micronesian Studies.

214 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !215

!

216 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

! ! !

2nd Marianas History Conference !

Japanese Era 

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !217

!

218 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Islands Too Beautiful for Their Names Northern Mariana Indigenous Islander Memories and National Histories

!

By Jessica Jordan Graduate Student of Japanese History University of California San Diego jejordan@ucsd.edu

! !

Abstract: Different stories about “Tiempon Japones” [the Japanese time] circulate in the Northern Mariana Islands. These memories of the Japanese colonial days (1914-1944) have tended to be either marginalized or incorporated by dominant stories of US liberation of the islands during WWII. This paper reflects upon how indigenous Northern Mariana man’amko [senior citizen] memories give rise to theories guiding the author’s research. Quoted from an interview, the first part of this presentation’s title hints at the complexities and excesses of everyday life versus the ways in which historical moments have been named by sequentially changing colonial powers. This paper concludes by suggesting an initial interpretation of common threads emerging in memories voiced by twenty-three indigenous Mariana Island man’amko. Their memories reveal perspectives based in experiences spanning multiple colonial eras, although commonly accepted ways of researching and writing history have yet to deal adequately with these existing forms of knowledge.

Editor’s Note: Since the 2nd Marianas History conference, the author has reorganized this presentation into the first and second chapters of her dissertation and declined our publication offer at this time.

!

Presentation slides begin on following page.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !219

Presentation Slides

!

 

220 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !221

!

222 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !223

!

224 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !225

--After completing degrees in Japanese studies and Religious Studies at Arizona State University (2002) and Japanese language training at the Inter-University Center in Yokohama (2003), Jessica returned to Saipan where she grew up. There she worked as the Event Coordinator for the WWII 60th Anniversary Commemoration (2004). Afterward she managed the museum store at the American Memorial Park Visitor Center and assisted as a Japanese-speaking docent. At the park she met some of Saipan’s eldest indigenous residents who shared their memories of the old days of Japanese rule. With these stories in mind she left for the UC San Diego graduate program in modern Japanese history (2007-present).

226 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Unspeakable Survival Sexual Violence Against Women During the Japanese Occupation of Guam

!

By Leiana S.A. Naholowa’a Graduate Student in English University of Guam leiana@gmail.com

! !

Abstract: Women endured wartime sexual violence as “comfort women” and victims of rape during the Japanese occupation of Guam, and these personal and communal memories are buried deep within and hidden from public consciousness. Historical accounts, oral interviews, and literary representations detail the horror of this time period in what is essentially still a severe dearth of scholarship. Increased visibility of these experiences can be repositioned to the forefront of war reparations appeals, which are stalled and hold little hope of being realized. More awareness of these wartime atrocities by our local women and men in the armed forces may help them to become agents of change in a military system today where sexual violence is notoriously unreported and chronically unprosecuted.

Lastly, an expanded discourse around the sexual transgressions against women in history can contribute to strategies for decolonization and the prevention of domestic violence.

Hafa Adai. Si Yu’us Ma’ase to the sponsors and coordinators of the 2nd Marianas History Conference for hosting me today. On July 16, 2011, at the recommendation of my Chamorro language instructor, Sinora Rufina Mendiola, I had attended an event called “Gi i Fino’-ñiha Siha” (In Their Own Words), which was a series of vignettes performed on the stage of the CLASS Lecture Hall at UOG by members of the storytelling group known as Ginen i Hila’ i Maga’taotao Siha Association.

Long before my master’s thesis became fully formulated, I watched in awe as World War II stories were shared with the audience, many of whom had war memories of their own. Beverly Ann Borja Acfalle’s portrayal of a comfort woman in the story “Kako’ Girl” remains ingrained in my mind. It was the first time I had seen a story of the Guam comfort women experience performed anywhere. It was only just a few months later that I would read the novel Mariquita: A Tragedy of Guam by Chris Perez Howard for the first time.

!

Today, I hope to take you through a quick overview of my thesis project as a whole so that my entry point into this delicate subject matter makes a bit more sense. I’ll integrate some of the primary source material that exists around atrocities of sexual violence in Guam during the Japanese World War II occupation period in relation 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !227

to key elements of Howard’s text as well as share how other writers and artists have captured these experiences in their own narrative forms. I also hope to contextualize Guam’s experience of sexual violence by the Japanese in a larger geopolitical picture and offer possible ways of moving forward in terms of scholarship.

!

There is little to no representation of mothers in the early myths and legends of Guam that have survived in the Chamorro literary canon. It is not until the arrival of Padre Diego Luis de San Vitores and impending conversion of the indigenous people that the first prominent “woman as mother” story becomes encapsulated into a legend of Guam. What emerges from the San Vitores death narrative is a nameless and voiceless female figure who I refer to as the “Blood Mother” or Nanan Håga’ and track across the Chamorro literary tradition. Nanan Håga’ references hagan håga’ (blood daughter), which is coined by Laura Marie Torres Souder, in her book, Daughters of the Island. At the center of my project, stands my thesis that the Blood Mother, Nanan Håga’, is a phenomenon of colonization. My analysis continues from the San Vitores legend into a focus on the “Bio Mother” and the “Godmother/Othermother” in the legend of Sirena and then into the Chamorro feminist indigeneity that emerges in Howard’s Mariquita.

!

Although I am interested in Mariquita as a text that demonstrates how the community constructs the blood mother, there were still two major elements that were difficult for me to simply put aside. It was in my final thesis chapter on Howard’s Mariquita novel that I found myself at an impasse.

!

An Exploration of Silence The heart of this project for me is an exploration of silence. Last week, at the premier of Jillette Leon Guerrero’s informative and heartfelt film called “Across the Water in Time,” there was a panel afterward that discussed the issue of Ethics and Genealogy. I was struck by something that Toni Malia Ramirez had said that really encapsulates one of the large core values of what it means to be Chamorro.

!

Malia was talking about his experiences of being entrusted by elders with their stories, [and I hope I’m quoting the Chamorro correctly] where the elders would say to him, “Guaha kuentos para i gima, there is history only for the house, yan para historia para i ni lahyan, there is history for the others, yan ti sina enao un comprende, if that’s not understood, that’s their problem, alright? It’s not yours.

And always keep it that way.”

!

228 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

As I’ve spoken to individuals on their knowledge of this topic, I have encountered my own ethical questions that surround the accessing of this oral history material.

Stories of the comfort women experience and other instances of sexual violence and assault have permeated the landscape since the war. These stories have been passed down from parents to children and always along the way, the accounts have never been complete – modified, not fully detailed – passed on from the mouths of survivors and again by those who knew of these stories to their children and trusted family members, the history that is only for the house. It became clear to me early on that in learning more about these survivors’ experiences, I would not be approaching anyone I knew to be a survivor based on information shared by close family members, and I would not be asking anyone to break confidences and trust given to them in being direct recipients of these stories.

!

Courting the Past The first element of Mariquita that’s been hard for me to not think about while doing my thesis project is the bizarre dynamic between Mariquita and the Japanese officer, the Taicho, in the text. Howard writes, “There were many things the taicho would do, but he would not physically force a girl to have sex with him as some of the other soldiers did,” because he was “from a distinguished family, reared with a strict sense of honor” (116). “He wanted Mariquita to submit willingly to his superiority, and sex would be the ultimate proof of this submission” (116). Even before Mariquita drew the attention of the taicho, Howard writes that she would serve other men doing housework and quote “often volunteered to bathe and massage an officer to spare a young girl from being humiliated” (113).

!

The kind of courtship narrative in Mariquita which for me has been grotesque and problematic in many ways demonstrates the intersection of two main things – the legacy of exoticization of the Pacific Island female and the atmosphere of inculpability that surrounds the time when Mariquita was first published in 1986.

!

I didn’t know what to make of these lines in the text, knowing what little I knew of the comfort women’s experiences and the threats that every woman must face during wartime. Survivor stories are filled with women who were quickly raped or perhaps given gifts and then raped but not the kind of bizarre courtship that Howard’s text seems to imagine. In regards to the taicho’s gallantry and wanting to “win over” Mariquita, I’ve yet to see the likes of that in any of the primary and secondary sources that I’ve managed to go through so far.

!

I don’t mean to be disrespectful to Mariquita, the late Maria Perez Howard, or anyone in her family with my suspicions of what’s really going on in the text. I ask 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !229

for forgiveness for any pain that I may cause in my analysis of Howard’s novel. If she did experience sexual violence of some kind, I feel compelled to explore the unspeakability within the novel and the reasons why she perhaps withheld truth from her family, who she did manage to see in between working for the taicho, or alternatively, the family’s reasons for withholding truth from Chris Perez Howard when he returned to Guam after growing up in the states with his father.

!

The T. Stell Newman Visitor Center holds the only exhibit in Guam where individuals can watch interactive media of Japanese comfort women, or ianfu as they were called, and hear them speak openly about their experiences. Suharti and Tasmina are two women from Indonesia who were interviewed by Northern Lights Productions, a film crew from Boston, Massachusetts. Their inclusion in the center’s WWII exhibit is perhaps the only installation of comfort women representation of its kind in the National Park Service universe. Tasmina tells the camera, “Our agreement was that nobody would admit what kind of work we had done. If they ask, just say cooking or cleaning.’ Then your parents won’t be so sad.

Let’s bear the sorrow ourselves.”

!

Her testimony opens the possibility of collusion or an agreement amongst the women of Mariquita’s camp, the story they might have told one another to tell the world. In a way that experience of being a comfort woman for Tasmina and hypothetically for Mariquita, created an insular community of its own, a “house” of its own, the way in our family, in my family, and in your family, there are things that you say within your family that don’t go outside it. The women perhaps might have created a family of their own through their unique time together and contained certain experiences within that unit.

!

Peter Onedera’s Ai Hagå-hu! published in 1996, explores other issues of the comfort women experience. With a daughter kidnapped and forced into sexual enslavement and neighbors who ostracize her family, the character Nan Låna’ in the play states, “There’s nothing much we can do for her except pray hard and wish that she will also come out of this alive. At this point, I’m not sure who are our real enemies—the Japanese or our own people.” (33) At the same time, Nan Låna’ is forced to accept food from the Japanese at the “expense” of her daughter and feels shame that she eats while those around her starve. Nan Låna’ also tells her daughter, a character also named Marikita, that “[y]our sister may be doing something terribly wrong but she is not evil. The matter of surviving and the manner in which it is done contributes to the evil that does happen” (33).

!

230 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

The Woman in the Light Blue Dress, or Not-Mariquita Toward the end of the book, Howard includes a memorandum dated May 5, 1947, from William P. Katsirubas, an Investigator, and addressed to the Officer-in-Charge of the Claims Division that summarizes the interviews that were conducted and facts gathered in regards to Mariquita’s death. It seemed to be a somewhat thorough investigation, perhaps in consideration of Mariquita’s husband, Edward Howard, who as a fellow Navy man, was one of their own. There’s a part of the memo that seemed a bit problematic to me that talks about how “they found a dead body of a woman, at the place where the Jap Agricultural Camp had been located.

Body was decomposed and the face was unrecognizable. The woman had been wearing a light blue dress. This was the only body they found at this place which was located in Price District.” It’s deeply disconcerting to me how the woman in the light blue dress is left alone in history, and I’m curious and deeply interested in exploring her experience as well. The woman in the light blue dress is ultimately why I’m here today.

!

In 1937, the Japanese military flexed its muscle in a major way and invaded China.

They had marched through Beijing, through Shanghai, and made it to Nanjing, which at that time has been described as a beautiful cosmopolitan city that was the actual capitol of China at that time, and today, the capitol of China is Beijing. In six weeks, the Japanese killed an estimated 300,000 people. In six weeks, they raped an estimated 20,000 women. These numbers are comparable to something like the Fena Massacre happening over 8,000 times nonstop within 45 days. There are so many stories of women being mutilated, or raped and then mutilated, and then killed. They were always murdered, never left alive, and if they were alive, just barely. If they managed to make it to a Safety Zone to tell their stories, they did.

Because some Westerners in Nanjing chose not to leave and instead stay and help the situation and open these safety zones, they documented the carnage with cameras and wrote journal entries and reported to the Western media what was really going on in Nanjing. Because of international pressure from the world against Japan for the atrocities it was committing, it was from this Nanjing Massacre as it became known that the comfort women system was born. As they marched into China and Nanjing, Emperor Hirohito of Japan mandated his soldiers to kill, rape, and destroy. Six weeks later with half the population murdered, the leaders of the Japanese military felt that if they were to take back that mandate, they would need to appease the brutal sexually violent appetite they in fact created and fostered. And so when you hear the comfort women system in Guam being talked about and justified that without it, the Japanese would just randomly rape and assault women on the streets whenever they wanted, it’s framed as the lesser of two evils because of what happened in Nanjing. Well, as you may know, the Japanese 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !231

were raping and assaulting women in Guam anyway while the comfort women system was in place, and this can be found in testimony in the Guam War Claims Review Commission Report as well as the kuentos para i gima, the stories of the house.

!

There are many books published on the comfort women experience, and perhaps it’s okay that survivors from other countries sort of speak for the women of Guam?

As they do at the Newman Center? You walk in to that exhibit, and it’s filled with actual artifacts from the war, tons of pictures, tons of information and stories of Guam, and then in the area that’s been dedicated to the comfort woman experience, there are the two Indonesian woman talking on camera about their experiences, and so in my mind, it could be okay that they speak on behalf of the Chamorro women’s experience. How different can their stories be? But at the same time, I think that there is something unique about what the women of Guam went through, how they coped, what decisions they made, how they survived. I think all of that and more is important and needs to be captured. The Guam comfort woman experience is definitely underrepresented in the scholarship, and I hope something will emerge one day in print, for the public, para y li nahyan.

!

So much of my knowledge of World War II history in Guam before my thesis and this project was very limited, and I feel like I have expanded a bit through understanding personal narratives, which is built upon hearing war stories from my grandparents and other elders in my family growing up. I am reminded of the late Howard Zinn and his People’s History of the United States, which is written from the standpoint of the marginalized rather than from the people in power. We are fortunate to have an archive of personal narratives and oral historians doing the work of interviewing and documenting stories of violence and injustice of all kinds, against all people, men and women. It is my hope that a kind of people’s history of World War II Guam can one day be written.

!

Creating Space I may not have the access or training to do this kind work, to interview comfort women and move stories from the house to the public, but I would like to help create safe spaces so that this kind of work can emerge. One of the things I am currently interested in is creating a map of some kind and tracking where these comfort stations were located. I often feel very uncomfortable about asking people what they know about the comfort women experience or people they may known who were victims of sexual violence during that time period. It’s very difficult for me to broach that subject with others unless they volunteer but then there’s a sense of, is this really your story to tell, and is it okay with that person that you’re 232 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

telling that story to me? There are all kinds of ethical issues. But for some reason, what I feel okay about asking anyone who might know is, can you tell me if anyone has ever told you where the soldiers were bussed in, or where women were taken?

What homes or structures were converted into comfort women stations? Where were these places located in Guam?

!

Another thing I would like to advocate for is a peace monument of some kind much like what was built in South Korea. It may not seem so peaceful because it was strategically placed across the Japanese embassy in Seoul, and every Wednesday since January 8, 1992, not long after Kim Hak Sun became the first comfort woman to publicly tell her story, survivors and their allies held rallies in front of that embassy demanding an apology and war reparations. Korean women make up 80% of the entire Japanese comfort women system during World War II, and women’s groups in Korea and Japan have been at the forefront of generating awareness on this issue. The 1000th Wednesday rally took place on December 14, 2011, and by that time only 63 of 234 government-registered victims had survived.

Their average age was 86-years old. Recently, this past July, in Glendale, California, they created a replica of that exact comfort women peace monument in Korea, and of course all the hate mail came through from the Japanese community in protest.

There’s a lot of denial not just in the Japanese government but also in the Japanese public consciousness because so little has been taught in schools and textbooks for a very long time. Here are some examples of some other monuments for women we have around the island [and earlier, I showed some images of the San Vitores monument and Sirena statue], and it would be great thing one day to see a peace monument not just for the comfort women but for all victims of sexual violence during the war since we have so many other war monuments in general in Guam.

!

I wasn’t prepared for how difficult this project would be. It was as if reading stories and watching video interviews and footage would anesthetize me in some way than if I actually conducted oral interviews with survivors and their families. I was wrong. I lost it many times, and I’ve been an emotional “basket case” doing this kind of research. I’d like end with this image of Iris Chang, who published a book called The Rape of Nanking – Nanking is like the Westernized way of saying Nanjing.

Her book became an international bestseller and really blew wide open the issue of Japanese atrocities, and today, the Japanese government continues to deny its crimes and to not take responsibility. I heard her speak in San Diego in 1999, and I feel like I’ve come full circle in some way. She did so much work around the underrepresentation of war stories, but she ultimately shot a bullet through her brain in 2004. Many think it was related to mental illness that was emerging within her or deteriorating health from overworking on these issues. Iris Chang was such a 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !233

fierce advocate for the truth and accountability and the healing of others. I wish anyone doing this work to please take care and to stay strong because it is important and needs to be done.

!

Thank you. !

Additional Information Due to time constraints, I was not able to include so much material in the presentation I gave at the conference. I’d like to give special mention here to a performance by Inetnon Gefpå’go. The talented organization created an interpretive dance of the Chamorro comfort women experience during the Japanese occupation of Guam during WWII. A video of that performance can be viewed online here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffEuwI0TvxI

234 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Presentation Slides and Comments

!

Hafa Adai. Si Yu‘us Ma‘ase to the sponsors and coordinators of the 2nd Marianas History Conference for hosting me today.

! !

On July 16, 2011, at the recommendation of my Chamorro language instructor, Sinora Rufina Mendiola, I had attended an event called “Gi i Fino’-ñiha Siha” (In Their Own Words), which was a series of vignettes performed on the stage of the CLASS Lecture Hall at UOG by members of the storytelling group known as Ginen i Hila’ i Maga’taotao Siha Association.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !235

There is little to no representation of mothers in the early myths and legends of Guam that have survived in the Chamorro literary canon.

! !

It is not until the arrival of Padre Diego Luis de San Vitores and impending conversion of the indigenous people that the first prominent “woman as mother” story becomes encapsulated into a legend of Guam.

236 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

My analysis continues from the San Vitores legend into a focus on the “Bio Mother” and the “Godmother/Othermother” in the legend of Sirena and then into the Chamorro feminist indigeneity that emerges in Howard’s Mariquita.

! !

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !237

“Guaha kuentos para i gima, there is history only for the house, yan para historia para i ni lahyan, there is history for the others, yan ti sina enao un comprende, if that’s not understood, that’s their problem, alright? It’s not yours. And always keep it that way.”

! !

238 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

The T. Stell Newman Visitor Center holds the only exhibit in Guam where individuals can watch interactive media of Japanese comfort women, or ianfu as they were called, and hear them speak openly about their experiences.

! !

Suharti and Tasmina are two women from Indonesia who were interviewed by Northern Lights Productions, a film crew from Boston, Massachusetts. Their inclusion in the center’s WWII exhibit is perhaps the only installation of comfort women representation of its kind in the National Park Service universe. View video clip.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !239

Peter Onedera’s Ai Hagå-hu! published in 1996, explores other issues of the comfort women experience.

! !

240 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

In 1937, the Japanese military flexed its muscle in a major way and invaded China.

! !

These numbers are comparable to something like the Fena Massacre happening over 8,000 times nonstop within 45 days.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !241

Because some Westerners in Nanjing chose not to leave and instead stay and help the situation and open these safety zones, they documented the carnage with cameras and wrote journal entries and reported to the Western media what was really going on in Nanjing.

! !

Well, as you may know, the Japanese were raping and assaulting women in Guam anyway while the comfort women system was in place, and this can be found in testimony in the Guam War Claims Review Commission Report as well as the kuentos para i gima, the stories of the house.

!

242 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

You walk in to that exhibit, and it’s filled with actual artifacts from the war, tons of pictures, tons of information and stories of Guam, and then in the area that’s been dedicated to the comfort woman experience, there are the two Indonesian woman talking on camera about their experiences, and so in my mind, it could be okay that they speak on behalf of the Chamorro women’s experience.

! !

I am reminded of the late Howard Zinn and his People’s History of the United States, which is written from the standpoint of the marginalized rather than from the people in power.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !243

!

One of the things I am currently interested in is creating a map of some kind and tracking where these comfort stations were located.

!

244 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Another thing I would like to advocate for is a peace monument of some kind much like what was built in South Korea.

! !

Wednesday since January 8, 1992, not long after Kim Hak Sun became the first comfort woman to publicly tell her story, survivors and their allies held rallies in front of that embassy demanding an apology and war reparations.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !245

The 1000th Wednesday rally took place on December 14, 2011, and by that time only 63 of 234 government-registered victims had survived.

! !

Recently, this past July, in Glendale, California, they created a replica of that exact comfort women peace monument in Korea, and of course all the hate mail came through from the Japanese community in protest.

!

246 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Here are some examples of some other monuments for women we have around the island [and earlier, I showed some images of the San Vitores monument and Sirena statue], and it would be great thing one day to see a peace monument not just for the comfort women but for all victims of sexual violence during the war since we have so many other war monuments in general in Guam.

! !

I’d like end with this image of Iris Chang, who published a book called The Rape of Nanking – Nanking is like the Westernized way of saying Nanjing.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !247

Due to time constraints, I was not able to include so much material in the presentation I gave at the conference.

! !

I’d like to give special mention here to a performance by Inetnon Gefpå’go.

!

248 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

The talented organization created an interpretive dance of the Chamorro comfort women experience during the Japanese occupation of Guam during WWII. A video of that performance can be viewed online here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffEuwI0TvxI

! !

--Leiana San Agustin Naholowa’a is completing her Master’s in English at the University of Guam. She received her bachelor’s degree in Literature and Writing Studies with a minor in Women’s Studies at California State University, San Marcos, and a certificate in Interactive Media from the San Diego Community College District. She has taught at Cal State San Marcos, the Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallee in France, Guam Community College, and the University of Guam. She is also a co-editor of Storyboard Journal, published by the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Guam.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !249

!

250 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Subversive Women Excavating Chamorro Women’s Acts of Resistance During WWII

!

By Evelyn Flores Associate Professor of English and Chamorro Studies University of Guam evelynrflores@uguam.uog.edu

! !

Abstract: The false divide between public and private, domestic and political that often pervades official stories has unrealistically suppressed the vital agency of women in subversive acts of civilians during war and political struggle. This suppression is not innocent but is part of a politics of colonial representation not just of women but also of the cultures out of which women come. Through the exploration of obviously masculine stories of heroics from WWII Guam, the central roles that women have played in the stories from this foundational era for modern Guam will be reclaimed from the archives of invisibility and silence to which they have often been relegated by formidable narrative binaries. During this reclamation, the significance of oral histories as a route to fracturing binaries will be examined to reveal indispensable types of female involvement in subversive acts as: 1) Radical Initiant, 2) Trickster Assistant, and 3) Elusive Deviant.

Editor’s Note: This paper, presented at the Marianas History Conference, was not made available for publication.

! !

--Evelyn Flores is an associate professor of English and of Chamorro Studies at the University of Guam. She is the author of three children’s picture books and of poems published both locally and internationally. Her research and scholarly activities are dedicated to preserving and publishing the stories of the indigenous people of Guam particularly but also of the broader geographic area of Micronesia.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !251

!

252 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Forgotten People Memories of Koreans in the Marianas During Japanese Rule

!

By Sung Youn Cho Professor Sociology Jeju National University, Korea chomin@jejunu.ac.kr

! !

Abstract: In the early 20th century, Japan dominated the Northern Mariana Islands, an area we called Nanyogundo. Research on this period has been carried out mainly by Japanese scholars, including recently the work of Imaizumi. During this era, many Japanese people moved to the Northern Mariana Islands, wanting to develop these Islands in order to make them their permanent territory. The Japanese brought Koreans to the Islands as a labor source, and, especially in the last stage of the Pacific War, tens of thousands of Koreans were pulled here by compulsion. Most of their stories have been forgotten. This presentation explains how Koreans made their own lives in the Northern Mariana Islands during the period of Japanese rule, including connecting with Japanese and native Chamorros.

I will approach this topic through an analysis of a biographical manuscript written by Matsumoto (Chun Kyung Un).

This study is about the Korean people who lived in the Mariana Islands during the Japanese occupation of Micronesia. While conducting the research, I asked the same questions repeatedly; “Since when and how many Korean people have migrated to the Mariana Islanders? Why did they leave their home and come here?

How many people survived during the Pacific War and how many died? Where did they go after the war and how’s their reputation with local residents?”

!

Today, most Korean people recognize Guam, Saipan and Tinian as popular destinations for vacation whilst not many of them know that thousands of Korean people were forced to work in the Marianas and died due to the aftermath of the war. Even the Mariana Islanders do not remember that. Most of them have an image of Korean immigrants who moved to the Marianas in the late 1970s to work in the tourism industry. In other words, Koreans in the Marianas during the Japanese occupation are forgotten people.

!

Studies on this subject started in 2000s for the first time. Japanese scholar Imaizumi Yumiko (今泉裕美子 ) was one of the first to study this topic. Hye Gyeong Jeong ( 惠瓊) and Myeong Hwan Kim (全慶運 ) from Korea also have conducted studies and elucidated many facts regarding these forgotten people. Based on their studies, I have restructured the forgotten people’s lives in the Mariana Islands 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !253

under the Japanese occupation. But there are some confines to this study. Jeong and Kim explained Korean people’s migration to the Pacific Islands by looking at deportation records rather than as voluntary immigrants. They also stated that all of male immigrants were construction workers and females were comfort women.

However, I believe the Korean’s migration to the Pacific Islands should be explained by more diverse types as according to different time periods. This presentation is spadework for that study.

!

This January, I visited Saipan and Tinian for the first time. I mostly stayed in Tinian and was searching for a trace of Korean laborers. I was able to meet some 2nd and 3rd generation Korean immigrants but the 1st generation already passed away and only a small number of 2nd generation Koreans were left. Therefore, I was not able to acquire oral history from the 1st generation. Instead, I found memoirs of Gyeongwoon Jeon ( 全慶運 ) (My Life in Nanyo, Unpublished Manuscript, 1981) and KNN Busan Broadcast’s special TV documentary called ‘Forgotten Last Name, King (August 19, 2005).’ The documentary had compendious interviews of the 2nd generation. Hence, I utilized those as important resources for my research along with oral statements.

!

Furthermore, I had a meeting with Don Farrell who studies the history of the Mariana Islanders. He showed me two pictures. The two pictures showed me Korean people who worked at Nanyo Kohatsu ( 南洋興発) Company’s Tinian farms in 1930s.

!

Don A. Farrell explained what he knew about a photo titled “Some Korean Farming Families arrived on Tinian” (Don A. Farrell, 2012: 23). This is a picture of Korean workers in Tinian. These farming families are consisted of three males, 10 females and one child; total three families.

!

Another photo that I had of Tinian was not included in his book. However, this picture can be found in the historical picture book of Okinawa Prefecture. In the picture book, some pictures show survivors of Tinian battle in July 1944 living in an internment camp. A total of 10 pictures are related to Korean people. Most of them show Korean prisoners in the camp. Among those, three pictures show a wedding of Korean prisoners in the camp. All of them were taken from August 1944 to early 1946 showing scenes in the internment camp. Two pictures on page 497 and 498 were taken in 1940s.

!

254 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Migration of Korean (Chosen) Population The Japan Empire settled an even larger number of Japanese people than natives in the South Sea Islands to perpetuate a higher occupancy. In the 1910s, the number of natives was about 48,000. In the early occupied period, the number of Japanese was less than 1,000. Through 1920s and 1930s, however, Japanese population rapidly grew; the number reached 10,000 in 1928 and 90,000 in 1940s which was about two times larger than the native population. The immigrants mostly consisted of Okinawa residents and Korean people.

!

The history of Korean population in the South Sea Islands can be classified into four periods.

Table 1: Population of Nanyogundo (following page) • Period I: 1919 ~ 1920. Nishimura Chuksik( 西村拓殖 ) and Namyang Company ( 南洋殖産会社 ) recruited and emigrated about 200 Korean people. Some of them settled down in Kusai and others came back to Korea (Chosen) whilst rest of them stayed and found another jobs.

•

Period II: 1921 ~ 1938. Voluntarily recruited workers. About 200 ~ maximum 700.

•

Period III: 1939 ~ 1942. Korean (Chosen) population was mobilized to compensate weakened Japanese labor force due to the war preparation. The number reached up to 6,000, mostly deployed to Tinian and Palau. The compulsory mobilization was started after the Pacific War.

•

Period IV: 1943 ~ 1945. After the Pacific War, the Korean population was deployed to all of Pacific islands instead of the South Sea Islands.

Approximately 30,000 ~ 40,000 Korean males were compelled to work for airfield constructions and about 10,000 females were taken away and forced to work as comfort women. They were tumbled into battles and killed in New Guinea, Makin, Tarawa and many other places. Especially in Saipan and Tinian, a large number of Korean people were killed because of the forced mobilization.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !255

Table 1: Population of Nanyogundo

!

Total 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943

― 43,519 48,136 49,393 49,363 49,627 51,659 51,663 51,086 54,358 55,186 56,294 57,466 58,816 61,086 64,921 69,626 73,027 78,457 82,252 90,651 102537 107,137 113,277 122,969 129,103 135,708 141,259 145,272 148,972

Native

Japanese

― ― 43,120 220 47,513 461 48,555 697 47,478 1,763 47,143 2,447 48,787 2,836 48,756 2,841 47,713 3,310 49,090 5,203 49,576 5,550 48,798 7,430 48,994 8,395 48,761 9,979 48,545 12,460 48,617 16,202 49,695 19,835 50,038 22,889 50,069 28,291 49,935 32,214 50,336 40,215 50,573 51,861 50,524 56,496 50,847 62,305 50,998 71,847 51,725 77,254 51,106 84,478 51,089 90,072 51,951 93,220 52,197 96,670 Source: 今泉裕美子, 2009,

Korean ― ― ― ― ― 254 278 190 149 82 93 98 95 147 176 179 198 225 278 313 318 546 545 579 704 1,968 3,463 5,824 6,407 ―

Period

I

II

III IV

!

Internment Camp Right after the war, survivors became prisoners and lived in internment camps. In Saipan, local residents (natives) were moved to a camp in Chalan Kanoa and Japanese and Korean people were accommodated in a camp in Susupe. In Tinian, Japanese and Korean people were separately contained in one internment camp.

There was a classroom for Korean (Chosen) people in the camp which indicates a separate area for Korean people. In the camp, there was a special class only for Korean children in the school.

!

256 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

All of Korean (Chosen) people who lived in the camps took boats to return home in early 1946. The list of Korean people on the returning boats can be found in the United States National Archives. Deokyoung Yoon (2006) summarized the data in his study. The list of people returning from the South Sea Islands was prepared by U.S. Army (NARA).

!

The list shows that people took the returning boats from internment camps in Palau and Tinian. A total of 6,370 people were listed; Palau 3,793 and Tinian 2,577.

In late 1945, prisoners in Saipan Island were as following: Japanese 13,954, Korean 1,411, Chamorro 2,966, Caroline 1,035, and Japanese military prisoners 600 (今泉裕美子 , 2004a). The number of Korean people in Saipan (1,411) was about half of that in Tinian.

!

Korean-Chamorro Most Korean people in the Mariana Islands are men who married native women.

The Japanese and Korean people were supposed to return to their home countries but some decided to stay. In those cases, most of them were already married to Chamorro women and had families.

!

These Koreans are mostly living in Tinian whilst some of them are living in Saipan and Palau. A Tinian resident Matsumoto (Korean name Gyeongwoon Jeon) came to Saipan in 1939 as an employee of Nanyo Trading Company. He managed farms in Pagan, Sariguan and Alamagan islands and married a Chamorro woman. He wrote an autobiography but it was not formerly published. Only small amounts were printed for his friends. In this book, he described people stayed in Tinian as following:

!

“… as families have numerous descendants, progenitors Yookgon Kim, Joonsam Shin, Boki Song (Nishimura Company applicant in 1917, above), Sangjin Kang, Ddojinsoo Kim, Mongryong Choi, Gyeongwoon Jeon (until 1939) totaled 11. Including their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th generations, it would now be about 300. They are proud citizens of USA. There are two senators, a police chief, two school teachers and a Mayor....”

According to his description, six people came as Nishimura Chuksik employees in 1917 and five laborers and office workers moved to Tinian from Pagan, Rota and Saipan. They are the progenitors of Korean-Chamorros in Tinian.

!

Through forced changing names, the Pacific War and US Occupancy, Gyeongwoon Jeon was using Matsumoto as his name; Last name Kim became King, Choi became 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !257

Shai, Shin became Cing and Kang became Kiyoshi. However, like Boki, some of them used fathers’ given names as family names because they did not know their last names. Also, the original last name of Tosco Sadang (71) from Palau was Jinsang before marriage. His father’s last name was Jin and he added Japanese appellation ‘sang’.

!

All Korean immigrants who settled in Micronesia were moved from 1917 to 1939 and married native women. On the other hand, forcefully mobilized people after the Pacific War were either killed during the war or returned home in 1946. None of them stayed in the islands.

!

Conclusion Precedent studies only explained Korean migration to the South Sea Islands by forced mobilization as construction workers or comfort women instead of voluntary emigration. However, I believe the migration to Micronesia should be classified into varied types according to time period. Most Korean immigrants were poor farmers but they voluntarily moved there. Some of them had ‘management positions’ from the beginning (Photo B). In some cases, people were hired by trading companies such as Nanyo Trading Company and involved in commercial activities in Saipan instead of working as construction worker or farmer.

!

The Problem of National Identity Descendants of Korean immigrants in the South Sea Islands are living in Mariana Islanders. The 3rd and 4th generation people in Tinian are residents of CNMI (The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) and citizens of United States.

They consider themselves as Chamorro and live as US citizens. Can we find Korean identities in them?

!

Since the 1980s, Koreans emigrated to Saipan and Tinian. Most of them are working in the tourism industry and have Korean associations. After the 1990s, Korean-Chinese people moved to Saipan to work in sewing factories. They consider themselves as Chinese. Although they are rooted in Korea, they live without much interaction with it. Who is Korean?

!

Some Korean people voluntarily signed up for recruitment and others were forcefully mobilized during the war. Therefore, Micronesia was a land of opportunity as well as a land which represents the history of forceful mobilization.

I would like to see research focused on this. By conducting studies with local residents’ points of view, we can truly see the history of Pacific islands in 20th

258 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Century while including forcefully mobilized Korean (Chosen) workers and comfort women.

!

Presentation Slides !

 

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !259

!

260 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !261

!

262 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !263

!

264 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !265

!

266 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !267

!

268 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !269

!

270 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !271

!

272 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !273

!

274 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !275

--Sung Youn Cho is a Professor of Sociology at Jeju National University in Korea. Dr. Cho’s specialty is Modern Social History and the Sociology of Religion.

276 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

The South Seas on Display in Japan Yosano Tekkan’s “Nanyōkan” and South Seas Discourse of the Early 20th Century

!

By Mark Ombrello East Asian and World History Instructor University of Guam ombrello@hawaii.edu

! !

Abstract: Celebrating the Taishō Emperor’s 1914 coronation, the Tokyo International Exhibition showcased Japan’s increased overseas presence and economic influence in the Eastern hemisphere. Accordingly, the event demonstrated that the nation achieved a level of sophistication equal to the West and affirmed notions of a modern state via the display of human societies considered culturally backward at fairground sites. The Nanyō Pavilion offered visitors an “authentic” glimpse of the primitive South Seas, a region that had come into sharper focus in the Japanese collective conscious since the outbreak of WWI and subsequent takeover of Germany’s Pacific Territories. “Nanyōkan,” a poem by Yosano Tekkan, detailed the experience of an attendee whose understanding of modernity and the self were inextricably tied to projected rumination of the peoples and landscapes on display. This presentation will examine the poem and its meanings in historical contexts related to colonialism, modern identity formation, historiography, and South Seas discourse.

Editor’s Note: This paper, presented at the Marianas History Conference, was not made available for publication.

!

Presentation slides begin on the following page. !

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !277

Presentation Slides

!

 

278 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !279

!

280 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !281

!

282 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !283

!

284 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

--Mark Ombrello teaches East Asian and World History at the University of Guam. He is a doctoral candidate in History at the University of Hawai`i at Mānoa where he is finishing his dissertation on Japanese conceptualizations of the Nanyō (South Seas) as a supernatural space from ancient times to the present.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !285

!

286 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Northern Marianas Under Japanese Navy Administration (1914-1922)

!

By Yumiko Imaizumi Professor Faculty of Intercultural Communication, Hosei University, Japan imaizumi@hosei.ac.jp

! !

Abstract: This presentation analyzes the Marianas under Japanese naval administration and elucidates the formation of fundamental Japanese policies for Micronesia then. In WWI, the Japanese Navy occupied Germany’s northern Pacific islands. The Provisional South Seas Defense Force was established in Chuuk for military administration. Research on Japanese rule of Micronesia has not grasped this period and underestimates naval rule versus the succeeding Mandate. However, the Japanese government and Navy conceived and embarked on basic, longrange policies for Micronesia during their eight-year administration. The South Seas government inheriting the policies embellished them as “a sacred trust of civilization” under the Mandate. In the Marianas, the Navy attempted to make the local people submit to Japanese rule, to establish industries and to eliminate all Western missionary influences. Based on an analysis of Japanese documents, this presentation examines policies the Navy inherited from the Germans and the state of the Marianas under Navy administration.

In October 1914, three months after World War I began, the Japanese Navy occupied the German Pacific islands. The Japanese Provisional South Seas Defense Force governed Micronesia for eight years. This was about one-fourth of the 30 years that Japan governed Micronesia.

!

In research on Japanese rule of Micronesia, although an enormous number of official documents on naval administration exist1, they have not been analyzed.

Moreover, the policies of the naval administration period are seen as having been ended with the Mandate period that followed, and have been lightly esteemed.2

! We 1

can examine the navy administration mainly in the archives of Japanese Navy’s collection (Kaigun Sho 1914-1920) and in Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ collection relating to Mandate (Diplomatic Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan). We can see some of them in microfilm of the Archives of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Washington, Library of Congress.

!

2

Peattie (1988) describes the process of Japanese military occupation and mentions something about the Navy administration based on Gabe (1982). Gabe (1982) is one of the few elaborate researches analyzing the Navy’s collection (Kaigun Sho 1914-1920). However, he concluded navy’s policies which tried to make Micronesia a base for “Southern Expansion” was completely hampered by mandate system.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !287

Based on the archives of Navy and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, this presentation clarifies what the Japanese government and Navy inherited from the German administration and how they formed basic polices for administering Micronesia.3 Hence, I wish to present the kinds of polices were carried out in the Mariana Islands. Through this analysis, the characteristics of Nanyo Cho (the South Seas Government) and the rule of Micronesia when World War II broke out will be made clearer.

!

Administration Policy for the Occupation of Micronesia, Aiming to Turn it into a Japanese Colony As a latecomer to the ranks of imperialistic nations, Japan saw World War I as an opportunity to expand into the Pacific, which had already been carved up by the USA and Europe.

!

At the start of World War I, Japan declared its neutrality. However, when the United Kingdom requested Japan’s limited participation in the form of hunting and destroying German merchant raiders in Chinese waters, Japan began showing a stance of actively joining in the war. Japan’s stance was so enthusiastic that Australia and New Zealand grew concerned about its occupation of the German Pacific islands. The UK responded cautiously.

!

The Japanese Navy is said to have been hesitant about participation in the war, but part of the Navy argued positively for sweeping German forces from the Pacific, occupying Micronesia, and expanding Japanese forces in China. When it came to occupying Micronesia, the government was cautious, but the Southern Expeditionary Squadron that had been sent responded to changes in the war situation by aggressively proceeding with the occupation. When the occupation of Jaluit Atoll, Marshall Islands was announced, it incited critical American public opinion. Japan therefore refrained from announcing the occupation of other islands. Immediately after occupying, the Navy stationed Special Naval Landing Forces and formed an initial military government.

!

Civilians began moving into Micronesia immediately after naval occupation began.

There was movement to support this even in the Navy. Rear Admiral Saneyuki Akiyama believed that it was necessary to obtain an economic foothold in Micronesia, so he allowed a civilian company, the Nanyo Keiei Kumiai, onto Angaur Island, Palau. In November 1914, the company sent in a few dozen workers there.

As travelers looking to get rich quickly increased, stowaways and smugglers began

!

3

For deeper examination of the navy administration, see Imaizumi (1990a, 1990b).

288 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

to appear. The Navy believed this situation would become an obstacle to the future “permanent occupation” of Micronesia. Therefore, on December 28, it disbanded the Southern Expeditionary Squadron and the Special Naval Landing Forces and established the Provisional South Seas Defense Force, beginning a full-fledged military government.

!

Carrying out the administration of Micronesia through continuing trial and error, the Navy clarified what Japan could achieve in Micronesia, and how to achieve it.

After study by the government, those polices were carried over into the Mandate.4

!

Change in Governing Structure The Provisional South Seas Defense Force Ordinance of 28 December 1914, placed the headquarters in Tonoas Island, Chuuk and handed the military and civilian governments to the Commander. The occupied territories were divided into six districts, Saipan, Palau, Chuuk, Pohnpei, Jaluit, and Yap, which was added in 1915.

A garrison was placed in each district, with each garrison commander also serving as the head of the sector military administration station and taking over civilian administration.

!

In July 1918, a civil administration department was established under the commander. The military administration station in each district were abolished and replaced with a civil administration station. The heads of the civil administration station took over civilian administration under their jurisdictions, while the garrisons became the equivalent of district police forces. This change in the government structure made the civilian administration independent of the military administration on paper.

!

Later, the South Seas Government called it the start of “the era of civilian administration in Micronesia” and commemorated it as “the Anniversary of the South Seas Government.” 5 Therefore, research has conventionally viewed this structural reform as the beginning of civilian government in Micronesia.6 It should be noted, however that until April 1919, the heads of the civilian government departments were also garrison commanders. The Navy held the true reins of governing power. Employees of the civilian government departments were overwhelmed by the work of their bloated organizations. Funded by local revenues, civilian government expenditures were minuscule, and there was antagonism between military and civilian officials. It was thus very difficult to carry out civilian

!

4

For further discussion, see Imaizumi (1992).

!

5

Nanyocho 1932, 2.

!

6

For example, see Peattie (1988, 67).

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !289

government. The above factors, as will be discussed below, can be considered part of the “repressive control” backed with military force7 of the naval administration period that caused problems in governing.

!

In short, the process of transfer to a full-fledged civilian government began in May 1919 with the decision that Japan would administer the “C” Mandate in Micronesia.

In July 1921, about six months before the South Seas Government would be established, the civilian government division was transferred from Chuuk to Koror Island, Palau. The authority of the civilian government division was expanded, with the power to issue ordinances and rules transferred to its head, and its personnel increased. The Provisional South Seas Defense Force was withdrawn by September 1921, and administration by the Mandate organization, the South Seas Government, began in April 1922.

!

Foreigners who inspected Micronesia generally praised the naval administration as contributing to the civilizing of the local people,8 but that opinion should be checked as simply swallowing Japanese navy’s explanations. The opinions of foreigners critical of the administration during that period included view that overadministration and sudden, compulsory local policies were problematic.

Furthermore, we can see the same opinion in the inspection reports presented by staffs of Japanese government and Navy.

!

What, then, were the policy and the reality of the naval administration? !

The Policy and Reality of the Naval Administration The basic policy of the naval administration was indicated in the January 1915 “Micronesia Administrative Policy” (“the Administrative Policy”). This policy had three specific contents. First, Micronesia was to be used militarily for Japan.

Second, Micronesia’s peace and public order was to be maintained. Third, the local people were to be made to submit to Japanese rule, allowing Japanese people and companies to enter and extend their influence. In other words, whether Micronesia became a Japanese territory would be up to a peace conference, but the Japanese government aimed to turn it into a de facto territory. There were five commanders

!

7

“Enomoto Sanjikan Sisatu Hokoku” [Inspection Report of Micronesia presented by Enomoto, a counselor of Ministry of Navy], accepted June, 1918 (Kaigun Sho 1914-1920).

!

8

Blackeslee 1922, 105-106.

!

9

Five Commanders were Matumura Takao (1914.12-1915.8), Togo Kichitaro (1915.8-1916.12), Yoshida Masujiro (1916.12-1917.12), Nagata Yasujiro (1917.12-1919.12), Nozaki Kojuro (1919.12-1921.3). The Chief of Civil Administration was Tezuka Toshiro (1918.7-1922.4) who became the first Governor of South Seas Government.

290 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

during the naval administration period.9 They created the policies that subsequently became the basis of the South Pacific Mandate administration.

!

The above policy and reality will be examined mainly through the indoctrination program and the colonization program.

!

Indoctrination Program The main aims of making the local people submit to Japanese rule were forming an acceptance of it and training diligent workers.

!

Military government authorities saw the local people as “primitive” and “savage natives.” However, the authorities learned from the period of German rule that chiefs of the local people had great influence, so chiefs were made to administer part of the military government and attempts were made to develop pro-Japanese feelings in them. Furthermore, local people, in areas seen as having heavy European influence, people of mixed European background, and the Chamorro people were carefully watched for anti-Japanese sentiment. Moreover, as will be discussed below, improving anti-Japanese feelings generated by the attitudes of military personnel and officials under the military government and of Japanese traders was an urgent issue.

!

In short, development of pro-Japanese feelings was a priority connection with the indoctrination program. Special efforts were devoted to the leadership class. The organization of “mainland tourist parties” that sent chiefs and their children to Japan for an inspiring look at a “civilized nation” was one example.10 As Mainland tourist parties also were organized in the other Japan’s colonies and made good effect for indoctrination of colonized people, Micronesia’s military government made use of it immediately. They brought members in contact with the Imperial Palace, factories, department stores, and Japanese manners and customs, showing them Japanese “civilization” and creating attitudes that would lead to acceptance of Japanese rule.

!

Arousal of worker morale continued from the days of German rule. For example, things seen as hindrances to labor, such as dances, festivals, alcohol, and visits to common meeting houses (bai in Palau, pebai in Yap), were forbidden or controlled

!

10

For further information, see Senju (2006).

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !291

under both regimes. Establishment of hospitals and sanitation programs was actively utilized more to engender good feelings towards Japan than to actually improve the health and strength of local people.

!

Within the indoctrination program, military government authorities were especially enthusiastic about educational and religious aspects.

!

“The Regulations for Elementary School in the South Seas Islands” (Nanyo Guonto Shogakko Kisoku) was established in 1915 to deprive educational activities of foreign missionaries. The religious primary schools in operation under German rule were prohibited. Educational activities through Christianity were suppressed.

The same education proffered in Japan was implemented, with the aim of “making the local people Japanese.” Subjects of emphasis were Japanese as “National Language,” Moral Training and Japanese History. In schools, Japanese flags were raised, the Imperial Palace was venerated, and Japanese ceremonies were observed.

!

However, the military government authorities realized that this educational curriculum aimed at suddenly turning people Japanese was not suited to the local children. For example, the second commander, TOGO Yoshitaro, asserted that distinguishing between local people and Japanese was “natural reason” and called for a policy of “discriminatory impartiality” (Sabetsuteki Issi Dojin Seisaku).

!

Based on such attitudes, in 1918 “The Regulations for Elementary School in the South Seas Islands” was amended into “The Regulations for Local People’s School in the South Seas Islands” (Nanyo Gunto Tomin Gakko Kisoku). Under the regulations, although the local people were still taught that submitting to the Emperor’s will meant true happiness, they were seen as less than human and emphasis was placed on teaching them to fulfill their duties as beings ruled by Japan. Thus, the number of years of school was reduced from four-years to threeyears, and the curriculum emphasized practical subjects such as Japanese, agriculture, and home economics. The raising of the Japanese flag and the observance of Japanese ceremonies continued. These curriculum and ceremonies continued under the Mandate as well.

!

As for religion, the military government authorities initially tried to do away with the influence of Christianity. Recognizing that its influence on the local people was greater than they had expected, the military government authorities corrected course to a policy of using Christianity as a means of indoctrination. However, because the local people revered “white people,” the military government authorities were extremely wary that this would lead to a loss of Japanese dignity 292 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

and that foreign missionaries were preaching anti-Japanese thought. Therefore, German missionaries of the Roman Catholic Church were all expelled as enemy aliens by 1919. Their replacement with Japanese missionaries was attempted, but for various reasons did not work out. Through negotiations with the Vatican, missionaries from Spain were welcomed, as that country was thought to have little anti-Japanese sentiment. As for Protestants, the Japanese Congregational Church was provided with a subsidy, and a South Sea Mission (Nanyo Dendo Dan) was organized and sent. Surveillance of European and American missionaries was stepped up.

!

Despite such polices Japanese government and Navy officials observing Micronesia pointed to repressive control backed with military force and “radicalism” as negative influences on indoctrination Reports presented by staffs of Japanese government and Navy repeatedly mentioned problems with garrison and civilian government personnel displaying overbearing attitudes towards local people and using violence against them. Combined with the rapacious greed of the business dealings of Japanese traders, such policymaker attitudes were said to have engendered contemptuous feelings towards Japan. Reports said the difference between the model Japanese people they learned about in Japanese school and the actual Japanese they met in reality led local people to become confused about standards of good and evil and to think that they were simply being oppressed by an iron fist.

!

A report at the end of the naval administration pointed out that local people simply being overpowered by Japanese rule and furthermore having rebellious feelings are problems. That was the first point for improvement under the Mandate.

!

Trade Program and Colonization Program After the Navy occupied Micronesia, in mainland Japan amidst rising cries that Micronesia was a treasure house of resources, expectations rose for business in and emigration to Micronesia. Military government authorities, however, judged that there was little prospect of large-scale development or immigration. They aimed rather at entering the resource-rich Outer South Seas, New Guinea and Indonesia for example, and developing Micronesia as a base for that operation.

!

As for trade, Germany’s Jaluit Trading Company and Australia’s Burns Philip Company had been active in the trade mainly of copra and miscellaneous goods since the time of German rule. They had earned the trust of the local people and built up a foundation for economic activity. Because under international law, foreign companies not from enemy countries could not be expelled, they were 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !293

carefully watched. The American Atkins Kroll Company also had to be allowed to begin trading.

!

At that point, military government authorities began working to protect Japanese companies. They actively supported Nanyo Boeki Kabusiki Kaisha (South Seas Trading Company), which had opened branches around Guam and the other islands of Micronesia and had been trading there since the Spanish period, and that company began new activities. In more detail, in addition to providing a subsidy, the authorities allowed Nanyo Boeki Kabusiki Kaisha to inherit the Jaluit Trading Company’s business and gave it the opportunity to expand beyond Micronesia and to establish a regular line with Japan.11 Additionally, they had the company demonstrate national prestige around Micronesia and, following the example of German rule, had its branches on outlying islands assist with governing.

Nanyo Boeki Kabusiki Kaisha sometimes acted in ways that interfered with the naval administration in order to pursue its own profit, but military government authorities had to depend on this company even while working to enforce the rules. Â

!

In addition, small companies looking to get rich quickly also came to Micronesia.

Although military government authorities attempted to regulate them, trouble broke out with local people, and competition between companies led to mutual destruction. These circumstances led the South Seas Government to view economic policy as a priority for improvement. The decision to give one company a monopoly on the sugar industry, which supported the South Seas Government finances, was based on the experiences of the naval administration period.

!

In the development program, the mining of rock phosphate (on Angaur Island) and cultivation of coconut palms that were made with more efforts under German rule were further developed. The Navy managed rock phosphate beginning in 1915, and after the Mandate started, the South Seas Government took over its management.

Phosphate had been major export good of Micronesia during Japanese administration. Learning from German coconut palm operations, organization and planting were encouraged, and coconut also became a major export of the naval administration period. For mine workers on Angaur Island, the method under German rule was continued, and local people were recruited from around Micronesia, or prisoners were used for labor. However, Japanese observation reports noted that the local people were dissatisfied with the work at Angaur Island

!

11

Japanese government finally ordered Nippon Yusen Co., Ltd., one of the Japanese biggest shipping companies, to manage the regular line with mainland Japan and foreign countries from Micronesia.

294 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

from the start. South Seas Government kept up this recruiting system and also began to hire Japanese workers.

!

In other development programs, the Navy tested cultivation of crops such as sugarcane, cotton, and rice before deciding to develop sugarcane as a major industry.

!

The Navy drew companies to sugarcane as a saving business for the Mariana Islands, which were suffering from insect damage to their coconut palms.

Commander of Military government reports saw the sugar industry as the most promising business for the region. Nishimura Takushoku Co., Ltd. and Nanyo Shokusan Co., Ltd. carried it out.

!

Most of these planting businesses had stalled by the end of the naval administration due to factors such as natural disasters, World War I recession, and inexperienced management. Workers brought in from the Korean peninsula, Okinawa, and mainland Japan grew destitute. Labor disputes and wage hikes followed one after another. In particular, a strike by Koreans mired in poor working conditions ended with management beating some of them to death. According to a report by observers sent from mainland Japan, the Koreans’ demands were reasonable, and the problem stemmed from the historical discriminatory attitudes of Japanese towards Koreans.12 With the Korean March 1st Movement of 1919 in the background, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was concerned that the incident would affect Japan’s receipt of the Mandate. The existence of such problems is likely why fewer Koreans were brought in for a time after the Mandate.13

!

After the trial-and-error initiatives on trade and colonization during the naval administration period, during the transition to the Mandate, the government began planning for the establishment of a full-fledged colonization company in Micronesia. Therefore, the national policy company in charge of the colonization program on the Korean peninsula, Toyo Takushoku Co., Ltd. obtained capital assistance, gathered sugar manufacturing technology and personnel from Taiwan and mainland Japan, and established Nanyo Kohatsu Co., Ltd., as a sugar industry specialist. The company saw securing a labor force as the key to success, so it actively recruited workers from Okinawa, where labor was cheaper and more abundant. There were so many immigrants from Okinawa that their numbers overwhelmed the local population. In terms of its population, Micronesia had indeed “turned Japanese.” ! Takeuchi Yasukichi, “Inspection 12 !

13

Report of Kosrae Island,” April 17th, 1920 (Kaigun Sho 1914-1920).

For further discussion of Korean immigration and wartime mobilization, see Imaizumi (2009).

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !295

The Mariana Islands Under Naval Administration In the Mariana Islands, most records made by Japanese inspectors concern the Chamorro people. In the records, military government authorities noted that the Chamorro people had been influenced by European culture, that their manners and customs were the most “advanced” of the peoples of Micronesia, and that they were confident they were a “superior race.”14 Records said that Chamorro should

be watched as people who not only did not accept Japanese rule but also disliked Japan.

!

When the Mariana Islands were occupied by the Japanese military, crops were in serious trouble because of drought and insects. Therefore, the Navy administration in the Mariana Islands can be characterized by its efforts to rebuild agriculture and to address the anti-Japanese sentiments of the local people.

!

Rota and Saipan will be Examined as Examples of Crop Damage On Rota, when World War I began, Germany was encouraging the planting of sweet potatoes. As drought continued, however, sweet potatoes died, so a chief of Rota, where food was scarce, sought help from the military government on Saipan.

Reportedly, because there was no response from Saipan, they turned to the American Governor of Guam. According to reports, Japanese military government authorities considered it routine for the Chamorro of Saipan and Rota to complain of a lack of food, so they dismissed it. That kind of response from the military government was at the core of the local people’s dissatisfaction.15

!

On Saipan, after the de facto Japanese occupation began, crops failed. This caused great discontent among the residents. The reports explained the discontent is said to have increased because the local people of Saipan had appreciated Germany’s efforts at governance. In more detail, in response to insect damage to coconut palms, military government authorities ordered the trees to be burned. They added other regulations to the management of coconut palms. These compulsory policies aroused antipathy of the Chamorros to Japanese administration. It is said that among the Chamorros, there was a superstition that the blighting of the coconut palms was brought about by the Japanese occupation. Furthermore, Japanese companies began developing wide swaths of land for sugarcane cultivation and so

! Takushoku 14

Kyoku (1919) is publication and official information about local people researched under Navy administration.

!

15

Suzuki Ujimasa (the captain of Chihaya), “Inspection Report of Rota Island,” July 26th, 1915 (Kaigun Sho 1914-1920).

296 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

on. The Chamorro feared that the land where they grew coconut palms would be taken from them.16

!

With Chamorro dissatisfied with the responses of the military government authorities regarding the food and agriculture on which their lives depended, the military government and observers from the Japanese government warned that even if Chamorros showed outwardly pro-Japanese attitudes, that was only on the surface.

!

Besides the Above-Noted Responses from the Military Government, What Other Dissatisfactions did the Chamorro have? 17 First, there was the poor attitude of the Japanese military personnel under the administration. For example, forcing their way into local homes and impregnating women. Second, there was antipathy towards the lifestyles of impoverished Japanese immigrants. Furthermore, under Japanese military occupation, travel to Guam, where Chamorros had many relatives and friends, was prohibited.

Additionally, the expulsion of German missionaries was a serious inconvenience in their lives. Those factors were decisive in worsening anti-Japanese feelings. For those reason, Chamorros were less accepting of Japanese rule than other local people were. Indeed, many of them believed a return to German rule would be

preferable.

!

The military government had to work to tighten discipline among military personnel and it allowed Spanish Roman Catholic missionaries to replace the expelled German missionaries. In response to the crop damage, however, it actually prioritized the sugar industry inviting a Japanese company and bringing in large numbers of workers from mainland Japan. As for land, just as the Chamorro feared, more than 80 percent of the Mariana Islands were confiscated as public land to be developed under the monopoly of Nanyo Kohatsu. As for development, many impoverished manual laborers from Okinawa were brought in. The Mariana Islands were developed by Japanese, and Japanese greatly outnumbered, the local population.

!

!

16

“Enomoto Sanjikan Sisatu Hokoku Sono Ni” [Inspection Report of Micronesia (No.2) presented

by Enomoto, a counselor of Ministry of Navy], accepted August 8th, 1918 (Kaigun Sho 1914-1920). ! Blackeslee 1922, 105-106.

16 ! We 17

can see this information in many reports such as vice admiral Tsuchiya Mitukane et. al., “Inspection Reports, “ June 3rd ,1918 (Kaigun Sho 1914-1920).

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !297

Conclusion The provisions of the Mandate stated that it was to “promote the material and moral well-being and the social progress of the inhabitants” who are still unable to be independent. Japan worked to fulfill its commission as the country accepting a class C Mandate for Micronesia.

!

When the Permanent Mandate Commission of the League of Nations reviewed Japan’s rule, the issues it pointed to were connected to the basic direction and related policies the Navy set for the rule of Micronesia under naval administration.18

!

For example, problems with the education policy the Japanese government emphasized as a main pillar of the Mandate were that it had half of all instruction time in Japanese, it included Moral Education based on the Emperor system, and it provided no educational opportunities beyond secondary school. Additional doubts were raised about the sugar industry occupying a monopolistic position in local industry. Local people had little involvement with the sugar industry, and the Commission expressed strong concern about the rapid increase in Japanese immigrants as threatening the local population.

!

The “repressive control” and “radical reform”, the methods of pursuing policy during the naval administration, were modified by the South Seas Government. As examined in this presentation, however, the basic direction of the Navy’s polices on the local people and the colonization program continued under the rule of the South Seas Government.

!

The reactions and opinions of the local people on the South Pacific Mandate needs to be examined in light of their experiences with and opinions of German rule and the naval administration period.

!

References Blakeslee, George H. 1921 “Japan’s New Island Possessions in the Pacific: History and Present Status,” The Journal of International Relations, vol.12, No.2.

1922 “The Mandate of the Pacific,” Foreign Affairs, vol.1, No.1.

!

Gabe, Masaaki 1982 “Japan’s occupation of Micronesia and “Southern Expansion” under Navy Administration (1914-1922),” Hogaku Kenkyu [Journal of Law, Politics, and Sociology], vol.55,(7),(8).

!

18

See Imaizumi (1994) Ffor further disscussionanalysis the discussion , see Imaizumi (1994)..

298 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Gaimusho [Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan] “Teikoku no Nanyo Inintochi Ikken” [Archives Relating to Japanese Mandate Micronesia], Diplomatic Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Tokyo.

!

Gaimusho Tushokyoku [the Bureau of Commercial Affairs of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs] 1915 Dokuryo Nanyo Jijo [A report of German South Sea Islands], Gaimusho Tushokyoku, Tokyo.

!

Imaizumi, Yumiko 1990a “Japanese Military Administration over Micronesia (1914-1922),” MA thesis, Tsuda Collage.

1990b “Japanese Rule in Micronesia (1914-22),” Kokusai Kankeigaku Kenkyu [The Study of International Relations], No.17 Supplement.

1992 “Policy making process in transition period from Naval administration to Mandatory administration in Micronesia,” Kyoji Asada et al., eds., Iwanami Series; Modern Japan and her Colonies, Vol.4, Iwanami Shoten.

1994 “Japanese policy for Micronesians and its actual condition: the discussion at Permanent Mandated Commission of League of Nations, “ Rekisigaku Kenkyu [Journal of Historical Studies], No.665.

2001 “ “Social, Moral and Material Well-being of Natives” in Japanese Mandated Micronesia,” Nihon Shokuminchi Kenkyu [The Journal of Japanese Colonial Studies], No. 3.

2009 “Labor Mobilization of Koreans for Micronesia in Wartime,” Senso Sekinin Kenkyu [The Report on Japan’s War Responsibility].

!

Kaigun Sho [Ministry of Navy] 1914 - 1920 “Taisho Seneki Senji Shorui” [War Archives of World War I], Boeisho Boei Kenkyujo, Siryo Etsuransitu (BBKSE) [Military Archival Library of the National Institute for Defense Studies].

!

Nanyocho [South Seas Government] 1932 Nanyocho Sisei Junen Shi [Ten-Year History of the Administration of the South Seas Government], Nanyocho Chokan Kanbo¸ Tokyo.

!

Peattie, Mark 1988 Nanyo: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese in Micronesia, 1885–1945. Pacific Islands Monograph Series, No. 4. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

!

Senju, Hajime 2006 “Inintochi Nanyogunto ni okeru Naichi Kankodan ni kansuru Oboegaki” [A note of the Mainland Tourist Parties from Japanese Mandate Micronesia], Rikkyo Kanko Gakubu Kiyo [St. Paul’s Annals of Tourism Research], No.8.

!

Takushoku Kyoku [The Cabinet Colonial Bureau] 1919 Nanyo Senryochi Jijyo Gaiyo [Overview of Micronesia under Japanese Navy Occupation ], Takushoku Kyoku, Tokyo.

! !

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !299

--Yumiko Imaizumi is a professor of International and Cultural Studies at Hosei University. She is currently working on a book, Micronesia under Japanese administration: 1914-1946.

Her research focuses especially on Japanese colonial policies and Micronesia’s colonial society. She also researches immigration, wartime labor mobilization and repatriation of Okinawans, mainland Japanese, Micronesians, Koreans and Chinese in and out of Micronesia. She has conducted surveys of archives and interviews for 26 years. She served as a consultant on several projects such as listing and microfilming the “South Seas Collection” in Library of Congress, US. She is a coauthor of History of Okinawa Prefecture.

300 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Under the Gun The US Stronghold at Mount Tenjo, Guam

!

By James Oelke Farley Cultural Resources Program Manager War in the Pacific National Historical Park, Guam james_oelke@nps.gov

! !

Abstract: As the US tried to determine the best method to defend its new territory of Guam at the beginning of the 20th Century, several high level military boards met to discuss the problem. A reconnaissance officer was sent to the island to make observations. His recommendations, added to those of the board, would create a defense “not intended to hold out for any definite length of time but to hold out for as long as possible.” The method of defense would be to emplace so many guns on Guam that no country would be foolish enough to attack it and if they did, the guns of the Mount Tenjo redoubt, manned by 300 men (“to be sacrificed”), would allow the Orote Peninsula defenders to hold out as long as they could. The plan was enacted and troops arrived, planes landed, camps were built, and Guam was armed to the teeth.

Editor’s Note: This paper, presented at the Marianas History Conference, was not made available for publication.

! !

--James Oelke Farley serves as the Cultural Resources Program Manager for War in the Pacific National Historical Park on Guam and the American Memorial Park on Saipan. His programs oversee projects in history, anthropology, museum curation, and archaeology. He is a member of the National Park Service Western Cultural Resources Emergency Response Team. Since completing his BA in history from UOG, Oelke Farley has begun pursuing a postgraduate degree in Micronesian Studies at the same institution. Oelke Farley’s current research explores cultural landscape change during the United States military development of Guam from 1899-1941, focusing on the Caldera d' Apra area.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !301

!

302 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

US Navy Submarine Patrols to the Mariana Islands in World War II

!

By Dave Lotz Former Conservation Resources Element Chief Andersen Air Force Base, Guam davelotz@ite.net

! !

Abstract: Patrols by US Navy fleet submarines operating from Pearl Harbor and Australia contributed to the US Navy’s World War II seizure of the waters of the Marianas Archipelago from the Imperial Japanese Navy. US submarine missions evolved to meet the requirements of the US Navy Pacific Fleet – from the initial patrol of USS Thresher in February of 1942 until June of 1944 with the contributions of the US submarines in the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Their missions included solitary long range patrols and wolf pack operations along with support of carrier operations. In essence, US submarines provided the opening salvos in the Battle for the Mariana Islands that commenced in early 1944 with the sinking of Japanese military reinforcements sent to the islands. This presentation provides a critical review of these operations.

The War in the Pacific was a conflict waged primarily on and for control of the Western Pacific Ocean. Upon the ocean the resources of commerce and warfare were almost entirely transported by ship. The scattered islands were thus dependent upon and impacted by the events on the ocean. During the war US Navy submarines preformed a vital offensive role for the US Navy. From a few patrolling submarines in 1942, their presence increased in the waters of the Mariana Islands in 1943 as Saipan had become a focal point for Japanese wartime shipping. The next year, US submarines continually patrolled the waters of the Mariana Islands from February 1944 until the invasions of the islands of Saipan, Guam, and Tinian in the summer of 1944. These patrols contributed towards seizing control of these waters from the Imperial Japanese Navy by the US Navy during the war.

!

For purposes of this evaluation, the waters of the Mariana Islands are considered to be identical with the designated submarine Patrol Area 14 which encompassed the archipelago. The boundaries were north of Farallon de Pajaros at 21° North latitude to south of Guam at 13° North latitude and west of the archipelago at 140° East longitude to east of the islands at 147° East longitude.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !303

The US Navy entered the war having developed the long range fleet submarines ideal for these patrols. This occurred since the 1920s with the advancement of submarines through a series of submarine classes. By 1941, the Gato-class submarines were being launched as the latest class of seventy-seven boats which bore a significant responsibility for the war patrols. These submarines were 312 feet long with a displacement of 1,525 tons and capable of an endurance of 11,000 miles with a surface speed of 20 knots and a submerged speed of 9 knots. Four diesel engines powered the submarine on the surface while also charging the batteries which provided the submerged power for the electric motors. Gatos had a listed diving depth of 300 feet which was exceeded on many instances. The submarines were armed with 21-inch torpedoes with six bow torpedo tubes and four stern torpedo tubes. For the first two years of the war, the torpedoes suffered depth control and detonation problems which impeded the effectiveness of the submarines. The submarines also mounted a deck gun and antiaircraft guns. A crew of eighty-one officers and men was the usual wartime complement of the Gato-class submarines.

!

Innovations of electronic and related equipment were essential to the success of the fleet submarines. This included the torpedo data computer; the target bearing transmitter; SD, air search radar; SJ, surface search radar; sonar, and the bathythermograph along with use of the periscopes.

!

The missions of the patrolling submarines evolved as the war progressed commencing with the solitary appearance of Thresher off the Mariana Islands in February 1944. The initial coordinated submarine attack group, or wolf pack, to Patrol Area 14 was Snook, Pargo, and Harder in November 1943. Submarines provided the support for the initial US Navy carrier task groups that attacked the southern Mariana Islands on 23 February 1944 with Apogon, Searaven, Sunfish, Skipjack, and Tang. Photographic reconnaissance of the islands was provided by Greenling in April 1944. Multiple sector patrols of Patrol Area 14 commenced in April while rotating Pentathlon patrols started in May of 1944. Finally submarine scouting for the fleet was a role for fleet submarines west of the Mariana Islands during the Battle of the Philippine Sea in mid-June 1944 sinking Japanese carriers Taiho and Shokoku.

!

Depending on the situation, fleet submarines had several options for conducting torpedo attacks. This included attacks utilizing the target bearing transmitter, periscope, radar, sonar, or a combination of sources to obtain target information.

Further, the attacks could be on the surface or submerged and similarly determined by day or night. While preferring firing torpedoes at the broad side of 304 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

the enemy ships, situations could dictate a “down the throat” attack or an “up the kilt” attack. A particularly useful method of approach was the “end around maneuver” where, once the enemy convoy’s course and speed were determined, the submarine paralleled the enemy course at a distance, maintaining contact with the enemy ships by radar, periscope, or lookouts, to achieve a position ahead of the enemy’s course and then submerge to await the convoy’s approach.

!

The initial US submarine torpedo attack on a Japanese ship in the waters of the Mariana Islands was on 4 February 1942 by Thresher on a small freighter near Guam. While the target appeared to be hit, no sinking was ever substantiated. The first confirmed sinking of a Japanese ship by an American submarine in these waters was by Flying Fish on 16 February 1943 of Hyuga Maru, a stores ship, near Pagan.

!

Bold approaches to fire torpedoes into harbors of the Mariana Islands were accomplished. On 1 August 1942, Pickerel closed onto an anchored merchant ship in Sasajayan Bay, Rota to fire torpedoes to possibly damage the ship. Later, Flying Fish in January and February of 1943 conducted daring closures on harbors of the islands to sink enemy ships. This included firing torpedoes into Apra Harbor, Guam to damage the anchored Tokai Maru on 26 January, later sunk in Apra Harbor by torpedoes from Snapper on 27 August 1943, and damaging the anchored Nagisan Maru in Sunharon Roadstead, Tinian on 6 February. On 28 June 1943 Tunny torpedoed and sunk Shokoku Maru in daylight within sight of Rota.

!

Submarine guns were also used to attack the Japanese in the Mariana Islands. On 9 May 1943 Permit conducted a bombardment of Pagan with the four-inch deck gun.

On 17 September 1943 Gudgeon engaged the Japanese minelayer Fumi Maru No. 2 with the five-inch gun in the Rota Channel. A special mission deserves mention.

On 18 April 1944 a boarding party from Tambor boarded a Japanese ship en-route to Wake and seized the new Japanese code books. Then the enemy ship was subsequently sunk. Lifeguarding, the rescue at sea of downed Navy airmen, was an assigned submarine responsibility for the US Navy carrier strikes of 23 February by Sunfish and later in June 1944 by Pipefish and Stingray during the pre-invasion carrier strikes on Saipan.

!

Japanese naval forces were diligent in attempting to protect their wartime shipping with Saipan’s Tanapag Harbor the primary harbor of the Mariana Islands utilized during the war. This included utilizing a wide variety of naval vessels for convoy escorts from destroyers to converted trawlers as numerous merchant ships were acquired for anti-submarine efforts. Seaplanes based at Flores Point on Saipan and 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !305

bombers from the Ushi Point Airfield on Tinian provided aerial escorts. By 1943, the Japanese utilized land based radar on Saipan to locate surfaced nearby US submarines to then direct ships and aircraft to attack these submarines. The primary Japanese anti-submarine weapon was the depth charge. However, to the advantage of the US submarines, the Japanese set their depth charges to explode too shallow to sink submarines and in many instances broke off these attacks too early.

!

Only one US submarine, Gudgeon, with orders to patrol the waters of the Mariana Islands was lost to Japanese anti-submarine warfare. Gudgeon, to the north of the islands headed for the Mariana waters, was sunk near Iwo Jima on 18 April 1944 by a direct bomb hit dropped by a patrolling Japanese Mitsubishi G3M Nell bomber.

There were no survivors of the crew of seventy-nine on the submarine’s twelfth war patrol.

!

By the war years the US Navy submarine patrols ordered to the Mariana waters and Japanese ships sunk in Patrol Area 14 are summarized as follows: 1942: 4 submarine patrols; no Japanese ships sunk.

1943: 20 submarine patrols;7 Japanese ships sunk of 26,551 tons.

1944: 28 submarine patrols; 30 Japanese ships sunk of 129,637 tons.

!

This clearly indicates the increasingly effectiveness of the US submarine operations in Patrol Area 14 primarily based upon increasing numbers of submarines, improved tactics and equipment, and more reliable torpedoes.

!

The most productive submarine patrols to the Mariana Archipelago were: Tang sinking five ships in February 1944 on the submarine’s first war patrol.

Seahorse sinking four ships in April 1944 on the submarine’s fourth war patrol.

Sand Lance sinking five ships in May 1944 on the submarine’s second war

!

patrol.

Shark sinking four ships in June 1944 on the submarine’s first war patrol.

The determination of US submarines to pursue Japanese ships in Patrol Area 14 is superlatively illustrated by the efforts of a coordinated submarine attack group, Pintado, Pilotfish, and Shark, called Blair’s Blasters, from 29 May to 8 June 1944. For several days the three submarines pursued several Japanese convoys sinking seven Japanese ships. Especially decimated was Japanese convoy 3530 that arrived in Saipan on 7 June with only two transports from eight transports that had left Tateyama, Japan on 29 May. This includes the last two submarine sinkings of 306 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Japanese ships by a US submarine in Patrol Area 14, by Pintado, on 6 June of Kashinasan Maru and Havre Maru. The impact of the missing transports of convoy 3530 was the loss of men and equipment of the Japanese 43rd Japanese Army Division sent to reinforce the Mariana Islands.

!

Previously submarine attacks of Rock, Trout, and Nautilus on Higashi Matsu Convoy No. 1 in February 1944 sank at least one ship and damaged a second ship. This resulted in the loss of men and equipment from the 29th Japanese Army Division.

Cumulatively submarine attacks resulted in loss of Japanese reinforcements of men and equipment being sent to the Mariana Islands in early 1944 thus diminishing the Japanese resources to defend the islands. Many ships sunk returning to Japan were attempting to evacuate civilians that perished with the ships’ losses.

!

Perhaps the most significant impact on the Japanese war effort in the waters of the Mariana Islands was the physiological impact of the submarine attacks that generated fear to head toward and leave the ports of the islands. This is best illustrated by the stalking by Whale on the night of 25 May 1943 of Shoei Maru on a night voyage from Guam to Saipan to be suddenly without warning devastated by a torpedo attack at 0014 sinking Shoei Maru in four minutes, eighteen miles west of Rota, along with the loss of men of the Japanese Fifth Base Force.

!

Certainly the sinking of Japanese ships resulted in the loss of manpower and material resources to the Japanese war effort in the Mariana Islands in addition to loss of food on the islands. The efforts of the US submarines also forced the Japanese Navy to commit scare resources to anti-submarine efforts. Thus the submarines contributed to the US Navy’s seizure of the waters of the Mariana Islands during the war which, along with seizing control of the air, were the two essential requirements to achieve, prior to the invasions of Saipan, Guam, and Tinian in the summer of 1944.

!

Presentation slides begin on the following page.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !307

Presentation Slides

!

 

308 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !309

!

310 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !311

!

312 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !313

!

314 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !315

!

316 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !317

!

318 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !319

!

320 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !321

!

322 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !323

!

324 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !325

!

326 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

--David Lotz holds a BS in Park Management from Colorado State University, 1969 and an MS in Park Management from Michigan State University, 1977. He worked as Parks Administrator at the Guam Department of Parks and Recreation from 1984-1996, and as the Conservation Resources Element Chief, Andersen AFB, from 2009-2011. He has been a member of the Guam Historic Preservation Review Board since 2012. Lotz contributed to the establishment of the historic preservation program on Guam and has been active in preservation issues on Guam. He is the author of World War II Remnants and The Best Tracks on Guam. 

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !327

!

328 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Representations of War Memories on Guam from Three Perspectives Chamorro, Japanese and American

!

By Ryu Arai Graduate School of Social Sciences Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan ryuguam@yahoo.co.jp

! !

Abstract: Presently, Guam holds some memorial services for the victims of the Japanese occupation and WWII every July, for instance at Manenggon, Tinta, Faha and Fena. Moreover, every July 21, the “Liberation Parade,” which celebrates the “liberation of Guam,” is held on the island. This presentation considers war memories on Guam from three perspectives –“Chamorro”, “Japanese” and “American”. It examines the representation of war memories in commemorative events, specifically paying attention to the “empathy” for the people‟s situation on the island during that war expressed at the annual memorial services and “Liberation” ceremonies. This presentation thus takes account of the social circumstances in post war Guam that affect representation of war memories on the island.

The Mariana Islands has a long history of being colonized by various powers for more than 350 years – Spain, Germany, Japan and the United States, beginning in 1668. In the early 20th century, the islands became a military strategic arena that the US and Japan struggled for and against each other. The two wars were the turning point of expansion of the two countries toward the Marianas: the SpanishAmerican War in 1898 and World War I in 19141. After these wars, the Mariana Islands were divided into two parts. The northern part of the island chain became a part of “Nanyo Gunto,” which was administrated by Japan. The island of Guam, the southernmost of the islands, was under the rule of the US.

!

In short, the Spanish-American War and WWI were the cause of tense relationships between the US and Japan in the Marianas. Because of the oppositional relationship between these countries, a large number of people in the Mariana Islands became involved in World War II. Many civilians in the islands were injured and killed because of this war.

!

1

Camacho, Keith L., Cultures of Commemoration: The Politics of War, Memory, and History in the Mariana Islands, University of Hawai`i Press, Honolulu, 2011, p.22.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !329

Presently, Guam has memorial services for the victims of the Japanese occupation of Guam and WWII every July at Manenggon, Tinta, Faha and Fena. July is an important month for remembering the Japanese occupation and WWII on Guam as this is when memorial services are held on the island. These memorial services are sponsored by the local community, memorial foundations and other such groups. Various people take part in these memorials such as members of the Guam Legislature, the governor of Guam, members of the US military forces and Guam National Guard, Consul General of Japan, some Japanese civilians on Guam, the survivors of the wartime and others. Besides attending these services, people have conversations with each other after the memorial services, which serves to strengthen relationships between participants. In short, the people who participate in the memorials might turn their own thoughts to the wartime period, in particular to the war experiences of their families and relatives.

!

Moreover, every July 21, a “Liberation Parade” which celebrates the “liberation of Guam” is held on the island.

!

On December 8, 1941 Guam was bombed by Japanese military aircraft. Two days later, Japanese military forces landed and soon occupied Guam. The Japanese occupation of Guam lasted for two years and seven months, and then on July 21, 1944, the US forces landed on Guam which was the beginning of the battle of Guam. In post war Guam, July 21 became the day to cerebrate the “liberation” of Guam from the Japanese occupation. On this day a large number of people gather along Marine Corps Drive, one of the main streets of Guam, to watch the parade.

The event also has a wide variety of participants, the same as with the memorial services, and we can learn a part of the representation of the “Liberation of Guam” by paying attention to the participants of the events.

!

In this presentation, I consider war memories on Guam from three perspectives: “Chamorro,” “Japanese” and “American.” In other words, I examine the representation of war memories in these commemorative events. Specifically, I have focused on the “empathy” for the people’s situation on the island during that war through the memorial services and “Liberation” ceremonies that various people take part in.

!

For that reason, it is important to take into account the social circumstances of post war Guam which have had an effect on the representations of war memories on the island.

! !

330 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Final Days of the Japanese Occupation In the last days of the Japanese occupation, Japanese forces were gradually forced into a corner because the course of the war had turned against Japan. The situation of the Japanese troops on Guam was also getting worse which brought about brutalities and atrocities toward the indigenous people of Guam. They requisitioned food from the Chamorro people to feed themselves and forced the Chamorro people to move to concentration camps set up by the Japanese military forces. In books about the general history of Guam such as A Complete History of Guam, Destiny’s Landfall and Guahan Guam, the authors showed that Chamorros were forced to walk a long and rugged road to concentration camps2. Manenggon Valley was the one of these camps.

!

Moreover, at Tinta, Faha, Fena, Chagui’an and other such places, people who were considered to be pro-American and young Chamorro men were killed by the Japanese forces because of their perceived threat of possible secret communication with the US forces. In those days, the Japanese military headquarters in Guam could not communicate with the Japanese forces in Saipan so they did not know when or even if D-day of the US forces would be upon them. They had become nervous about the landing of the US military forces which is the reason for the brutalities and atrocities by the Japanese military forces occurred frequently in the end of the occupation. In addition, some Chamorros in the Northern Marianas worked as assistants for the Japanese military forces, and the situation made for a tense relationship between Chamorros of Guam and Chamorros of the Northern Marianas. This poor relationship was one of the results of colonialism and war caused by the opposition between the US and Japan. On July 21, 1944, the US military forces landed on. The battle against the Japanese military forces continued for about twenty days. The US forces “reoccupied” Guam on August 10.

!

Memorial Services As I explained above, memorial services and ceremonies take place in Guam every July since the end of World War II. At this time, I would like to give two examples of memorial services for the people who suffered and died in the Japanese occupation of Guam and during the war. I visited Guam and observed the memorial services and ceremonies including Manenggon and Chagui’an on July 2011. The observation reminds of me that it is significant to focus on the participants in the memorial services and ceremonies because there might be some

2 !

Carano, Paul & Sanchez, Pedro C., A Complete History of Guam, the Charles E. Tuttle, 1964, pp.

286-288.; Sanchez, Pedro C., Guahan Guam: The History of our Island, Sanchez Publishing House, 1987, pp.220-223, pp.227-228.; Rogers, Robert F., Destiny’s Landfall: A History of Guam, University of Hawai`i Press, 1995, pp.171-172.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !331

perspectives to be learned about the war time on Guam. The perspectives are about “Chamorro,” “Japanese” and “American” which I describe in this presentation.

!

Japanese A variety of participants attend the memorial services. Some of these are the war survivors and their families, senators of the Guam Legislature, some US military officers, Japanese voluntary people, and many others. It is notable that various people participate in the memorials for Chamorros who suffered and died during the occupation and the war. The memorial services consist of torch lighting, reflections by survivors, a memorial Catholic Mass, laying of wreaths and other such things. It is also notable that the Consul General of Japan and other Japanese residents of Guam attend the memorial services in recent years. It was in 2004 that the Consul General of Japan began to participate in the memorial services, according to the Pacific Daily News3. The Japan Consul General made a speech

showing feelings of sympathy and apologized to the people of Guam who suffered and died during the wartime4. At the Manenggon Memorial Service in 2011, the Consul General had a conversation with one of the speakers who had reflected about she and her family’s war experiences.5 The attendance of the Consul General of Japan is a remarkable thing because it is the top position of the Consulate General which belongs to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. His participation in the memorial services gave him an opportunity to listen to the sharing of war memories between the participants who come from a variety of backgrounds, even though they opposed each other at one time. From the “Japanese” perspective, it is an opportunity to show “empathy” for the people who suffered and died on Guam during the wartime thorough the attendance of the memorials.

!

Chamorro At the Manenggon memorial service, the Chamorro survivors who experienced internment at Manenggon Valley told their stories in front of the participants.

People also spoke about war memories at the Chagui’an Memorial Service, but they did not include the survivor’s reflections. These are exactly the places where they suffered, and they spoke about their own experiences in the same place. It would 3 !

Pacific Daily News, July 22, 2005, p. 4.

Ibid., July11, 2010, p. 3.

“Today, having the opportunity to attend the memorial service and to lay a wreath, I truly express feelings of deep sympathy and sincere apology as a husband, a father and a human being that the people of Guam became (victims)”; Ibid., July 16, 2005, p. 2.

“I want to express my profound condolences and deepest sympathies to all the Cha-morro people who lost their lives and to those who survived and experienced physical and mental pain” “I laid the flowers at Tinta and Faha today as an expression of my heartfelt apologies” ! Marianas Variety, July 11, 2011, p. 1.

5 !

4

332 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

be easy for survivors to recall their own situation in those days but their narrative in the memorial service was just a part of their whole war experience. This practice of talking about these memories might be difficult for the survivors because their experiences were often hard. Sometimes, they had to stop as they could not tell their wartime stories in front of people. When we consider the meanings of telling their stories in front of people, it is necessary to turn our thoughts to their real experiences as we experience empathy for them. It is meaningful for Japanese, Chamorros and Americans to attend these memorials and have conversation with each other, especially the Japanese because they can hear the survivors and their family’s stories about these times. The real feelings of empathy for the occupation and war victims might be the first step for sharing the survivor’s stories of war time Guam.

!

American In post war Guam, “July 21” is the day to celebrate the “liberation” of Guam from the Japanese occupation and a big parade is held which many people take part in.

Each year a theme is set for celebrating “Liberation Day.” For example, the theme of 2011 Liberation Day was “Our Man’amko… Our Legacy”.6 There were a variety of

floats in the parade, and it is also significant to remark on the fact that all kinds of people participated in the Liberation Parade including the survivors who suffered in the occupation and the war, the Governor and Senators of Guam, the personnel of Guam National Guard, US military forces, government agencies personnel and other such groups and people. In particular, it is interesting to take notice of the “Liberation Queen”. The contest of “Liberation Queen” has a long history, having been held on the island for nearly 70 years. It is meaningful that the Queen crowned with the name of “Liberation,” and the word of “liberation” shows the position of Guam from 20th century to 21st century. The island has connected with the military during this period and is now home to several US military bases. For that reason, the war memory represented by the crown of “liberation” always follows two important elements: the US as the “liberator” and Japan as the “occupier”.

!

The “Liberation Queen” is the symbolic existence of the “liberation” of Guam. The events of Guam’s Liberation commemoration have lasted for for nearly 70 years which has surely strengthened ties between Guam and the US Considering the events of “liberation” from the “American” perspective, on the one hand, they built the military bases and facilities on the island, but on the other hand, they tried to strengthen the relationship between Guam and the US In short, there is the true intention of the US, securing the island of Guam as the military strategic point, in !

6

“Man’amko” is Chamorro language, and it means elders in English.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !333

the back of the representation of “liberation.” Moreover, the “Liberation Queen” is not just a winner of the beauty contest because the candidates of the contest often join the memorial services and ceremonies as to the occupation and WWII on Guam. The queen’s role is to promote a better understanding of the wartime Guam through the participation in the commemorative events including the memorial services and the “Liberation Parade” on that day. Her participation could be a valuable experience for her to learn about the ravages of war on Guam even if the representation of war memory is often influenced by the crown of “liberation.”

Above all, the queen as well as all the participants get an opportunity for considering the wartime Guam through the participation in the commemorative events.

!

Conclusion The representation of war memories is likely influenced by the social circumstances of Guam. In particular, the participation of the Consul General of Japan at the war memorial services is one of the typical examples of this point because the Consul General had not participated in the memorials for Chamorros who suffered and died during the wartime Guam before 2004. The year of 2004 is the 60th anniversary of the end of the war in the Marianas, and the anniversary might be related to the participation of the Consul General of Japan in the memorials. Japan could not ignore the commemorative activities on the island.

!

There were some movements about the commemoration of war memories on Guam in the early 2000’s such as new panel exhibitions, a new calendar of war memories on the island and other such things. The commemorative movements may be related to the activities of Guam War Claims Review Commission, established in 2002. One of the commission’s activities was collecting oral testimonies from the survivors and their families who suffered in the wartime Guam. The activity may have had an effect of stimulating once buried war memories, which led the people to share survivor’s stories in the occupation and the war on the island. We may find that the connection between the remembrance of war memories and the war claims by giving attention to a chain of events on Guam in the early 2000’s.

!

And then, in considering the relationship between the representations of war memories and the social circumstances, it is most important to take into account the presence of the US military forces on Guam. As I mentioned before, the personnel of Guam National Guard and the US military forces take part in the memorial services for Chamorros who suffered and died in the wartime and the events of “Liberation Day”. On the one hand, the US troops might be seen as “the 334 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

liberator” in Guam, but on the other hand, they took over more than half of the land belonging to the Chamorro people for use as military land soon after the war.

The US Navy and Air Force bases have continued to occupy much of the land of Chamorros until now. In short, we can’t refer to the issue of the succeeding war memories in Guam without paying close attention to the military forces on the island, especially the US troops.

!

In addition, Japan Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) has been to Guam a number of times for a port of call as a part of the ocean navigation in the post war.

In recent years, Japan Ground Self Defense Force (JGSDF) and Japan Air Self Defense Force (JASDF) also conducted joint military exercises with the US military forces on the island. This means that the military organization of Japan has also connected with the island in the post war. I have not analyzed in detail on the relationship between the Japan Self Defense Forces and Guam in the post war period yet, but it is necessary to research that point.

!

I described about the representation of war memories on Guam from three perspectives of “Chamorro,” “Japanese” and “American” in this presentation. It is required to analyze more examples which related to the representations of war memories on Guam and compare with the case in the Northern Marianas in future study. My study will continue to focus on the complicated circumstances of the representations of war memories in the whole Mariana Islands.

!

Presentation slides begin on the following page. !

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !335

Presentation Slides

!

 

336 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !337

!

338 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !339

!

340 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !341

!

342 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !343

!

344 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !345

!

346 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !347

!

348 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !349

!

350 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !351

!

352 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !353

!

354 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

!

--Ryu Arai was born in Nagano pref., Japan in 1988, and received BA in social sciences at Shimane University in Japan in 2010 and an MA in social sciences at Hitotsubashi University in Japan in 2013, before enrolling as a doctoral student at Hitotsubashi University. Arai has studied Pacific history, US history and Modern Japanese history. Since the start of undergraduate schooling, Arai’s research interest have included relations between Guam and Japan, and, more recently, on the tripartite relation, Guam, Japan and the US. 

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !355

!

356 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

! ! !

2nd Marianas History Conference !

American Era 

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !357

!

358 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

The Early Political Status Talks on Saipan In The Early 1970’S Leading To The Plebiscite Vote On Us Commonwealth Status Of The Northern Mariana Islands A Personal Perspective

!

By Guadalupe Camacho Borja-Robinson Instructor in the Social Sciences and Fine Arts Department Northern Marianas College, Saipan luper@nmcnet.edu

! !

Abstract: From the ruins of World War II, Saipan has traveled a long journey to become a resort island for tourists from Asia and Russia. Today on Saipan, the Hyatt Regency, Pacific Islands Club and other major hotels cater to tourists who enjoy the island’s tropical waters and sandy beaches.

How have the indigenous people of Saipan adapted to the economic and social changes that have taken place in the island in the last 68 years? As a Chamorro woman who was born on Saipan after the war and who lived and experienced many of those changes, I will discuss some of those economic and social transitions. This paper is not intended to be an exhaustive review; it merely is based on my experiences and observations.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Guadalupe Borja-Robinson, a married Chamorro woman from Saipan in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). It is an honor for me to speak before you today.

!

I became interested in speaking at this conference when I realized that, as an indigenous Chamorro woman from Saipan who has lived, experienced, and observed some of my island’s most profound political, economic and cultural changes, I have insights that I can share with other people at a conference such as this. I hope that by the end of my presentation you will agree.

!

I have spent most of my professional life on Saipan as a writer for different government agencies and as an English teacher at the college and high school level.

In my early years after graduation from college, I worked as a writer for the Public Information Office of the Trust Territory (TT) Government on Saipan and later at the Pacific Daily News on Guam. I have always been interested in learning more about Marianas history, especially since my early education only taught me about America: its history, government, and the like. It was only until I started my 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !359

undergraduate studies at the University of Hawai`i in 1966 that my curiosity about Marianas history developed as an outside interest.

!

I was born on Saipan after World War II, and I received my early education at Mount Carmel School on Saipan. After high school graduation from Mount Carmel in 1965, I applied and was accepted as a third grade teacher at Chalan Kanoa Elementary School. At that time, Saipan was administered by the US Trust Territory Government.

!

As an agency of the Marianas District of the Trust Territory Government, the Marianas Education Department at that time accepted high school graduates to teach elementary school under the supervision of a certified teacher. I enjoyed teaching my third grade students, but I learned my first lesson in life. I realized that no matter how hard I worked, I could only receive the salary designated for the position: approximately 32 cents an hour because I was not a college graduate. That is when I decided to apply to attend college.

!

A year later in 1966 I received an East West Center grant to begin my undergraduate studies in education at the University of Hawai`i in Hilo and Honolulu. At the University of Hawai`i an introductory course, Introduction to Physical Anthropology, sparked my interest in learning more about my history and my people. However, books about Northern Marianas history at that time were limited.

!

Some time after returning to Saipan in 1971, I became employed by the Public Information Office of the Trust Territory Government. Saipan was the headquarters of the Trust Territory. Working for the Public Information Office gave me a firsthand opportunity to observe the first meeting in December 1972 between the members of the Marianas Political Status Commission headed by Edward Pangelinan and the American negotiators led by Ambassador Franklin Haydn Williams at the Royal Taga Hotel on Saipan. (The World Resort Hotel today has replaced the Royal Taga Hotel at the same location in Susupe, Saipan.)

!

At the December 1972 meeting, I remember the American negotiators in their US Mainland suits and the Marianas status group, some of whom wore suits while others wore island shirts. The members of the Marianas status group were wellrespected island leaders from Saipan, Tinian and Rota, but I saw the meeting as “city folks” negotiating with island leaders who were smart, but many of whom did not have the formal education and sophistication that the American negotiators had.

360 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

During the year that I worked at the Public Information Office, I remember that the US and the Marianas status groups each gave little or no public education on the political choices the people of the Northern Marianas could consider. The only status that was discussed was a close political relationship with the American family, or commonwealth status. For us Chamorros, the word “family” means closeness; it implies that the United States would want only the best for the Northern Marianas.

!

The little or no political education that was offered in 1972 did not appear right to me. I believed there should have been extensive public education on the statuses of commonwealth, free association, and independence so that the people could make an intelligent choice. The other five Trust Territory island districts at that time were considering free association and independence (Farrell).

!

So while working for the Public Information Office, I approached my supervisor, James Manke, about writing an article for the Micronesian Reporter, the quarterly magazine the PIO published for the Trust Territory Government. My article would survey the four American territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. Mr. Manke told me to go ahead.

!

Published in the 1972 Third Quarter issue of the Micronesian Reporter and titled “A Survey of American Territories,” my article pointed out that there were many advantages of being an American territory, such as American citizenship and federal benefits, but there were also disadvantages. (Note: The people of American Samoa are considered American nationals, not citizens.)

!

The essence of my article in the Micronesian Reporter was that as an American territory, we would have a measure of self-government, but we would be governed by laws made in Washington, DC. We also would not be able to vote for the US president. In effect, we would become second-class American citizens.

!

Reviewing newspaper articles at the Archives of the Northern Marianas College helped me remember some of those early political status talks. I also interviewed Juan Sablan Del Rosario, an indigenous Chamorro journalist who witnessed firsthand those early political status talks as a staff member of the Marianas delegation to the Congress of Micronesia. Del Rosario agreed that the political status message expressed to our people was one-sided, in favor of commonwealth. There were a few local leaders who urged more public education on the status of free association which the other five island districts of the Trust Territory were considering. The 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !361

Carolinian member of the Marianas status group, Felix Rabauliman, urged more public education on the status of free association and independence, but his view and that of other Carolinians in Saipan were certainly a minority (Farrell 593, 599).

!

I left the Public Information Office in 1973 to work for the Pacific Daily News on Guam. The Marianas Political Status Commission in 1974 started holding village meetings on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota to explain commonwealth status to the people. The meetings were conducted in Chamorro, so the Pacific Daily News sent me to cover those village meetings.

!

At those meetings, I remember the village commissioners on Saipan and other village leaders on Tinian and Rota saying that commonwealth status would improve the lives of the people. The late Fernando Benavente, the village commissioner of San Antonio village on Saipan, is quoted in a Pacific Daily News article (8).

Speaking in Chamorro, Benavente said he favors commonwealth status “because it provides a tax system in which taxes remain in the islands ‘for roads and so forth’ and thus would be most beneficial to the Northern Marianas” (8).

!

In a newspaper article by the Micronesian News Service (MNS) which was published in the Pacific Daily News, two Saipan Municipal Council members, Dino Jones and Juan Demapan, questioned certain provisions of the Covenant (53). (The Micronesian News Service was the official news service of the Trust Territory Government). In the news article, Dino Jones said, “the US Constitution, laws and treaties will…be made applicable to the Northern Marianas” (53).

!

In recent interviews on Saipan, Del Rosario noted that the economy of Saipan under the Naval Technical Training Unit (commonly known as the NTTU time) from1952 to 1962 was good. He said, “There were many jobs for locals and the minimum wage was 75 cents an hour; under the Trust Territory Government the minimum wage was16 cents an hour and there were very few jobs.”

!

Del Rosario also recalled those village meetings on Saipan, Tinian and Rota before the plebiscite vote on commonwealth status in June 1975. He described those village meetings as “very flowery presentations of the benefits that would come under commonwealth”. Del Rosario recalled the late Felipe Mendiola, the speaker of the Tinian Municipal Council, telling him (Del Rosario) in Chamorro, “Let’s vote for it (commonwealth status) for our children’s future”.

!

So an improved minimum wage, US citizenship, and other federal benefits were highlighted during those village meetings on Saipan, Tinian and Rota. I remember 362 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

little discussion on the disadvantages of commonwealth status. Jose Cruz, or “Jose’n Pinchang” represented the Marianas Status Commission at those village meetings. An intelligent and charismatic type of person who later became mayor of Tinian, Pinchang only discussed the advantages of commonwealth status: US citizenship, a higher minimum wage, and federal benefits. At those village meetings, some people questioned certain provisions of the Covenant, but “Pinchang” refuted each criticism (Pacific Daily News, May 9, 1975: 8).

!

In recent newspaper accounts on Saipan, Governor Eloy Inos and other lawmakers have criticized the recent unilateral activities of the US military on Pagan, the Air Force plans to build a divert airfield near Saipan airport, and other issues. In regard to the proposed divert airfield, Inos said that its request for 33 acres of land on Saipan for the next 50 years “is quite an undesirable conclusion as it would impede future commercial development in the area”(Saipan Tribune front page, August 12, 13).

!

In a recent online Pacific Daily News article dated August 17, 2013, the US military is quoted, “The plan to use Tinian as a live-fire training range and transient base camp for Marianas as well as for Pagan to host amphibious landing exercises in addition to live-fire training is part of a broader plan to develop a “Marianas hub” under the US Pacific Command” (2).

!

Oral Interview and Literature Review Juan Sablan Del Rosario, an indigenous Chamorro journalist on Saipan with more than 40 years of writing experience, recalled in recent interviews those early political status talks in the early 1970’s on Saipan, including the village meetings on Saipan, Tinian and Rota. Del Rosario remembered that the village leaders at the meetings supported the Covenant to provide a better future for their children and grandchildren. A staff writer for the Marianas delegation to the Congress of Micronesia in the early 1970’s, Del Rosario also wrote for the Micronesian News Service during that period. Today Del Rosario writes a daily column in English and Chamorro for the Saipan Tribune newspaper on issues affecting the Commonwealth.

!

Don Farrell’s History of the Northern Mariana Islands, published in 1991 by the Public School System of the NMI, is the first comprehensive textbook about the Northern Mariana Islands (NMI). The book covers the islands’ different periods: prehistoric, Spanish, German, Japanese, then World War II. The US military overtook Japanese forces in critical battles on Saipan and Tinian, which led to Japan’s surrender of the war in 1945.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !363

!

Farrell’s book also covers Saipan under the Naval Technical Training Unit, then all of the Northern Marianas coming under the US Department of Interior in 1962. As a district of the TTPI, the NMI became dissatisfied with the status quo and sought separate talks with the US. The US began political status talks with the Congress of Micronesia status group as early as 1971.

!

In Chapter 17 of his book, Negotiating the Covenant, Farrell discusses the steps the leaders of the NMI took to become a permanent part of the “American political family.” The Marianas District Legislature created the Marianas Political Status Commission in 1972 to negotiate a close political relationship with the United States. Members of the Commission met with US negotiators until the people of the NMI voted in a plebiscite in 1975 for US Commonwealth status.

!

“American Territories—A Survey” is an article I wrote in 1972 for the Micronesian Reporter, the quarterly magazine produced by the Trust Territory Government. I wrote the article to show that the four American territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands each had a measure of self-government, but it was Washington, DC that really had control of the islands. American Samoans are American nationals, but the people of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are American citizens.

!

In the Micronesian Reporter article, I discussed what being a US territory may mean for the Northern Marianas. The article surveyed the government and the economy of those four American territories. I wrote that although the people of those territories are American citizens (except American Samoans who are American nationals), they cannot vote for the US president. They also do not have a voting delegate to the US Congress where laws are made. In essence, my article asked the question whether the people of the NMI should submit to political controls in which they would have no say in exchange for projected economic development benefits.

!

For this paper, I also reviewed several newspaper articles written on Saipan and Guam in the early 1970’s. In the May 9, 1975 issue of the Pacific Daily News which I wrote, Jose Cruz of the Marianas Political Status Commission spoke in Chamorro and refuted any criticism of the Covenant raised by a villager. Cruz said that if the people of the Northern Marianas did not approve the Covenant, the Congress of Micronesia’s Political Status Commission would negotiate the lease of Tinian and other issues on behalf of the Northern Marianas and the other six island districts of the Trust Territory.

364 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

In an article of the May 9, 1975, issue of the Pacific Daily News written by the Micronesian News Service, two members of the Saipan Municipal Council: Dino Jones and Juan Demapan questioned the provisions of the proposed Covenant.

However, Jones and Demapan were a minority who questioned the provisions of the covenant.

!

Another newspaper article in the June 6, 1975, issue of the Pacific Daily News and written by Joan King, the Bureau Chief of the PDN, discussed the ad hoc committee formed by the Trust Territory Government to prepare for the eventual separation of the Marianas from the Trust Territory. Remember, Saipan then was the headquarters of the Trust Territory Government.

!

Farrell’s book noted that prior to the plebiscite vote on June 17, 1975, people speculated that the plebiscite vote would be “Yes” with 65-80 percent (599). 78.8 percent of the people voted in favor of the covenant (599).

!

For this paper, I also reviewed recent newspaper articles on Saipan and an online Pacific Daily News article about military activities on Pagan, the military’s plan to build a divert airfield near Saipan’s international airport, and related issues.

!

Findings From a subsistence economy before World War II, the ruins of the War, then recovery after the war, the people of the Northern Marianas have experienced phenomenal changes in their political, economical, and social lives. Saipan today boasts several first-class hotels that cater to tourists.

!

The question that comes to my mind, however, is “Did we give up too much for American citizenship and many economic benefits?” In light of recent military activities on Pagan, its plan to build a divert airfield on Saipan, and other military plans, I believe we need to re-examine the Covenant and question the true motives of the US Government in the Northern Marianas. The negotiations leading to the Covenant vote in 1975 did not include military activities on Pagan and other northern islands, and the US Air Force plans to build a divert airfield near Saipan’s airport. Under the Covenant, the Navy and Air Force has use of 2/3 of Tinian.

!

When the political status talks formally began in 1972 on Saipan, it was apparent that most of the members of the Marianas Political Status Commission (MPSC) wanted commonwealth status for the islands. For many of those MPSC members and other island leaders, commonwealth status was an improvement to being a part

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !365

of the Trust Territory Government. It was only the Carolinian community which did not support commonwealth status; they favored free association or independence.

!

Under the Naval Technical Training Unit from 1952 - 1962, Saipan saw a fairly good economy with many jobs and 75 cents an hour as the minimum wage (Del Rosario interview). Then minimum wage fell to 16 cents an hour under the Trust Territory Government. So for many island leaders, commonwealth status would improve lives with more jobs and a higher minimum wage.

!

There was no public education on free association or independence for the people to consider. The Marianas Political Status Commission favored commonwealth from the start, and it promoted only commonwealth status in the village meetings on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota before the plebiscite vote in 1975. The Marianas status group and other village municipal leaders believed commonwealth status offered by the American negotiators would improve the economy.

!

The Marianas status group was chaired by Edward Pangelinan, the first Chamorro attorney in the Northern Marianas. Beside Pangelinan, only one or two members had a college education. The other members of the status group and the village/ municipal leaders were intelligent and well-respected individuals, but lacked a formal education, because there were no education opportunities for local people under the Japanese administration.

!

Del Rosario noted that Article 12 of the Covenant, the land alienation clause, is a credit to the Marianas status group who insisted on it and to Ambassador Williams and his group for making the provision. Article 12 restricts land ownership to persons of Northern Marianas descent. Del Rosario noted that Article 12 was carefully drafted to protect the indigenous Chamorros and Carolinians of the Northern Marianas.

!

According to recent newspaper accounts on Saipan, the United States military is on Pagan doing studies without permits from Northern Marianas environment and land use agencies. In spite of repeated requests from Governor Inos and Tinian leaders to place the Divert Airfield on Tinian, the US Air Force wants 33 more acres to build a divert airfield near the Saipan airport. Under the Covenant, the Air Force and Navy have leased 2/3 of Tinian for defense purposes.

!

In light of recent military activities on Pagan, the US Air Force plan to build a divert airfield on Saipan, and other related issues, I believe it is important to reexamine the Covenant which established commonwealth status. Pagan and a divert 366 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

airfield on Saipan were not discussed and approved in those early political status negotiations in the early 1970’s.

!

Conclusion The present unilateral actions of the United States military on Pagan, Saipan, and other islands in the Northern Marianas clearly show that the United States has sovereignty in the Northern Marianas. I believe it is time to re-examine the Covenant that established the Northern Marianas commonwealth status, and determine to what extent the US can exercise its sovereignty in the Northern Marianas.

!

I am concerned that in the event of a nuclear attack from North Korea or another country in Asia, those of us in the Northern Marianas and Guam will be the first targets, due to our islands being part of the “Marianas hub” of the US Pacific Command. I believe the Northern Marianas may have given up too much to the US in those early political status talks.

!

I hope that this paper will encourage others to study further and write their findings of the present unilateral actions of the US military in Pagan, the Air Force plans to build a divert airfield on Saipan, and related issues. Thank you.

!

Presentation slides begin on the following page.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !367

Presentation Slides

!

368 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

References Borja, Guadalupe C. 1972 “American Territories—A Survey.” Micronesian Reporter Third Quarter (1972): 15-18.

1975 “Covenant Criticisms Refuted—Again.” Pacific Daily News 9 May: 8.

!

Del Rosario, Juan S. 2013 Personal Interviews. 17 and 30 July; 8 August.

“From the Prism of a Journalist.” Saipan Tribune 7 August.

!

Eugenio, Haidee 2013a “US Air Force urged anew to put divert airfield on Tinian.” Saipan Tribune 12 August.

2013b “Tinian mayor optimistic that US Air Force will reconsider.” Saipan Tribune 13 August.

!

Farrell, Don 1991 History of the Northern Mariana Islands. Saipan: CNMI Public School System.

!

King, Joan 1975 “Marianas Breakaway Beginning.” Pacific Daily News 6 June: 7.

!

Micronesian News Service 1975 “Covenant Gets New Opposition.” Pacific Daily News. 9 May: 53.

! !

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !369

--Guadalupe Borja-Robinson was an indigenous Chamorro journalist on Saipan when the political status talks began in the early 1970’s. Those talks developed, because Northern Marianas leaders had insisted on separate talks with the United States even though the Northern Marianas were still a part of the US Trust Territory Government.

!

Borja-Robinson was a writer for the Public Information Office of the former Trust Territory Government when the US status negotiators formally met in December, 1972, with members of the Marianas Political Status Commission (MPSC) on Saipan. Later, she became a staff writer of the Pacific Daily News (PDN) on Guam. As a PDN staff writer, BorjaRobinson also covered the village meetings sponsored by the MPSC on Saipan, Tinian and Rota before the plebiscite vote on commonwealth status in June, 1975.

Almost 78 percent of the voters in the Northern Marianas chose commonwealth status.

370 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

The Transformation of Guam’s Penal System Retribution to Rehabilitation

!

By Linda Song and Dominique Hope Ong Student Seniors St. John’s, Tamuning Guam lindas.extra.storage@gmail.com

! !

Abstract: Guam’s penal system has transformed immensely from its humble beginnings. Under Spanish colonization, societal order and the punitive penal system were heavily influenced by the Catholic Church.

When Guam was seized by the United States, the new order was a fusion of Spanish and American influences. In the mid-late 1900s, an increase in the population of Guam also led to a gradual rise in crimes. At the same time, in the US, various social movements and reforms led to reforms in the penal system that affected the island. From the Guam Penitentiary to the Department of Corrections, there was sweeping reform in the philosophy, treatment, and rehabilitation of offenders. This is ultimately a reflection of the change in the penal philosophy that transformed a penitentiary to a correctional rehabilitative process. These changes reflected and followed reform within the society, structure, and order within Guam.

Editor’s Note: This paper, presented at the Marianas History Conference, was not made available for publication.

! !

--Linda Song is currently a senior attending St. John’s School in Guam. Song is a National Honor Society member and an International Baccalaureate Diploma candidate. Her main interests involve research, specifically in the fields of Science, History, and English. Currently, Song is the Research Director at the Public Policy Institute.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !371

Dominique Hope Ong is currently a senior attending St. John’s School in Guam. She is of Filipino-Chinese descent.

Some of her many extracurriculars involve Mock Trial, rugby and paddling. Ong is the president of her school’s United Nations club. Currently, Ong is the Managing Director at the Public Policy Institute.

372 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Jumping The Fence An Evaluation of Nasion Chamoru and its Impact on Contemporary Guam

!

By Michael Lujan Bevacqua, PhD Program Coordinator, Chamorro Studies University of Guam mlbasquiat@hotmail.com

! !

Abstract: In 1991, a group of twenty people gathered in Latte Stone Park in Hagåtña to proclaim the birth of a Chamorro nation. This group would eventually evolve into “Nasion Chamoru,” the most notorious organization in recent Guam history. They would organize countless protests, sit ins, and other acts of civil disobedience and change the ideological landscape of Guam. This paper will evaluate the impact of Nasion Chamoru in terms of how people conceptualize decolonization, Chamorro culture, and land today.

Editor’s Note: This paper, presented at the Marianas History Conference, was not made available for publication.

! !

!

--Michael Lujan Bevacqua is an instructor at the University of Guam. His research deals with the impact of colonization on Chamorros in Guam and theorizes the possibilities for the decolonization of their lands and lives. In 2001 he led a faculty task force in successfully creating a Chamorro Studies BA program at the University of Guam. He is a passionate advocate for the revitalization of the Chamorro language and has translated manga comic books, rock songs and even Beethoven’s “Ode to Joy” into Chamorro.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !373

!

374 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Historical Context of Suicide in Guam

!

By Iain K.B. Twaddle1, Camarin G. Meno2 and Eunice Joy G. Perez3 1 Professor of Clinical Psychology and Micronesian Studies, University of Guam 2 Master of Science in Clinical Psychology Graduate Student, University of Guam 3 Clinical Psychology Doctoral Candidate, Saint Louis University itwaddle@uguam.uog.edu, camarin_meno@yahoo.com and uniz_perez07@yahoo.com

! !

Abstract: Over the past forty years, Guam has had increasingly high rates of suicide among youth and young adults. Competing explanations have attributed suicide in Guam to biomedical factors, psychosocial variables, and broader sociocultural influences. While these perspectives each make an important contribution to our understanding of Guam’s high suicide rates over the past four decades, historical records suggest that suicide in Guam may have a historical legacy that can be traced back to the 16th century. Spanish colonial documents from as early as 1521 suggest that suicide may have represented both an indigenous cultural style for responding to various forms of distress and also an act of resistance to Spanish colonial rule. Discussion focuses on the implications of this historical data for suicide prevention efforts in Guam and other indigenous communities, highlighting the need for prevention programs that promote self-determination and the preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages and cultures.

Editor’s Note: This paper, presented at the Marianas History Conference, was not made available for publication.

! !

--Iain Twaddle is Professor of Clinical Psychology and Micronesian Studies at the University of Guam. He is the director of several campus-based mental health service programs, including Isa Psychological Services Center, I Pinangon Campus Suicide Prevention Program, and the Violence Against Women Prevention Program. His research focuses on the development and evaluation of culturally responsive mental health programs for Guam and the Micronesian region.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !375

Camarin G. Meno is a graduate student in the Master of Science in Clinical Psychology Program at the University of Guam and currently serves as the Victim Services Coordinator at the University’s Violence Against Women Prevention Program. Her research interests focus primarily on sociocultural and historical perspectives on mental health and social issues in Guam, such as domestic violence and suicide.

! !

Eunice Perez is currently pursuing her doctoral degree in Clinical Psychology at Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri. She obtained her Master’s degree in Clinical Psychology at the University of Guam. Her research has focused on sociocultural and mental health issues of marginalized populations in the Micronesian region.

376 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

A Poster Presentation, 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 Guam

!

I Kelat The Fence, Historical Perspectives on Guam’s Changing Landscape

!

By the Guam Humanities Council info_ghc@teleguam.net

! !

Abstract: From village lawns, to låncho boundaries, to the wire fences enclosing U.S. military property, fences (and walls) have been a part of Guam’s landscape and mindscape for centuries. The exhibition “I Kelat” explores the relations between Chamorros and fences from historical, political, and cultural perspectives. It moves from the iconic, the familiar and tangible, to the less familiar and intangible, to the unforeseen and unexpected effects of fences. These relations are organized into four exhibit components: Fences and Walls as Chamorros Know Them; Early Chamorro Fences and Walls; Other “Sides” of the Fence; and Intangible and Unexpected Fences. Fences indicate property boundaries and are meant to demarcate and regulate social space and relations. By regulating what can be included, they also exclude. By fortifying and protecting, they also insulate and incarcerate. Fences and walls mark political, social, and cultural differences, including racial, gendered, and classed lines.

! !

--The Guam Humanities Council partnered with historian Christine Taitano DeLisle, PhD to develop the “I Kelat" exhibition and associated programs, as a companion to “Between Fences”, a traveling exhibition of the Smithsonian Institution. The Council worked with several organizations and individuals to develop exhibit content for “I Kelat”, including the Guam Museum, Guam International Airport Authority, Naval Base Guam Public Affairs Office, Northern Mariana Islands Museum of History and Culture, Richard Flores Taitano Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam, USAF Photo 36th Wing History Office, and War in the Pacific National Historical Park, U.S. National Park Service.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !377

378 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Galvanizing Past and Present Threats to Chamorro Homelands

!

By Vicente (ben) Pangelinan Senator 32nd Guam Legislature senbenp@guam.net

! !

Abstract: Enacted in 1975, the Chamorro Land Trust Act was a law envisioning homelands for Chamorros. Yet this concept lay dormant nearly twenty years before the government of Guam was forced to implement it, over objections by the Governor and Attorney General at the time. Why was opposition to the law drawn out, and how was this eventually overcome? This presentation outlines the work and sacrifice of those few who educated the entire community on the notion of native land rights, fought the government’s obstinate refusal to implement the law, and who ultimately achieved homelands for Chamorros in perpetuity. Today, we witness the first generation of Chamorros, previously disenfranchised from land ownership in Guam, to have homes and sustain their families through use of the land granted by leases under the Chamorro Land Trust. We witness, as well, the threats and strategies to protect this hard fought program for future generations.

Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen. It is my pleasure and honor to join you this afternoon. I have to say that this has been a well-attended conference with a good, diverse and inspiring mix of presenters and attendees. I believe it could not have come at a better time. Thinking and discussion that otherwise often gets pushed to the margins are incited here—that is what a history conference should do, inspire us to remember those events that have gone before us and create new ways of interpreting so that we are better able to hold true to the foundational values that really matter.

!

Today, I want to talk to you about my experiences over the years, most particularly dealing with land issues on Guam, and in this case, the Chamorro Land Trust.

!

There is a familiar Native American quote that we’ve come to know, “We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.” The phrase we I present here is similar, but a little more basic since we Chamorros are pretty simple people. We’re not too sure about borrowing, but we know what belongs and where we belong. On land, I would characterize our beliefs as, “The Land does not belong to Us. We belong to the Land.”

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !379

It is that soul and that spirit, that ånti, that gave birth to the Chamorro Land Trust here on Guam. The late Senator Paul J. Bordallo authored the Chamorro Land Trust Act. The legislation was passed into law in 1975 by the 12th Guam Legislature, and it mandated that all available public lands, not specifically designated for public use within three (3) years, would be deeded to the Chamorro Land Trust for distribution among indigenous people of Guam through ninety-nine (99)-year leases. The intention of the Trust was to make sure that the lands are held in perpetuity for the Chamorro people and never sold.

!

Prior to the enactment of the Chamorro Land Trust, what fueled the late Senator Bordallo was the treatment and disregard of Chamorro homelands. We saw an “administering power,” the United States, relinquish its responsibility to uphold the protection of the land for the native people, and instead acquire lands for its own purpose and at its own disposal. Senator Bordallo fought hard and proposed that the land should stay in the hands of the local people forever. Not only for ninety-nine years as the law says. I believe he said, forever. So that every Chamorro, no matter where he or she is on this planet, can come back to this place, call it “home” and through land, be rooted here. That really was the concept and the theme behind the Chamorro Land Trust.

!

But for twenty years the law lay dormant. And what we saw happening during that time was purposeful inaction. Then, the popular phrase used at the legislature with regard to land issues was, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law.” This phrase was so powerful and, ultimately, at the same time, so disempowering for Chamorros.

It was a clause that specifically allowed bypassing the legal constraints of the law enacting the Trust and avoided violations of any Trust provisions. Basically, this meant that since the Commission had not been empaneled, lands that should have been registered with the Trust could be accessible to anyone, for any purpose and, subject to the political maneuverings of the Governor and the Legislature during this time.

!

Various efforts came about, perhaps to thwart the very program that would protect the Chamorro people in their own homelands. In the 1980s, the Land for the Landless Program was initiated, which allowed the government to sell (what should have been Trust) land to all residents of Guam. The Land for the Landless Program would render the land open and available to everyone—perhaps some would argue this was a way of ‘leveling the playing field’, giving everyone access to land. But, the critical missing part in the Land for the Landless effort was the disavowal of Guam’s historical experience of US military takings of indigenous Chamorro lands.

The Chamorros were and continue to be the landless in their own homelands.

380 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

For the period between 1980-1990, there were numerous cases concerning the return of lands deemed “excess” by the US Navy. Many issues regarding the taking of land by the military came about, but rarely were there discussions about the Chamorro Land Trust. This was the political climate at the time regarding land.

Often in government, the true intent gets buried due to competing interests. But, we were compellingly reminded that the Chamorro Land Trust was enacted to restore land taken from the Chamorro people and to guarantee an avenue towards self-sufficiency and self-determination.

!

There were many individuals that pushed forward the Land Trust issues. In the early 1990s, Nasion Chamoru, through the leadership of Angel Santos and Ed Benavente, again highlighted the landlessness of the Chamorros, the injustice of the land takings by not only the military, but the government of Guam itself, and began to inform the public of the dormant Chamorro Land Trust law.

!

The memory of Angel for me is that the power is in the hands of our people. He galvanized the people on street corners passing out fliers. They were broadcast in the news, where manåmko’ would hear and see Nasion Chamoru members explain what laws they wanted implemented. They were nonviolent, non-threatening and popular with our elders and the youth; they walked the streets, the malls, and groceries stores in a petition signing campaign that culminated in thousands of signatures on petitions asking the Governor to appoint board members to the Chamorro Land Trust.

!

The Governor refused to act on the petitions or nominate anyone to the Commission. Instead of giving up, Nasion Chamoru stepped up the pressure. They protested and camped out at Adelup for 38 days and on March 25, 1992, Angel Santos and Nasion Chamoru, with assistance of their attorneys Mike Phillips, Mike Bordallo, and Therese Terlaje, appeared and argued before the Superior Court of Guam to order Governor Joseph F. Ada to implement the act by appointing members to the commission. Gov. Ada objected, saying the act was “unconstitutional.” On June 8, 1992, after more than four hours of televised arguments presented by attorneys for both sides, Judge Benjamin J.F. Cruz issued a ruling upholding the validity of the act and ordering the governor to appoint the commission members. Shortly afterward, Gov. Ada nominated the first commissioners. By this time, there was no senator who dare thwart the willpower of the people and the court, and the Guam Legislature swiftly approved the nominees to the Land Trust Commission. The commission held its first meeting in March 1993.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !381

All this struggle galvanized our history and memories of land ownership and land tenureship. We remembered the land grab of the military, in which land was taken from the people without providing any access to attorneys, appraisers or professionals that could assist in negotiating the value of the land taken. Another land grab took place with the return of lands to the government of Guam under the Organic Act. Such lands should have gone back to the people via the Trust, but what we found was the doling out of land for its own political expediency. In spite of the snapshot of historical efforts mentioned here, we continue to find our connection to the land under attack today, now because of the land grabs from the Chamorro Land Trust inventory. Often, it is all too convenient to say we will use these lands for public convenience and public or governmental purpose, instead of the residential or agriculture purposes originally intended. This departure from the intended beneficiaries ignores the past injustices that the Chamorro Land Trust Act intended to rectify, and the generations of families that were made homeless and landless. In recent years, acres of Chamorro Land Trust property were removed from the Trust and given to a government agency for free, without any benefit accruing to the Trust, or its beneficiaries. We must remember that this land should be guarded and it should be sacred—that is the fight that we see less and less being fought for today.

!

The Chamorro Land Trust Act allows the economies of the 21st century to work with the development of property today, but it also maintains one basic feature—it will always be available to a native Chamorro, defined in statute as any person who became a U.S. citizen by virtue of the authority and enactment of the Organic Act of Guam or descendants of such person. I know it is working because I’ve visited many of the first generation of Chamorro Land Trust recipients. There are hundreds of people who currently benefit from the hard work of those before us.

You will see them in their homes building and housing their families with the intention that generations to come will benefit from their efforts today. The law allows that the people can have beneficial and economical use of their property without allowing that property to be permanently alienated from the people.

!

Like indigenous people around the world, our ancestors had a relationship with land that, today, is beyond what we could ever explain in words. All too many of us have forgotten those values, and thus, have exploited our relationship with the land.

But I believe there are still a good number of us who maintain and fight to keep that connection—we care for the land, and in turn, the land sustains our families, our lives. What we need is to reinvigorate that connection to the land that was very much alive during all periods of Chamorro history. We must counter any threats to the land by galvanizing the people to stand and defend, prutehi yan difendi i tano.

382 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

History has shown us that the larger and louder our group is, the more probable that political leaders will listen. I have witnessed that they do listen. These historical actions are not lost forever—they are incited through our memory of what has been threatened and what has been done to counter those threats. It is in this way of remembering that the coming together is possible. And when we hold on to some of those most basic truths—that there is the bond between indigenous people and indigenous land that does not and will not go unchallenged—then struggle is just and those that come after us will follow our way.

!

Mantieni i tano’ ya ta sostieni i taotao; Hold on to the land and we can ensure we sustain our people. Si Yu’us Ma’åse’.

!

Presentation Slides

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !383

!

384 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !385

!

386 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !387

!

388 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !389

!

390 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !391

!

392 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !393

!

394 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !395

!

396 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !397

!

398 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !399

--“Senator ben” was born in Saipan and grew up in Guam. He pursued a Bachelor’s degree in Government at Georgetown University, Washington, DC. Senator ben has always been dedicated to government service, as Staff Assistant to Congressman Antonio B. Won Pat in Washington, DC, and to the late Governor Ricardo J. Bordallo. Senator ben’s tenure with the Guam Legislature began in the 22nd term, continued through the 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th (Speaker), 29th, 30th, 31st , and now 32nd Guam Legislature. Senator ben oversees the Committee on Appropriations, Public Debt, Legal Affairs, Retirement, Public Parks, Recreation, Historic Preservation and Land.

400 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Guardians of Gani Protecting Pagan for Future Generations

!

By John Castro Jr. and Diego L. Kaipat Cultural Practitioners Saipan and Pagan linalanatibu@gmail.com

! !

Abstract: Pagan and all the Gani islands are of great importance to the people of the Mariana Islands. As Chamorros who live in the natural environment of their ancestors without modern conveniences and, having close family ties to the northern islands and have been blessed to have lived and visited the islands many times, these presenters share the wonders of Pagan. The presentation will include stories and pictures from trips to Pagan. This presentation discusses the many possibilities for sustainable progress in Pagan, but with the requisite indigenous knowledge and values that are connected to the sea and land.

Editor’s Note: This paper, presented at the Marianas History Conference, was not made available for publication.

!

Presentation slides begin on the following page.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !401

Presentation Slides

!

 

402 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !403

!

404 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !405

!

406 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !407

!

408 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !409

!

410 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !411

!

412 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

!

--John S. Castro Jr. (familian Mames Kurason) enjoys perpetuating Chamoru culture by living it. He has close family ties to Luta, Sa’ipan and the Northern Islands. Castro has extensive experience in natural and cultural resource management. He has worked in the fields of historic preservation and fisheries management. He is passionate about carrying on traditions of healing, farming, fishing, hunting, raising animals, speaking and singing in Chamorro.

!

!

Diego L. Kaipat was born on Agrigan Island in 1957 and raised on Pagan since 1963. Growing up on Pagan Kaipat had the chance to know the island and its landscape. He learned the sites of ancient latte stones, villages and the World War II artifacts. He later moved to Saipan to attend high school and graduated in 1976. Kaipat worked as a nurse from 1979 until retirement in 2003 when he returned to Pagan and stayed for a year. He wants to live out his life on Pagan. 

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !413

!

414 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

A History of Marianas Reunification Efforts

!

By Don A. Farrell Historian Tinian donfarrelltinian@gmail.com

! !

Abstract: In 1947, President Truman placed the former Japanese Mandated Islands of Micronesia into the United Nations trusteeship system. This guaranteed the people of those islands the right to selfdetermination. Differently, Guam’s political status was defined in 1950 when the US Congress adopted the Organic Act of Guam, granting the Chamorros of Guam US citizenship and limited self-government. These two developments began a series of dialogues on reunification between elected officials from Guam and the Marianas District of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. These dialogues culminated in 1969 in a joint plebiscite on reunification. The negative vote cast on Guam ended dialogues on reunification and drove the Northern Marianas toward an independent act of self-determination while Guam has yet to complete an act of self-determination. This paper discusses efforts that were made toward the political reunification of the Mariana Islands (1950-1969), the reasons they failed, and the possibility of future reunification efforts.

Introduction Partitioning the Mariana Islands was undoubtedly one of America’s greatest foreign policy blunders. Despite sound advice from naval officers who had patrolled the region since Commodore Matthew C. Perry opened Japan in 1853, President William McKinley chose to give a portion of the spoils that America had gained from its war against Spain in 1898 to a European nation that did not even participate in the war. McKinley’s decision subsequently allowed Japan to capture the Northern Mariana Islands from Germany in 1914, and ultimately supported Japan’s decision for war with the United States in 1941. Today, the partition continues to cost American taxpayers, in both the Marianas and the US mainland, millions of dollars annually to maintain two separate territorial governments and federal offices for essentially one people in one archipelago. Moreover, the ongoing political partition of the Mariana Islands continues to separate the families and culture of the Mariana Islands.

!

Significant efforts have been made to reunify the Marianas since that artificial line was drawn through the Rota Channel over a century ago. Why have they failed? Is reunification still a viable political status option?

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !415

Although historian and author Barbara Tuchman did not choose America’s leap into imperialism as an example for her book The March of Folly, the philosophy she put forward certainly applies to America’s decision to acquire only Guam out of the Marianas Archipelago as a result of the Spanish-American War of 1898. She wrote prophetically, “A phenomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit by governments of policies contrary to their own interests (Tuchman, 1984, p. 4).” The people of the Marianas—and America—are still suffering the effects of McKinley’s Folly.

!

One Archipelago: One People For three thousand years before the European “Age of Exploration,” the indigenous Chamorro existed in the Mariana Archipelago as one people, with one language and one cultural heritage (Russell, 1998). By the time Spanish navigator Miguel de Legazpi visited Guam in 1565, the Age of Exploration had become the Age of Conquest and Colonization. Although Legazpi discovered no valuable exportable natural resources on Guam, he did find a safe anchorage, food and water on the route to Cathay (China). Recognizing the value of the islands’ strategic location, Legazpi claimed not only Guam, but the entire archipelago for Spain (Rogers, 1995).

!

The Spanish-Catholic reducción of the Marianas (1668-1696) led to a drastic reduction in the Chamorro population and the temporary abandonment of the islands north of Rota after 1730 (Hezel, 2013). As a result of the Mexican War of Independence (1810-1821) and the end of the Manila Galleon Trade, various Marianas governors suggested that the colony be abandoned. However, the Spanish Court decided to maintain a colony, simply to ensure that no other country could take it. This established the policy that later became known as “strategic denial.”

!

With the rise of the whaling industry in the Pacific, both Guam and Saipan became ports of call for ships needing refitting and re-supply. By the mid-1850s, international shipping companies established themselves in Hagåtña, providing regular and affordable transportation between Guam and the Northern Marianas.

Guam Chamorros began moving to Saipan and Tinian to take advantage of business opportunities. Following the creation of a constitutional monarchy in Spain, the governor of the Marianas and his administrators established representative municipal governments in Saipan, Tinian and Rota in 1875. They enacted one set of regulations and fees for all the commercial ports in the Marianas, and one tax code for all. Businessmen both north and south of the Rota channel enjoyed inexpensive access to all the natural resource of the Marianas.

Business grew and the standard of living improved.

416 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

McKinley’s Folly: The Partition of the Marianas In 1898, much to the surprise of the rest of the world, a growing and confident American republic joined the imperial club. After declaring war on Spain on April 25, 1898, to free Cuba from “barbaric rule,” and unbeknownst to either the US Congress or the American public, Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt received permission from President McKinley to destroy the Spanish Asiatic Fleet stationed in Manila Bay, Philippines, at the opening of the war. With orders from Roosevelt, Commodore George Dewey sank the decrepit Spanish Asiatic Fleet in the muddy backwaters of Manila Bay on May 1, 1898, and became Admiral Dewey a few days later. In the months that followed, the US Navy captured Guam for its Spanish coal supplies, while the US Army captured Manila from Spanish forces (Farrell, 1984, p. 37), and quickly defeated Spanish troops in Cuba and Puerto Rico in what Secretary of State John Hay called a “Splendid Little War” (Freidel, 1958, p. 3). Suddenly, President McKinley and his republican party found themselves in possession of distant lands inhabited by non-English speaking, nonCaucasian, Catholics and had to decide what to do with them. They had gone to war without an end game.

!

Ultimately, and despite the spirit of the Teller Amendment to the war resolution forbidding the United States from acquiring Cuba as a result of the war, President McKinley decided to acquire the Philippine Islands and Guam in the “Ladrones” (i.e., Marianas) as a coaling station (Rogers, 1995, p. 108; Farrell, 1986, second edition, p. 10).

!

Why take only Guam? The US had acquired all the Hawaiian Islands in 1897 by joint resolution of Congress, and now they were proposing to take the entire Philippine archipelago. According to the historical record, only Guam was taken from among the Marianas because President McKinley did not want to irritate Kaiser Wilhelm II, ruler of Germany and Prussia. The Kaiser had been aggressively acquiring islands in the Pacific for their natural resources. In 1898 the United States and Germany nearly came to blows over the question of the partition of Samoa (Pratt, 1951, p. 15, quoted in Farrell, 1994, p. 245). Germany had also occupied Kiaochow Bay in Shantung, China, and the Bismarck Archipelago to the northwest of New Guinea. The Kaiser expected to take the Philippines should war break out between Spain and the United States. Germany, like Japan, never expected the American Republic to acquire colonies, the antithesis of their democratic revolution. In order to assure his claim to the Philippines after the war, the Kaiser sent Admiral Otto von Diederichs to Manila Bay with a fleet of ships.

Tensions ran high and became so belligerent that Dewey threatened the German admiral to combat if he did not remain neutral.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !417

Shortly after the war ended on August 12, 1898, German representatives quickly made it clear to American representatives in Paris that if the US was not going to take the islands of Spanish Micronesia as a result of the war, then Germany would like to buy them from Spain. Spanish representatives admitted to the American representatives that they were, in fact, negotiating a deal with the Germany, the outcome of which would depend on what concessions America demanded.

!

Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, junior member of the Republican-controlled Senate Foreign Relations committee, advised McKinley against taking only one island in the Marianas group, which he said “would open the door to many troubles. Because Germany, the European power most critical of American foreign policy, was casting longing looks at the Marianas, Lodge held that, “We want no German neighbors there,” (Garraty, p. 198; Farrell, 1994, p. 282).

!

When the Senate Foreign Relations committee met to hear testimony on the treaty, Commander R. B. Bradford represented the US Navy. He recommended taking not only the Marianas, but all the Caroline Islands in Micronesia as well. He used the annexation of Hawaii as an example: “Suppose we had but one, and the others were possessed of excellent harbors . . . [S]uppose also the others were in the hands of a commercial rival, with a different form of government and not over[ly] friendly.

Under these circumstances we should lose all the advantages of isolation,” (Treaty of Peace, 1899, p. 477). In other words, it was in the best interest of America to have a unified Marianas—and a unified Micronesia—under American rule, if possible.

!

On February 6, 1899, despite Bradford’s testimony and Senator Lodge’s warnings, the Senate voted 57 to 27 in favor of ratification of the Treaty of Peace, one vote more than the necessary two-thirds majority. The president signed the treaty and Spain subsequently ceded Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines to the US in return for US$20 million. When Germany discovered the US was willing to give up the Northern Marianas as well as the Caroline Islands, they paid Spain some US $4.2 million dollars for the lot.

!

Could the President have faced down the Kaiser militarily? German historian Gerd Hardach, has stated, “If the US government had changed [its] mind and claimed all of the Marianas, the German government would certainly have acquiesced, as they did not have a strong motive,” (G. Hardach, personal communication, March 22, 1993; Farrell, 1994, p. 293.)

!

Besides the less-than-subtle military pressures applied by Germany, historian Wayne Morgan (1965, p. 191) has offered another reason. In his opinion, President 418 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

McKinley, who had been elected as “The Businessman’s President,” did not want to risk the embarrassment of a protest in Congress from “tariff protectionists and jingoes” during the treaty ratification hearings.

!

The bottom line is that all three of America’s new possessions became territories of the United States. Technically, at that time, gaining territorial status automatically guaranteed an eventual right to Statehood. The Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 established that, “colonies were but the extensions of the nation, entitled, not as a privilege but by right, to equality,” (Morison, 1969, p.

233). They established that “the goal of all territorial acquisition eventually was to be Statehood . . . The emphasis on eventual Statehood and equality for the territories and their inhabitants was incorporated in the Northwest Ordnance of 1787,” (Leibowitz, 1989, p. 6). Out of this concept grew Article IV, section 3, of the US Constitution, the source of federal power to govern the territories. Territories would have appointed governors until they became ready to elect their own. The next step was gaining a Delegate to Congress; then, finally, Statehood, with two senators and as many representatives as were required for the general population— full and equal citizenship. And so it went for the next 37 states.

!

However, adding a group of distant islands to the United States that were inhabited by non-Caucasian, non-English speaking, Catholics was another story. In a series of court cases heard in the US Supreme Court between 1901 and 1904, dubbed the Insular Cases, the new territories acquired as a result of the Spanish-American War of 1898 were deemed “unincorporated territories,” as opposed to “incorporated territories.” The Supreme Court ruled that US Constitution does not fully apply and unincorporated territories were not destined for statehood (Rogers, 1995, p.

125). It also confirmed that the Congress of the United States had plenipotentiary powers over these territories according to the Territorial Clause. It should be noted, however, that the decision was split 5-4. Justice John M. Harlan’s dissenting argument was very strong and the issue continues to be contested.

!

Without the opportunity for statehood, there was no guarantee of citizenship. The Treaty of Paris only provided that the “political and civil rights of the native inhabitants will be determined by Congress.” The people of these territories, therefore, could be ruled as subjects of the United States indefinitely—even by the United States Navy.

! !

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !419

When the Attorney General of the United States was asked for an opinion on the political status of America’s new territories, he stated:

!

“The political status of these islands [Guam and Tutuila] is anomalous. Neither the Constitution nor the laws of the United States have been extended to them and the only administrative authority existing in them is that derived mediately or immediately from the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” (Leibowitz, 1989, p. 329) Thus, the Mariana Islands and the people living there were politically partitioned between the US Territory of Guam and the German Northern Mariana District of German New Guinea. Although Guam Chamorros attempted to form a local government for the Marianas, President McKinley designated a US Naval Officer to become Commander, Naval Station, Guam, and Naval Governor of Guam. Captain Richard Phillips Leary arrived at Guam on August 10, 1899, with two companies of US Marines to establish and maintain order on Naval Station, Guam, which suddenly comprised not just a coaling station at Apra Harbor, but the entire island (Farrell, 1986, p.82). Some 10,000 Guam Chamorros began studying the English language and Navy law, while the Northern Marianas Chamorros and Carolinians began studying the German language and German law.

!

World War I: An Opportunity for Reunification The lackluster German administration of the Northern Marianas was cut short by World War I. When England declared war on Germany in 1914 and requested its ally Japan to use its navy against German shipping and military outposts in the Pacific, Japan saw an opportunity to vastly expand its Pacific empire at little cost.

The Japanese Imperial Navy quickly captured not only the German naval base at Tsingtao, China (now Kiautschou Bay), but also the German Mariana and Caroline islands. All German citizens were gathered and deported to prisoner-of-war camps in Japan. The Northern Marianas Chamorros and Carolinians quickly found themselves studying the Japanese language and law.

!

Suddenly, just as Commander Bradford and Senator Lodge had feared in 1898, a commercial rival had gained control of Micronesia in 1914, surrounding Guam and crossing America’s lines of communications to the Philippines Territory. All was not necessarily lost, though. Japan announced that its intentions were perfectly honorable and in keeping with its alliance with Great Britain. Japanese Prime Minister Count Shigenobu Okuma addressed a telegram to The Independent stating, as premier, that Japan had “no desire to secure more territory, no thought of

420 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

depriving China or any other peoples of anything which they now possess,” (Pomeroy, 1951, p. 45; quoted in Farrell, 1994, p. 295).

!

In January 1918, after America had begun sending its boys “Over There,” the General Board of the US Navy looked east, where Japan had cut off America’s lines of communications to Guam and the Philippines. The board recommended acquisitions in the Marshall Islands, Carolines, and Marianas: “The Marianas were of outstanding importance, because of their proximity to Japan and to the American island [Guam]. Their position in the immediate vicinity of Guam is capable of development into submarine bases within supporting distance of Japan, and, in the event of war, this would make their continued possession by that country a perpetual menace to Guam, and to any fleet operations undertaken for the relief of the Philippines,” (Pomeroy, 1951, p. 69; quoted in Farrell, 1994, p. 295).

!

At the end of World War I, November 11, 1918, the idealistic democrat President Woodrow Wilson personally drafted the Versailles Peace Treaty—in particular, the section creating the League of Nations, leaving the issue of decolonization to that international organization. Wilson was not aware that by the spring of 1917, Japan had secretly collected pledges from England, France, Russia and Italy to support their claim to German Micronesia after the war (Peattie, 1988, p. 47; Weller, 1944, p.

80). Wilson was not surprised when Japan asked the League for permission to continue governing the former German islands of Micronesia. However, he was surprised when the League of Nations dialogues began and Great Britain, France, Russia and Italy announced their secret pledges to Japan and supported Japan’s request for annexation of the German possessions north of the Equator. In May, despite Wilson’s protests, the League awarded a Class C Mandate over German Micronesia to Japan.

!

Senator Lodge, who had supported the US acquisition of Micronesia after the Spanish-American War, now chided President Wilson for not taking the islands from Germany, despite warnings from Japan. However, when Wilson’s treaty came to the Senate for ratification, Lodge (then chairman of the Foreign Relations committee) was more dedicated to defeating the democrats in the 1920 presidential election than ratifying Wilson’s treaty with its League of Nations organization.

“Throughout the entire proceedings,” wrote W. Still Hult, “runs the theme of party politics which ultimately decided the action of the Senate.” (Holt, W. Stull. Treaties Defeated by the Senate: A Study of the Struggle Between President and Senate Over the Conduct of Foreign Relations. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1933, p.249). On March 19, 1920, the United States Senate rejected for the second time the Treaty of Versailles by a vote of 49-35, falling seven votes short of a two-thirds majority needed for approval. Therefore, the United States did not become a member of the 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !421

League of Nations. Wilson’s later appeals to the League in opposition to the Japanese Mandate fell on deaf ears. As non-members, America had no voice.

!

It is interesting to note that a young Senator Lodge had led the fight in 1898 to ratify the Treaty of Paris for President William McKinley (R), acquiring the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico for the United States. Then, as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee twenty-three years later, Lodge led the fight to defeat President Woodrow Wilson’s (D)Versailles Peace Treaty with its League of Nations. Republican candidate Warren Harding won the 1920 election. Lodge subsequently ratified President Harding’s treaty agreeing to non-fortification of Guam and the Philippines and essentially giving control of the western Pacific to Japan (Garraty, 1953).

!

The US Navy had been quite vociferous about the need to prevent Japan from taking the Marianas. Could the combined US Fleet have forced the issue? When the Senate failed to ratify the treaty, the United States had no obligation to the illfated organization. Could the same “gunboat diplomacy” wielded by Perry in 1853 and Roosevelt in 1907 have produced a split-mandate over Micronesia, with the US taking the Marianas and Japan taking the rest of German Micronesia? Did America’s failure to ratify the treaty and become a member of the League of Nations doom Japan and the United States to a war for control of the Pacific? If the Marianas had been reunified and fortified—a Gibraltar of the Pacific—might Japan have decided to choose war with Russia, their age-old enemy in Asia, rather than the United States?

!

World War II: Reunification by Force of Arms As Bradford and Lodge had feared in 1898, as well as the Navy General Board in 1918, Japan eventually became an even more unfriendly Pacific neighbor than Germany. Japan invaded the Chinese province of Manchuria in 1931. When this led to censure by the League of Nations in 1933, they walked out. They quit the democratic League of Nations in 1935 and signed an anti-communist pact with Germany in 1936. Unrestrained by Tokyo, the Japanese Imperial Kwantung Army invaded Southern China in 1937, raping and pillaging its way into the quagmire of a war they could not win. In 1938, the Japanese Imperial Navy began building bases in Micronesia, including a naval base at Tanapag Harbor, Saipan, with supporting airbases at As Lito, Saipan, and Hagoi, Tinian. Japan committed national hara-kiri on December 8, 1941, (December 7 in Hawaii), and the United States and the people of Guam paid dearly for McKinley’s Folly. Japanese aircraft from Saipan strafed and bombed Guam in preparation for a December 10 invasion. Before noon that day, Japan had reunified the Marianas by force of arms and some 20,000 Guam 422 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Chamorros suddenly found themselves studying Japanese language, law and customs (Liebowitz, 1989, p. 325). Guam became Ōmiyatō, “the island of the Imperial Court or Shinto Shrine,” (Higuchi, 2013, p. 17). The closest remnant of America in the Pacific was Hawaii, 4,000 long miles away and under attack.

!

Japanese naval planners anticipated the problems of establishing a government on Guam—managing the island’s infrastructure, in particular the power plant, the water system and the communications system; and of assimilating the Guam Chamorros into the Japanese way of life—just as they had done with Northern Marianas Chamorros over the previous three decades. Guam’s public works systems had been constructed by US Navy contractors and were being operated by US Navy military personnel and Chamorro civilian personnel. The obvious solution was to replace the US navy operators with Japanese-speaking operators and bring loyal Chamorro-Japanese from the NMI to translate for the Guam Chamorro civilians until they could learn Japanese.

!

The Chamorros on Saipan and Rota who were chosen for these jobs had worked their way up the Japanese civil service ladder since 1914 to become technicians and police officers. They had been born and raised during the Japanese administration and wore their uniforms proudly. Although the Japanese did discriminate against the Northern Marianas Chamorros, they still had a better standard of living than most Guam Chamorros.

!

The lack of private economic development on Guam had driven many Guamanians to the Northern Marianas after 1922. The burgeoning sugar industry on Saipan and Tinian was providing work for anyone who wanted it. The National Origins Act of 1924, also known as the Oriental Exclusion Act, almost completely barred Japanese and Chinese immigration to the United States (Dudden, 1992, p. 70). This racist legislation gave the Japanese administrators excellent evidence to convince the Chamorros that they were better off with the Japanese and to predict that the Americans would never fight for Asians. More ammunition was given to the Japanese administrators on Saipan, Tinian and Rota when the US Congress adopted the 1936 Philippine Independence Bill, granting independence to the Territory of the Philippines ten years hence. To the Japanese, this meant the United States was pulling out of Asia, and would be leaving the Filipinos and Chamorros behind. It is no wonder then that when the Chamorro police from the NMI arrived on Guam, they encouraged their Guam counterparts to learn how to deal with the Japanese, rather than resist assimilation. As the war progressed, the Japanese pushed the “Caucasian imperialists” out of Asia. International news releases asserted that things did not look very good for America’s biggest military ally, 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !423

England. Germany was bombing London and poised for a cross-channel invasion of that island-nation. It appeared that the US would be trapped within its own continental boundaries, while Japan gained control of all of Asia and Germany took Europe and Africa. The Chamorro-Japanese nationals from the Northern Marianas felt proud (or perhaps fortunate) to be on the winning side.

!

The vast majority of NMI Chamorros who were sent to Guam to work for the Japanese administration were not police officers. Chamorro police were, in fact, only a small handful of the total. The larger number were civil service employees or employees of the Nan’yō Kōhatsu Kabushiki Kaisha (NKK), the company contracted to manage public utilities and economic development in the Marianas. Many of these Northern Marianas Chamorros had relatives on Guam. Many were very sympathetic with the Guam Chamorros, providing them with secret information and food.

!

Yet, it is true that some of the NMI translators, particularly zealous police officers, informed on loyal Chamorro-Americans who were hiding flags or radios. Some Guam Chamorros were executed. Many were beaten. Even at the time of the reunification plebiscite in 1969, 24 years after war’s end, many bitter feelings remained. It was undoubtedly a factor in the vote.

!

By February 1943 and the loss of Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands, the Japanese knew they could not defeat the United States, but would not quit the war.

Operation Forager, the Campaign for the Mariana Islands in June and August 1944, maintained the unity of the Marianas under military law, albeit US Navy law instead of Japanese Navy law.

!

From the ashes of war, the United States Navy reestablished its naval base in Apra Harbor—ten times over—and established advance naval and air bases on Saipan and Tinian.

!

Guam returned to its prewar status as an unincorporated US Territory, the 18,000 Chamorros who survived the war on Guam regained their status as US nationals, while the political status of the Northern Mariana Islands would have to await war’s end. Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet and Pacific Ocean Areas, appointed Vice Admiral John H. Hoover as military governor of the Marianas. The American military established a rudimentary local government in Saipan, via elections, and the Northern Marianas Chamorros began learning English and the fundamental principles of democracy.

!

424 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

The Second Partition: The TTPI Even before Japan surrendered, the debate began over which agency of the US federal government would gain administrative control of the former Japanese mandated islands after the war. The US military had no doubt about it.”Those islands belonged to the Japanese before the war and as we capture them they belong to us,” stated Secretary of Defense James Forrestal. The Department of Defense (DoD)was adamant that the age of “Title by Conquest” was still alive and well. However, the late president Franklin D. Roosevelt had made a pledge to decolonization and self-determination in the Atlantic Charter, which both he and Prime Minister Winston Churchill had signed in August 1941. As President Wilson’s 31-year-old assistant secretary of the Navy during World War I, Roosevelt had believed in his president’s vision of an international organization that would arbitrate disputes and oversee self-determination for conquered peoples. As President of the United States during World War II, Roosevelt re-created Wilson’s vision, but changed the name to the United Nations. After Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, President Harry Truman stood by his late president’s vision. Despite DoD’s position in favor of annexation, on July 18, 1947, Truman placed the former Japanese mandated islands into the United Nations trusteeship system, to be administered temporarily by the United States Navy. He subsequently decided the islands would be transferred to the Department of the Interior with civilian administrators.

!

In signing the trusteeship agreement, the United States recognized that the people of what would now be called the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI) were inherently sovereign and had a right to self-determination. That sovereignty could only be changed by the free choice of the island people, not through unilateral action by an outside power – even the United States Congress.

!

At that time, Guam did not fall under the definition created by the great powers at the United Nations. Rather, as “recaptured” territory, Guam was excluded and did not have a right to self-determination.

!

The partition of the Marianas was redefined. Guam returned to US “unincorporated” territorial status, delegated by the President of the United States to the Department of the Navy for administration, while the people of the Northern Marianas became residents of the sovereign Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

!

Guam Campaigns for US Citizenship and Self-Government On July 4, 1946, after the Japanese, Korean and Okinawan refugees and POWs had been repatriated, the gates to the civilian stockade at Chalan Kanoa, Saipan, were 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !425

opened and the Chamorros and Carolinians who had been surviving there for two long years were liberated. Many requested transportation to Guam, where they could discover what happened to their families living there. Naval Civil Affairs accommodated them as best they could, arranging transportation on navy ships headed to Guam. Between 1947 and 1950, Guerreros, Camachos, Sablans, Tenorios, Untalans and other Chamorros from the Northern Marianas moved to Guam to reestablish contact with their families. Some chose to stay. Others moved to Hawaii and Fiji for education or on-the-job training. They became fluent in English. They liked the things Americans enjoyed (Willens, 2002, p. 9). They learned about the American form of government and the economy that had funded a two-ocean war.

!

These Chamorros who “returned” from the Northern Marianas also learned about Guam’s enduring quest for self-determination and self-government. As early as 1902, Guamanians had petitioned for US citizenship (Leibowitz, 1989, p. 330). The United States Navy did not grant the people of Guam their first measure of selfgovernment until the gavel sounded opening the 1st Guam Congress on February 3, 1917 (Farrell, 1986, p. 163). That day, Thomas Calvo Anderson stood before the House of Assembly and advised Naval Governor of Guam Captain Roy C. Smith, USN, that their goal was, above all, to get the US government to define the political “status of the Chamorro people, in a word, that we may know whether we are to be members of the American people or their servitors, . . .” (Farrell, 1986, p. 173.)

!

The United States entered World War I two months later on April 6. The armed German Cruiser SMS Cormoran had been interned at Apra Harbor. When America declared war on Germany on April 7, 1917, Captain Adalbert Zuckschwerdt scuttled his ship rather than surrender her. The crew of the German ship that had been Guam’s guests became prisoners of war. With Naval Station, Guam, on a war footing, Guam’s quest for a defined political status was put on hold.

!

In 1925, eleven members of the US House of Representatives visited Guam and received a petition from the Guam Congress requesting citizenship, which produced no results. When the residents of the Virgin Islands were granted citizenship in 1927 but Guam was ignored, political status efforts on Guam were heightened once again. In 1929, newly arrived Naval Governor Captain Willis W. Bradley strongly supported Guamanian requests for citizenship (Leibowitz, 1989, p.

331). When he received no response from Washington, D.C., Bradley took it upon himself to proclaim the people of Guam to be citizens of Guam. He also created a Bill of Rights for Guam on December 4, 1930, modeled after the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. It never went into effect, however, because the Secretary of the Navy voided it. However, when the Guam law codes were revised in 426 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

1933 many of the provisions in Bradley’s Bill of Rights were incorporated (Guampedia).

!

The fires of self-determination were rekindled when Franklin D. Roosevelt became president of the United States in 1933. A petition seeking political recognition was sent to Roosevelt that year, which garnered no response. However, Congress did become receptive to US citizenship for Guamanians in 1937. Bills were introduced into both houses of Congress. However, when the Navy Department announced that citizenship for Guamanians “would be prejudicial to the best interests of both the United States and the native population of Guam,” the issued died, again.

(Leibowitz, 1989, p. 331; Souder-Jaffrey, 1987, p. 14).

!

A new system of civil rights for Chamorros—consisting of virtually no rights—was established by the Japanese when they captured the island in 1941. Life became a matter of survival and hopes that the Americans would return dimmed as the Japanese won battle after battle. The Chamorros persevered during America’s darkest year, 1942, then were occasionally caught smiling as the tide of war turned and the Americans returned to the Pacific. Then came the holocaust of World War II and the atrocities it engendered (Farrell, 1984, p. 27). The Chamorros of Guam rose from the ruins of war with a unified common desire—rather, demand—for respect and the dignity of US citizenship and self-government. Committed community leaders like F. B. Leon Guerrero and Baltazar J. Bordallo led a delegation of prominent Chamorros to Washington, D.C., to request citizenship and an organic act that would give them self-government. The Guam Congress reopened and sent a resolution to Washington requesting US citizenship and an organic act for Guam, which met with some success but no tangible results.

!

Continued discord between the postwar Guam Congress and the Naval Governor of Guam eventually drove President Harry Truman to direct the Department of the Interior to draft an organic act for a civilian government of Guam. On June 18, 1947, the president’s Undersecretaries Committee recommended “Separate Organic Legislation for Guam to provide civil government and grant citizenship, a bill of rights, and legislative powers to Guamanians should be enacted forthwith,” (Souder-Jaffrey, 1987, p. 13).

!

The Northern Marianas Chamorros watched these proceedings closely. Only one month later, July 18, 1947, Truman place the Northern Mariana Islands into the UN Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, along with the rest of the Japanese mandated islands. Thus, the Marianas were partitioned once again. At least this time they were both associated with the same country!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !427

The Northern Mariana Chamorros also began to learn about Guam politics during these early postwar years. In 1949, the civil affairs administrator for Saipan took the Saipan High Council to Guam to study the Guam Congress. When they returned to Saipan, they established a new Saipan Congress, in which the old unicameral High Council became the upper house of a bicameral legislature. Herein, the people of the Northern Marianas, through their elected representatives, began to discuss their own future political status.

!

The spirit of self-determination for the Northern Mariana Islands was sparked on August 1, 1950, when President Truman signed the Organic Act of Guam into law (64 Stat. 384 [48 USC. 1421, et seq.]). By the Organic Act, the people of Guam received US citizenship and limited self-government. Residents of Guam could move to the mainland United States to seek education or employment, at their own will and without permission from the navy. The new Guam Legislature, a unicameral body, replaced the old Guam Congress and could make laws for Guam.

Even though the new civilian governor of Guam, appointed by the president, could still veto laws, most residents of the Northern Marianas saw Guam’s new political status as a great step forward for Guam. They saw that gaining US citizenship gave the Guamanians the opportunity to go to school, live, and work in the United States (Willens, 2000, p. 22). The Northern Marianas Chamorros did not want to leave their homes to gain American citizenship on Guam. They wanted their islands to have the same political status as did their families on Guam.

!

For the Chamorros of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, political development beyond “unincorporated” territorial status was both inhibited and enhanced by a federal policy that restricted entry to and from the Marianas between 1950 to 1962—”[N]o one, even US citizens, could visit the island of Guam except with permission of the US military,” (Leibowitz, 1989. p. 325). The same held true for the Chamorros and Carolinians of the Northern Marianas. This greatly restricted economic development and the political maturity that comes with a strong public-private dialogue. On the other hand, it so irritated the Guam business community and the elected members of the new Guam Legislature that it made them recognize they needed something more than “unincorporated” status to achieve the island’s full potential. Being essentially held captive on a military reservation was a slap in the face to the Chamorros who had sacrificed so much for America during the war. These travel restrictions demeaned the Organic Act. The Chamorro leadership studied American history and decided to climb the territorial ladder, aggressively—a locally elected governor, a non-voting delegate to Congress, then two US Senators and a member of the House of Representatives with a full and equal vote: Statehood.

428 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

With Guam and the Northern Marianas at least under the same flag, and the Guam Chamorros becoming US citizens, it is interesting to see how the Chamorros of Guam and the Northern Marianas, now under the United Nations, sought an improved political status with the United States, sometimes separately, sometimes together.

!

Marianas Reunification Efforts Begin It is not surprising, therefore, that the first political status preference expressed by the people of the Northern Marianas was that their islands be incorporated into the United States either as a possession or a territory, and that their people be given United States citizenship. The Saipan House of Council and the House of Commissioners presented this vision to the first visiting mission from the United Nations when they arrived in 1950 to examine progress in the Marianas District of the TTPI (Spoehr, Alexander, 1954. p. 181). Unfortunately for the hopefuls on Saipan, Tinian and Rota, the members of the Visiting Mission advised the people of Saipan that they could not make a political status decision separately from the rest of the TTPI.

!

The UN Visiting Mission explained that the TTPI had been created as one political unit by the United States and the United Nations Trusteeship Council, just like the ten other Trust Territories then existing around the world, regardless of population or location, language or culture. The boundaries of nations emerging from colonial status were defined by the boundaries of that country at the time of independence (Willens, 2000, p. 26). Some international leaders were also concerned that if Micronesia fractured into several little countries, each would want an equal vote in the United Nations. Thus, the creation of the TTPI forced the Northern Mariana islanders to associate politically with the rest of the TTPI.

!

After 1950, the people of the US territory of Guam steadily advanced in their political and economic development, while the people of the Northern Marianas District of the TTPI began to lag behind. The US Navy was building up Guam, while US military personnel left Saipan and Tinian, other than the navy administrators. The people of the Northern Marianas faced a depressed economy and a dim outlook for the future. Nonetheless, they pressed forward with their campaign for political self-determination. In fact, they upped the ante.

!

Although the TTPI had been transferred to the Department of the Interior in 1951, as Truman had pledged, the islands north of Rota were returned to the Navy in 1952 when a CIA operation unit was established there, the Naval Technical Training Unit. The Chamorros who worked for the new clandestine operation, or as 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ăƒť !429

household employees for the NTTU employees, may have learned some tricks from their American mentors.

!

When the second United Nations Visiting Mission arrived on Saipan on March 11, 1953, they received a petition requesting the physical restoration of war-damaged property, compensation for the occupation of private property from July 10, 1944, to June 30, 1949, and an organic act for the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

Unfortunately, as members of the visiting mission recognized, the other districts of the TTPI were not ready to make a political status decision. Once again, the visiting mission rejected the NMI petition.

!

Now the forces of reunification began to emanate from Guam. Having gained citizenship and having spent time in Hawaii, many of Guam’s leaders began to eye the possibility of statehood for the Marianas, with two senators in the United States Congress—just like the Hawaiian archipelago. In the aftermath of the 1957 Popular Party victories in both Guam and the Northern Marianas, the joint party leadership decided to test the waters with an unofficial poll on reunification. The people of Saipan voted 63.8 percent in favor of reunification. This prompted the Guam Legislature to adopted Resolution No. 367 requesting the US Congress to incorporate the Northern Marianas within the governmental framework of the Territory of Guam. It was adopted by the 4th Guam Legislature on July 8, 1958, and was transmitted to the Northern Marianas and to Washington, D.C., on July 23. It read in part:

!

“WHEREAS despite this unfortunate and perhaps accidental division of one race, the people of the Marianas have never lost hope that a day will come when all the Chamorros once again will be reunited within a homogenous political and economic union under one governmental administration.’’

Antonio “Tony” Borja Won Pat was Speaker at the time. The petition set in motion another series of political activities that would not culminate until 1969.

!

Following the Guam resolution, the Saipan Committee on Reunification published a report on May 5, 1959, which led to a resolution from the Saipan Municipal Congress inviting the members of the Guam Legislature to Saipan for a meeting on reunification. Members of the Guam Legislature and the Saipan Congress sat together in Saipan’s Congressional Hall from September 11 to 14, 1959. Speaker Olympio T. Borja of the Saipan Congress and Senator James T. Sablan, chairman of the Fifth Guam Legislature’s Select Committee on the Saipan Mission, co-chaired the meetings. On September 25, 1959, the Saipan Congress officially forwarded 430 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

their Resolution No. 7, modeled after Guam’s Resolution 367, to the United Nations, requesting incorporation of the Mariana Islands within the framework of the US territory of the Guam. Once again, their effort was met with denial.

!

The international political status of Guam changed in 1960, even if its political relationship with the United States did not. The United Nations adopted Resolution 1514 (XV) on December 14, 1960. Better known as “The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Territories,” it put Guam on the list of non-Self Governing Territories. Immediate steps were supposed to be taken “in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom (Unpingco, 1987, p. 47; in Souder-Jaffrey, 1987).” As we will see, some efforts were made, but with no significant success to date.

!

Meanwhile in the Northern Marianas, and despite continued rejections from both DC and New York, the Chamorro leadership continued to impress on any listeners that they had made their political status decision and were ready to move forward.

When they received news that a special United Nations Visiting Mission was scheduled to arrive in 1961, the Northern Marianas leadership prepared for another unofficial poll on political status for Saipan and Tinian. Rota could not participate because at that time it was a separate district of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. Registered voters on Saipan and Tinian could choose from one of three different political-status preferences.

!

Of the 2,847 registered voters on Saipan and Tinian, 2,404 cast their ballots. The results indicated that the voters were overwhelmingly in favor of gaining US citizenship and some form of permanent affiliation with the United States. A significant number wanted a status similar to but separate from Guam. Of course, these results were officially presented to the visiting mission when it arrived. Once again, however, they repeated that, “The Trusteeship Agreement treats the Trust Territory as one single Territory and there is no likelihood of the United Nations considering at the present time any proposal which looks like a premature effort aimed at ‘cessation’ or ‘partition.’” In essence, they told the people of the Northern Marianas that they had to work with the other Micronesians toward a joint resolution of political status issues, whether they liked it or not.

!

The Northern Marianas remained persistent, planning for the 1964 UN Visiting Mission. In October 1963, another unofficial plebiscite was conducted, and again the people voted for reunification with Guam. Once again, the results of the plebiscite were presented to the United Nations visiting mission. Not unexpectedly, the 1964 mission’s report stated that secession, or separation, was not possible 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !431

under the trusteeship agreement. The 1964 visiting mission was “no less firm in rejecting Saipanese pressure for secession,” than had been the 1961 visiting mission.” They hoped “the issue may simply wither away,” (Willens, 2002, p. 66).

!

In 1966, the Guam Chamorros and the NMI Chamorros got together for another joint effort on reunification. Tony Won Pat was speaker of the 8th Guam Legislature.

He and other political leaders on Guam still had a vision of American statehood.

They felt their chances would be better if they had a bigger population and a bigger land area. Reunifying the Marianas would help their cause. Members of the Guam Legislature once again visited with the Marianas District Legislature to discuss the possibility of reunification. Subsequently, the Guam Legislature adopted Resolution No. 177, requesting that the president of the United States reintegrate the Mariana Islands. A delegation attempted to personally deliver the resolution to officials in Washington, D.C., but were rejected by both the State and Interior Department representatives. The issue was also presented to the 1967 UN Visiting Mission, which repeated that any integration of the Northern Marianas with Guam “cannot be contemplated so long as Micronesia remains a trust Territory,” (Willens, 2002, p. 22).

!

A visiting congressional mission provided another opportunity for the people of the Northern Marianas to push their position. On January 19, 1968, the Second Mariana Islands District Legislature adopted a resolution requesting the delegation of congressmen to support US citizenship for the inhabitants of the Northern Mariana Islands and a reunification of the Marianas. They explained that economically and culturally, a reunified Marianas would improve the standards of living for the people of the Northern Mariana Islands. The request produced no results.

!

It should be kept in mind that all through their efforts to reunify directly with Guam, the NMI participated actively in the Congress of Micronesia. The Northern Marianas District had been ably represented in both houses of the Congress of Micronesia since it had been formed in 1965. When the Congress of Micronesia Future Political Status Commission met in July 1969 and “flatly rejected” the unincorporated territorial status for Micronesia and adopted a position in favor of free association (Willens, 2002, p. 19), the Northern Marianas delegation managed to incorporate language into the joint communiqué to the effect that the Congress of Micronesia would not oppose separate negotiations between the US and the Northern Mariana Islands.

!

432 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Shortly afterwards, Vicente Santos, president of the Marianas District Legislature, and his colleagues created the Pacific Conference of Legislators as a mechanism to push forward their political status issues. Membership was offered to members of all the legislative bodies in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, hoping to promote the exchange of dialogue in support of reintegration of Guam and the Northern Marianas, or Guam and the TTPI. In reality, it was primarily an opportunity for leaders from the 9th Guam Legislature under Speaker Joaquin C. Arriola and the Northern Marianas District Legislature to get together and discuss a common political-status goal. At the time, the Democrats (formerly the Popular Party) were in control of the 10th Guam Legislature and the Popular Party remained in control of the Mariana Islands District Legislature.

!

With another United Nations visiting mission expected to arrive in the TTPI in early 1970, these leaders decided to conduct a joint referendum on reintegration in November 1969, only two months away. In a meeting conducted on Saipan in August 1969, they created the Leaders of Guam and Marianas Reintegration Conference. Guam Senator William D. L. Flores was named chairman of the special committee on reintegration. Other members of the committee included Senators George Bamba, James T. Sablan, Joaquin Perez, Florencio Ramirez, Leonardo Paulino, Richard F. Taitano, and Manuel Lujan, all among the leading members of the strongest political party on Guam. They were charged with studying the question of reintegration, reporting their findings to the people of Guam, and conducting public hearings in all the villages of Guam.

!

The committee, in its report to the people of Guam, said the principal motivations for the push to reintegrate were political, economic, social, and cultural. The members wanted eventual statehood for Guam. If Guam was expanded to include the Marianas and even the rest of the trust territory, statehood could be achieved much more quickly. A reunified Marianas Islands would also provide greater opportunities for investment, particularly in the tourism industry. The standard of living would be improved. Most important, the cultural unity of the Chamorros would be reestablished.

!

Hurried public hearings were conducted in all the villages of Guam in October 1969. The members of the Guam Legislature’s select committee on reintegration, which conducted the meetings, tried to convince the public that reintegration was in Guam’s best interest. At most of these meetings the reaction from the public was favorable. Members of the committee were confident that the people of Guam would vote in favor of reintegration. If both Guam and the Northern Marianas voted in favor of reintegration, as they expected, the island’s leaders would petition 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !433

the United Nations and the United States Congress for separating the Northern Marianas from the TTPI and reintegration with the US Territory of the Marianas.

!

The people of Guam voted in a special election conducted on November 4, 1969.

The question put to the voters was: “Should all of the islands of the Marianas be politically reintegrated within the framework of the American Territory of Guam, such as a new territory to be known as the Territory of the Marianas?” Voters could mark either “Yes” or “No.” The turnout for the election was very low. Only 32 percent of the 20,000 registered voters actually cast ballots (Rogers, 1995, p. 249).

Speaker Joaquin Arriola was shocked at the results, as were many of the other proreunification leaders. There were 3,720 “No” votes, compared to 2,688 “Yes” votes.

!

Several theories have been offered as to why the Guam voters rejected reintegration. One reason given for the poor turnout was that there were no candidates for election, and thus no aggressive drive to get out the vote. Another reason for the failure may have been the poor political education process that occurred on Guam. Public hearings were conducted for only one month. Had they begin earlier, more people may have felt more confident about going to the polls.

Another reason given was that many Guamanians had not forgotten the proJapanese actions of a few of the Northern Marianas Chamorro translators and police officers employed by the Japanese. Other Guamanians simply felt that Guam’s money would be diverted to the undeveloped Northern Marianas. Guam did not want to accept the burden of developing the Northern Mariana Islands.

Guam at the time was having serious difficulties with its utilities and school system.

Some Guamanians were also concerned with protecting their jobs. The wage scale in the Northern Marianas at that time was much lower than that on Guam. Many Filipinos who had arrived on Guam after the war to rebuild the island had become voters and feared that Northern Marianas residents might move to Guam and take jobs.

!

Perhaps, however, the major factor influencing the outcome of the plebiscite was the upcoming 1970 election on Guam. This was to be the island’s first election for governor. The Popular Party, which had dominated politics on Guam since the Organic Act, split three ways. The frontrunner was Speaker of the 10th Guam Legislature Speaker Joaquin C. Arriola and running mate Vicente Bamba, a retired judge and popular former senator, who favored reunification. Running second was the team formed by Senator Ricardo J. “Ricky” Bordallo and Senator Richard “Dick” Taitano. Running third was the team of former governor Manuel Guerrero and his running mate Dr. Antonio C. (Tony) Yamashita. Although the Bordallo/ Taitano team did not openly oppose reunification, a whisper campaign was 434 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

launched that “a vote for reintegration was a vote for Arriola.” Their supporters were told that if they were not really sure about reunification, then just do not vote at all.

!

Chamorros in the Northern Mariana Islands, unaware of the underlying political currents on Guam, were very upset by “the Guam rejection.” They had read positive reports in the Guam Daily News about the possibility of a favorable vote. Regardless, on November 9, 1969, 3,233 of 4,954 registered voters in the Northern Marianas— 65%, twice that on Guam, cast their ballots. Reintegration received 1,942 votes: freely associated state 1,116; independence 19; unincorporated territory of US107.

There was 1 vote for integration with the US; 5 for remaining a trusteeship; 1 for unincorporated territory of Japan; 1 for integration with Japan; and 40 invalid votes. Ironically, a single write-in vote was cast for commonwealth status.

!

Surprisingly, it would be the US Department of Defense that would pave the path to Commonwealth for the people of the Northern Mariana Islands.

!

A “Totally New” Political Status: The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands The Northern Marianas leadership faced difficult decisions. The Department of the Interior had created the Congress of Micronesia in 1964, with the Northern Mariana Islands as one district among six in the TTPI. In 1968, the Congress of Micronesia had created a political status commission to consider future political status alternatives. While the Marianas District had been working toward reunification with Guam as the most direct route to US citizenship and a permanent political relationship with the United States, the 1969 Congress of Micronesia political status commission announced its intention to move forward with independence or free association for the entire TTPI. The 1969 plebiscite for reunification failed. Then the 1970 UN Visiting Mission stated that, “There could be no question of the Mariana Islands being separated from the rest of the Trust Territory while the Trusteeship Agreement is still in force, (Willens, 2002, p. 22).

What to do?

!

Foreign affairs once again stepped into the path of political development in the Marianas, thanks to Mother Nature. The raised limestone islands of the southern Mariana Islands had grown up in the most strategic location in the Western Pacific, and were imbued with excellent natural harbors. The Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II provide testimony to their intrinsic value to strategic military, economic and political concerns: location, location, location. The everchanging geo-political atmosphere in the Western Pacific would now cause an 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !435

American president with an ulterior motive to cast aside the position taken by United Nations Visiting Missions since 1950 against the partition of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

!

In 1947, just as the Trust Territory was being formulated, the US slid from World War II into the Cold War. The Department of Defense realigned its forces in the Western Pacific to deal with the new situation, maintaining strength in Guam, while developing its bases in the Philippines and Okinawa, and eliminating its bases on Tinian and Saipan. Adjustments were made as the Korean War erupted in 1951. The Navy Technical Training Unit was established in Saipan in 1952, and America quietly ventured into Vietnam in 1955. As the Vietnam War escalated in 1965, Guam and Okinawa began serving as a geographically strategic launch pad for covert bombing missions over Cambodia and Laos. Okinawa had remained under American control since World War II. B-52s stationed at Kadena Airbase, Okinawa, bombed North Vietnam and it was reported, but not confirmed, that the US had nuclear weapons stored on Okinawa. For some Japanese leaders, this made Okinawa a potential target for Chinese missiles, should the communist government there feel threatened by the United States. Some Japanese political leaders began talking about not renewing the US base agreements. This caused the US Joint Chiefs of Staff to begin paying attention to the Micronesia’s political status dialogues. In October 1968, when the Congress of Micronesia started talking about free association, the Joint Chiefs reminded the Secretary of Defense of the strategic value of the central Pacific Ocean and of the potential need to redeploy American forces to Guam or the TTPI after the Vietnam War (Willens, 2000, p. 125).

!

In November 1968 Richard Millhouse Nixon, a conservative Republican, was elected president of the United States. The Cold War with China and the Soviet Union was escalating. The Vietnam War was going south. Nixon decided to open relations with China, thus tilting the balance of power in Asia against the Soviet Union. Before he could play the China card, however, Nixon recognized the need to maintain a strong alliance with Japan. The US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security was due to expire soon. Article Three of that agreement required the United States to return all Japanese territories acquired by the United States during World War II to Japanese sovereignty. To avoid the loss of military bases on Okinawa, Nixon favored the rapid return of the Ryukyu Islands, including Okinawa, to Japan. If accomplished quickly, he believed the US would be able to retain base rights in Okinawa under favorable terms. Nixon agreed to return Okinawa to Japanese sovereignty, setting a deadline of 1972. However, he also instructed his staff to find (if necessary create) a fallback base on sovereign American soil. Guam did not have enough.

436 ! ăƒť 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

On March 13, 1971, Nixon pushed things forward by formally appointing Franklin Haydn Williams as his Personal Representative to the Micronesian political status negotiations, with the rank of ambassador (Willens, 2002, p. 25). Williams was a former assistant secretary of defense. During their initial meeting at Hana, Hawaii, the Department of Defense revealed its land requirements for Guam and the TTPI. Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird advised Williams that the strategic interests of the Unites States were to implement “defense-in-depth” in the western Pacific, carry out treaty commitments, defend lines of communication through the central Pacific, and maintain “a credible nuclear and conventional deterrent to armed aggression” against the United States, its allies, and countries considered vital to its security. Defense wanted land in the Marshalls, Palau and the Marianas that would be “sovereign American soil.” In the Marianas, Defense was interested in a multiservice base on Tinian. They wanted the whole island, but would settle for the northern part and joint-use of the harbor.

!

On April 12, 1972, Ambassador Franklin Haydn Williams formally announced, “that my Government is willing to respond affirmatively to the request that has been formally presented to us today to enter into separate negotiations with the representatives of the Marianas in order to satisfy a desire which the Joint Committee has already recognized,” (Willens, 2000, p. 245). Williams, obviously authorized by Washington, D.C., had thrown out the United Nations Visiting Missions’ refusal to allow the Marianas to enter into separate negotiations from the rest of the TTPI. This was a huge breakthrough for the people of the CNMI who had fought so long and hard for citizenship and self-determination.

!

In preparations for sovereign negotiations, the Marianas District Legislature created the Marianas Political Status Commission on May 13, and it was approved by the district administrator on May 19, 1972. The law authorized the Northern Marianas Political Status Commission to negotiate with the United States, to perform public education, to hire consultants, to study alternative forms of democratic internal government, and to make periodic reports.

!

The Northern Marianas Political Status Commission held its first meeting on September 7, 1972. To prevent a possible problem with Guam political leaders, Haydn Williams had only been authorized to help create a political status for the Northern Mariana Islands that would be similar to the organic act that Guam had received from Congress. However, when the first plenary session of the Marianas political-status negotiations opened on December 13, 1972, at Saipan’s Mt. Carmel school auditorium, the Northern Mariana negotiator laid out their fundamental issues, including their “totally new” concept of mutual consent (Willens, 2002, p.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !437

48). This took Williams aback. However, by Monday, May 21, 1973, Williams was ready to announce that the United States would be “willing to include in the agreement the provision for mutual consent on significant alteration in the basic structure of the relationship, . . .” (Willens, 2002, p. 86). This came three months after former Speaker of the Guam Legislature Tony Won Pat took the oath of office as the first resident of Guam to serve as Delegate to Congress on January 3, 1973.

!

NMI Political Status Negotiations Stimulate a New Guam Political Status Initiative In response to the ongoing political status negotiations in the NMI, the Guam Legislature created a nine-member political status commission in May, 1973. The six-member Democrat majority chose Senator Frank G. Lujan to chair the committee, which was obligated to study and make recommendations on Guam’s future political status. Governor Carlos G. Camacho, a Republican, created his own advisory task force.

!

Political status discussions heated up both north and south of the Rota Channel following the second round of negotiations in July 1973. The US-NMI joint communiqué revealed the preliminary agreements with the Northern Marianas, including mutual consent, a locally drafted constitution, and assurances about maximum local self-government. Joe Murphy, editor of the Pacific Daily News, wrote that the Northern Marianas was getting a far better deal than what Guam had. He also thought that many in the US Congress would object to establishing two separate governments in the small Mariana Islands (Willens, 2004, p. 130).

!

As Williams had feared, Guam Senator Paul Calvo (a Republican who would run against Camacho in the next election) expressed concern about Guam not being involved in the negotiations and announced his intention to visit Washington, DC, to register his complaint (Willens, 2004, p. 7).

!

To resolve the problem, Haydn Williams advised President Nixon that something had to be done to improve Guam’s political status. The Department of Defense agreed. The Joint Chiefs of Staff added their support on July 20, 1973. On September 12, the Under Secretaries Committee decided that “a study of US national objectives, policies, and programs in Guam be undertaken to identify a prospective course of action by which US interests may most effectively be fostered.” The Guam study was supposed to be completed by December 17, 1973 (Williams, 2004, p. 10).

!

438 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Meanwhile, Guam Delegate Tony Won Pat introduced a resolution into the US House of Representatives stating that Guam also had a right to choose its own political status and requested President Nixon to create a special commission to work with the Guam political status commission. According to Won Pat’s unofficial polling, 86.2% of the people interviewed believed in reunification. Congressman Phil Burton reassured Won Pat that they would get to the Guam question as soon as the Northern Marianas issue was resolved. Burton met with the Guam Legislature, which now asked for assistance reunifying with the Northern Marianas.

Burton told them it was up to them to take the initiative.

!

As scheduled, the interagency group met on December 17 to consider Phase I of the Guam study. Then, on January 31, 1974, Won Pat took the floor of Congress and complained that the NMI was getting a better political status than Guam. Northern Marianas lawyers in Washington subsequently met with Won Pat’s staff and assured them that whatever was being created for the NMI could surely apply to Guam. The Northern Marianas negotiators were concerned that if Guam made a loud enough complaint, some members of Congress might be convinced to insist that NMI political status should be put on hold until Guam’s political status was resolved.

!

Joe Murphy opined: !

“Many of us living on Guam view the proceedings with mixed emotions. We naturally welcome the addition of the Northern Marianas to the American community, and feel that we have, perhaps, contributed something to the desire of the islanders to become a permanent part of America. We have developed a small guilt complex, however, about the negotiations. We feel that somehow through the lack of leadership on Guam, that Guam has missed the boat. We feel that the Mariana Islands really should be re-integrated, politically, although self-governing. We certainly can’t blame the people of the Northern Marianas for that. They tried, and it was Guam that dropped the ball.” (Willens, 2004. p. 6) Congressman Burton, who had helped create the Guam Elective Governor Act and the Delegate Act for Guam, was impressed with the progress that had been made during the third round of negotiations between Williams and the NMI delegation and began to take a more aggressive role in NMI political status. While on Guam in January, before transiting to Saipan, Burton had made frequent references to the future reunification of Guam and the Northern Marianas. He wanted to reassure his friend Tony Won Pat that Guam would eventually benefit from the successful completion of the Northern Marianas negotiations. Burton was blunt on certain issues. He stated flatly that there was no possibility of achieving a nonvoting 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !439

delegation in Congress for the new commonwealth of the Northern Marianas during these negotiations.

!

Won Pat responded to the political status issue in his June 1972 annual report to the people of Guam and the Guam Legislature:

!

“There is an alternative to statehood. Commonwealth status would provide Guam with a Constitution of our choosing, and our Legislature would have far greater autonomy in deciding our local affairs. We would have these additional benefits without the burden of federal taxation. My recommendation, therefore, is that commonwealth status be explored further as an interim measure until such time as our Territory can assume the full responsibilities of a state.” (Leibowitz, 1989, p. 336) On August 8, 1974, following a long investigation into a break-in at the Democratic Party Headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C., President Nixon chose to resign rather than face impeachment for lying to the people of America.

Vice-president Gerald Ford was sworn in the next day.

!

That same day, President Ford received the Guam study from the Under Secretaries Committee. The committee advised him that it was important to “hold open options which would permit eventual merger of these units, particularly Guam and the Northern Marianas.” They should “seek a status for Guam which eventually would also be acceptable for the Northern Marianas, with the expectation that both administrations might be incorporated into one governing unit,” (Willens, 2004, p. 38). To do so, they suggested that “at the earliest possible date we assure the Guamanians that we are prepared whenever they are ready to work with them to establish for Guam a status no less beneficial than that which the Northern Marianas will get, and (2) that we give the Guamanians the opportunity to express their own desires,” (Willens, 2004, p. 56). On the issue of incorporated status, the commission stated that the option “appears not to be a course we should propose but which, under circumstances hard to visualize, we might accept,” (Willens, 2004, p. 55).

!

Perhaps in reaction to the federal overture, Governor Bordallo established Guam’s first political status commission in cooperation with Speaker Joseph F. Ada of the 12th Guam Legislature. The commission was chaired by Senator Frank G. Lujan and was comprised of nine senators, including: Joseph F. Ada, Antonio M. Palomo, Adrian C. Sanchez, Francisco R. Santos, Richard F. Taitano, Paul M. Calvo, Jesus U. Torres, and Paul J. Bordallo. An informational report was generated and released in 440 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

September 1974 supporting Commonwealth, with a future plebiscite to determine ultimate direction (Leibowitz, 1989, p. 335; Guampedia).

!

On December 23, 1974, the National Security Council sent their analysis of the Guam study to Secretary of State Kissinger, who advised President Ford that, “our essential needs in our political relationship with Guam are control over Guam’s defenses and foreign affairs and continued military basing rights. To achieve this, we need a political framework that will continue Guam’s close relationship with the Federal Government, but that will keep the island’s growing political demands within manageable bounds,” (Willens, 2004, p. 64).

!

On February 1, 1975, shortly before the last round of NMI negotiations, Kissinger directed the Under Secretaries Committee to “seek agreement with Guamanian representatives on a commonwealth arrangement no less favorable than that which we are negotiating with the Northern Marianas. If, however, Guamanian representatives prefer a modified unincorporated Territorial status, we will be willing to accept such an arrangement,” (Willens, 2004, p. 67). In other words, the door for Guam to achieve its desired political status was opened. However, Kissinger turned the study over to the Assistant Secretary of Interior for Program Developments and Budget to develop and implement a negotiating approach and organize a US negotiating team. That proved to be a death knell for the Guam study.

!

The Northern Mariana Islands Becomes a Commonwealth of the United States Two weeks after Kissinger turned the Guam study over to the Department of the Interior, February 15, 1975, the NMI Political Status Commission met with Ambassador Haydn Williams in the Mt. Carmel Church auditorium to sign the commonwealth covenant they had negotiated for two years and two months.

Williams signed for President Ford. The NMI Political Status Commission signed for the people of the Northern Marianas.

!

Five days later, the Covenant was unanimously approved by the Mariana Islands District Legislature. Working with Ed Pangelinan and Pete A. Tenorio, the status commission conducted the popular plebiscite on June 17, 1975. Ninety-five percent of the registered voters cast ballots. When the votes were counted, the covenant had been approved by 78.8 % of the people voting.

!

Shortly thereafter, the 13th Guam Legislature created a new political status commission designed to open negotiations with the federal government.

Republican Senator Frank Blas was selected as Chair of the commission and 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !441

members included Edward Duenas, Thomas V. C. Tanaka, Jr., former Lt. Governor Kurt Moylan, Dr. Pedro Sanchez, and Democrats Carl T. C. Gutierrez, Adrian Sanchez, Francisco R. Santos, Edward Charfauros, Delfina Aguigui, James McDonald, Eugene Ramsey and Joseph Rios (Guampedia).

!

Governor Bordallo then wrote to President Ford on August 2, 1975, urging the president to appoint a representative (as Nixon had done for the NMI) to begin dialogues with Guam. The letter ended up in the Department of the Interior where it went unanswered for thirteen months.

!

Meanwhile, Phil Burton used his seniority to move forward with a Congressional vote the Commonwealth Covenant, which would make the people of the Northern Mariana Islands US Citizens. On February 24, 1976, the US Senate called for a floor vote on Joint Resolution 549, the proposed Covenant creating the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Passage of the Senate bill required only a simple majority, 50% plus one. However, some members of the political-status commission in the gallery were hoping for a two-thirds majority. Then, if anyone claimed that the covenant represented a treaty, the vote would not have to be called again. After all, this was the first time that a new territory would be added to the Union by mutual negotiation. Thus, the members of the negotiating teams were hoping for 67 of the 100 votes in the US Senate (Wyttenbach, 197). The final Senate vote was 66 in favor, 23 opposed and 11 not voting, far beyond the 51 votes needed to approve the covenant, but one less that the number needed were it to be a treaty.

!

On March 24, 1976, surrounded by Covenant supporters from the Marianas and Washington, D.C., President Gerald Ford signed Public Law 94-241: 90 Stat. 263, approving the covenant. The Northern Marianas had exercised its right to selfdetermination and defined an agreement with the United States that would give the people United States citizenship and the maximum degree of self-government possible at that time. Most important, it contained a “Mutual Consent” clause that gave the people an assurance of fair treatment should there be a need for either side to change a fundamental part of the agreement at some time in the future.

!

Dialogues in DC relative to Guam’s political status dragged until July 1977, the end of the Ford administration. In a rather defeatist statement, the incumbent Republican leadership in the Department of the Interior suggested that the issue “will be referred to those in the next Administration who will be responsible for overseeing the negotiations on the Guam-Federal relationship. . . “(Willens, 2004, p.

115). One can only speculate on what the current political status of the Marianas

442 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

might be today, had the Department of the Interior acted aggressively on President Ford’s Guam study back then.

!

Subsequent Political Status Efforts on Guam Have Failed In 1980, Ricardo Bordallo won a second term as Governor of Guam and created a Commission on Self-Determination, chaired by Professor Robert Rogers.

According to Rogers, Bordallo’s goal was to establish a commonwealth status for Guam, similar to that achieved by the NMI, then attempt to merge the two commonwealths into one which might become a state. Barely two years after its creation, the CSD organized a status referendum. On January 12, 1982, 49% of voters chose a closer relationship with the United States via Commonwealth.

Twenty-six percent voted Statehood, while 10% voted for the Status Quo (Unincorporated territory). A subsequent run-off referendum held between Commonwealth and Statehood saw 73% of Guam voters choosing Commonwealth over 27% for Statehood (Rogers, 1995, p. 271).

!

On April 10, 1983, the Marianas lost a great supporter in Washington, D.C., Congressman Phil Burton passed away, leaving behind a legacy of 10 terms on the US House of Representatives Committee on the Interior where he guided the legislation creating the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

!

Governor Bordallo and Carl Gutierrez, then Speaker of the 17th Guam Legislature, led a mission to Albuquerque with Congressman Manual Lujan, Jr. and Tony Won Pat, to discuss a legislative approach to political status. The effort did not lead to action in Congress. In January 1984, Speaker of the 18th Guam Legislature Carl Gutierrez pushed though legislation creating a new bipartisan Commission on Self-Determination with Governor Bordallo as its chair. A draft Commonwealth Act was prepared by early 1985. It included removing the stigma of “unincorporated” status. A local activist group, the Organization of People for Indigenous Rights (OPI-R), introduced the concept that only Chamorros be allowed to vote on the draft Commonwealth Act, and that the Government of Guam should have mutual consent on any changes to the act as well as control over the 220-miles Exclusive Economic Zone, immigration and trade – far more than what the CNMI had received. In fighting over these issues dragged out the process. The 1986 general election on Guam forced a postponement of the plebiscite on the draft Commonwealth Act to August 1987. Meanwhile, Dr. Laura Souder-Jaffery and Dr. Robert Underwood, both popular Chamorro professors at the University of Guam published a collection of essays on Chamorro self-determination that was very powerful and not in support of the draft Guam Commonwealth Act. Governor Joseph Ada defeated Bordallo in the general election and General Vicente Ben Blaz 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !443

defeated Delegate Tony Won Pat, who passed away on May 2, 1987. With Won Pat’s defeat, Guam lost the chairmanship of the House Subcommittee on Insular and International Affairs (Rogers, 1995, pg. 271-275).

!

A draft Commonwealth Act for Guam was ratified in two votes in 1987 and submitted to Congress for action. However, three significant provisions killed the act: control over immigration, a Chamorro self-determination process, and mutual consent for any changes in the document.

!

The 24th Guam Legislature established the “Commission on Decolonization” in 1996, theoretically to enhance the Commission on Self-Determination’s ongoing studies of various political status options and public education campaigns.

However, it also produced no results.

!

It should be noted that recently, attorneys fighting for Puerto Rico’s future political status are leading the fight against the Insular Cases and the Supreme Court’s decision to designate and label those territories gained as a result of the SpanishAmerican War, and later the CNMI, as “unincorporated” territories. Should they prevail in the Supreme Court, then a path to statehood would be opened to a unified Marianas, although it would undoubtedly be a long and bumpy road.

!

Conclusions and Speculations The Chamorros of Guam successfully gained US citizenship and limited selfgovernment in 1950 because they were unified and justified in their demand.

Regardless of political affiliation or business competition, they expressed their desires for political status with one loud and clear voice.

!

The majority of Chamorros and Carolinians from the Northern Mariana Islands appreciated what the Chamorros of Guam had accomplished and wanted the same.

To the Chamorros of the Northern Marianas, in particular, the fastest route to citizenship was to re-unify the Marianas and form the Territory of the Marianas.

Every three years after being assigned to the United Nations’ Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the elected representatives of the Northern Mariana Islands presented petition after petition to the United Nations Visiting Missions requesting reunification, but were consistently blocked by the United Nations Trusteeship Council Agreement.

!

At the same time, many of Guam’s leaders began to look beyond “unincorporated” territorial status. They developed a vision of the Marianas gaining the ultimate political status in the American system of democracy: Statehood. These Guam 444 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

Chamorros knew that the elected leaders of Northern Marianas wanted to have their families reunited under one political roof. They decided that the best route to statehood, perhaps the only route, was by reunifying the Marianas. Around 1957, Guam’s political leaders began to push for reunification, in cooperation with the Northern Marianas leadership. Unfortunately, at the critical moment the Guam leadership overestimated their strength and allowed the 1969 reunification vote on Guam to fail.

!

The people of the Northern Mariana Islands, generally, now see this failure as a blessing in disguise. Because of this “no vote” on Guam, the Chamorros (primarily) in the Northern Mariana Islands began their own campaign for citizenship and selfgovernment, asking for more than was given to Guam by the Organic Act. As the Northern Marianas Political Status Commission began forging a “totally new” political agreement with the United States, Guam’s leaders began to demand that they receive the same benefits that were being considered for the NMI. The federal government responded with a study that authorized a political status for Guam that would be at least as beneficial as that being given to the Northern Mariana Islands.

Unfortunately, that study got shelved in the Department of the Interior and the Guam leadership has not demanded that it be un-shelved. As a result, Guam continues to be governed under its Organic Act, as amended, a unilateral act of Congress.

!

Meanwhile, the Northern Mariana Islands became a Commonwealth of the United States by mutual negotiation between sovereigns, with a clause in their Covenant providing for Mutual Consent on significant issues. This issue of Mutual Consent will undoubtedly be tested by the pending military buildup in the Northern Marianas.

!

Many people still talk about reunification. The question is: Is reunification still a viable political status option?

!

Times have changed. In the 1950 and 60s, both Guam and the NMI were underdeveloped and primarily Chamorro populations. Beginning in the mid-1970s, both Guam and the CNMI greatly improved their standards of living as foreign investment and immigration laws changed the financial dynamics and demographics of the islands. Today, both Guam and the CNMI are dominated by foreign nationals, although primarily indigenous individuals serve in elected positions.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !445

Some suggest that the time for reunification has passed. Some say the separate governments for Guam and the Northern Marianas have become institutionalized; that the political leaders on Guam and in the NMI do not have the will to make the sacrifices necessary to fight for an idealistic goal: achieving Commonwealth status for Guam, then creating one elected government for one Marianas. Many people, particularly the business community, seem satisfied with the status quo and are indifferent to the indignity of “unincorporated” status. When asked about reunification today, most people respond by asking how reunification will benefit their pocketbooks today, rather than how it might benefit their grandchildren tomorrow.

!

Nonetheless, many Guamanians see the CNMI’s negotiated Covenant, with the protections it provides to the people of the Northern Marianas through its imbedded concept of Mutual Consent, as a significantly better political status than Guam’s unilateral Organic Act. The CNMI has its own constitution, Guam does not.

They have become aware of the pledge made to grant Guam a negotiated commonwealth status. Many point to the military buildup in the Marianas as a potential reunifying force. After all, it was the Department of Defense’s perceived need for a fallback base for Okinawa that drove forward the Northern Marianas political status movement in 1972. Today’s US-Japan security alliance still calls for moving marines from Okinawa. It seems logical that having one bargaining team dealing with Marianas military issues would result in a better deal for the Marianas than two different groups negotiating separately.

!

Perhaps the time is not at hand for reunification. As Henry Kissinger suggested and Governor Bordallo agreed, perhaps Guam must first achieve its own Commonwealth status, negotiating their most critical issues with the federal administration and creating their own constitution. Meanwhile, Congress continues to align its two territories regarding wage and immigration laws. And, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands may be given a chance to repeal Article 12 of its Constitution in 2014, equalizing land laws. Then, if Guam can attain Commonwealth Status with their own Constitution, then, perhaps, the two commonwealths could consider merging into one Commonwealth of the Marianas —perhaps as a fully incorporated territory—opening the door for full statehood and complete equality as American citizens, should the people decide to take that route at some time in the future.

!

One way or the other, the Calvos, Camachos, Cruzes, Leon Guerreros, Sablans, Taitanos, Torreses and Unpingcos, among many others, still have family and businesses relationships both north and south of the Rota Channel. It seems that 446 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

no damage could be done and some good might come from a comprehensive, joint study on the financial and legal impacts imposed on our two territories from having two different governments for one people, living in one archipelago, with far more convergent than divergent.

!

Those prophetic words memorialized in the resolution adopted by Speaker Won Pat’s 4th Guam Legislature ring as true today as they did in 1958: “WHEREAS despite this unfortunate and perhaps accidental division of one race, the people of the Marianas have never lost hope that a day will come when all the Chamorros once again will be reunited within a homogenous political and economic union under one governmental administration.”

!

The question is: Do the embers of self-determination still burn as deeply in the hearts of Guam’s people today as they did in 1950 and 1958, or are the people of Guam content to live with the indignity of being “unincorporated,” second class American citizens?

!

References Cogan, Doloris Coulter 2008 We Fought the Navy and Won: Guam’s Quest for Democracy. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

!

Dudden, A. 1992 The American Pacific, from the old China trade to the present. New York: Oxford University Press.

!

Farrell, Don 1984 Liberation--1944. Hagåtña: Micronesian Productions.

1986 The Americanization of Guam, 1898-1918 (2nd ed). Hagåtña: Micronesian Productions.

1994 “The Partition of the Marianas: A Diplomatic History, 1898-1919.” ISLA: A Journal of Micronesian Studies, 2:2. Dry Season, 273-301.

!

Freidel, Frank 1958 The Splendid Little War. Boston: Little Brown.

!

Garraty, J. 1953 Henry Cabot Lodge: A Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

!

Hezel, Francis, SJ. 2013 “The Early Spanish Period in the Marianas, 1668-1698: Eight Theses.” A paper delivered at the 2nd Marianas History Conference, UOG, Mangilao, Guam.

!

Higuchi, Wakako. 2013. The Japanese Administration of Guam, 1941 - 1944: A Study of Occupation and Integration Policies, with Japanese Oral Histories. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland and Co.

!

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !447

Holt, W. Stull 1933 Treaties Defeated by the Senate: A study of the struggle between president and senate over the conduct of foreign relations. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.

!

Kissinger, Henry 2011 On China. London: Penguin Books.

!

Hofschneider, Penelope Bordallo 2001 A Campaign for Political Rights on the Island of Guam; 1899-1950. Saipan: CNMI Division of Historic Preservation, Occasional Historical Papers Series No. 8.

Leibowitz, Arnold H. 1989 Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations.

Amsterdam: Nartinus Nijhoff Publishers.

!

Morgan, H. (Ed.) 1965 Making Peace with Spain: The Diary of Whitelaw Reid, September - December 1898.

Austin: University of Texas Press.

!

Peattie, Mark R. 1988 Nan’yo: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese in Micronesia, 1888-1945. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

!

Pratt, J. 1951 America’s colonial experiment: How the United States gained, governed, and in part gave away a colonial empire. New York: Prentice-Hall.

!

Pomeroy, E. 1951 Pacific Outpost: American Strategy in Guam and Micronesia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

!

Rogers, Robert F. 1995 Destiny’s Landfall: A History of Guam. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

!

Russell, Scott 1998 Tiempon I Manmofo’na; Ancient Chamorro Culture and History of the Northern Mariana Islands. Saipan, CNMI: Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No. 32, Division of Historic Preservation.

!

Souder-Jaffery, Laura and Robert A. Underwood (Eds) 1987 Chamorro Self-Determination: The Right of a People, I Derection I Taotao. Chamorros Studies Association and Micronesian Area Research Center, MARC Education Series Publication No. 7. Mangilao, Guam.

!

Spoehr, Alexander 1954 Saipan: The Ethnology of a War-Devastated Island. Fieldiana: Anthropology, Vol. 41.

Chicago Natural History Museum.

!Treaty of Peace Between the United States and Spain Signed at Paris, December 10, 1898,

accompanied by protocols and other papers (Senate Doc. No. 62, Part 1, 55th Cong., 3rd Session). (1898). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

448 ! ・ 2nd Marianas History Conference 2013

!

Tuchman, Barbara W. 1984 The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

!

Webb, James H., Jr. 1974 Micronesia and US Pacific Strategy: A Blueprint for the 1980s. New York: Praeger Publishers.

!

Weller, George 1944 Bases Overseas. Harcourt and Brace: New York.

!

Willens, Howard P and Deanne C. Siemer 2000 National Security and Self-Determination: United States Policy in Micronesia, 1961-1972.

Westport, Connecticut: Preager, 2000.

2002 An Honorable Accord: The Covenant Between the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

!

Willens, Howard P., with Dirk A. Ballendorf 2004 The Secret Guam Study: How President Ford’s 1975 Approval of Commonwealth Was Blocked by Federal Officials. Micronesian Area Research Center and NMI Division of Historic Preservation.

!

Wyttenbach, Richard H. Captain, USN. 1971 Micronesia and Strategic Trusteeship: A Case Study in American Politico-Military Relations. PhD thesis. Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

! !

--Don A. Farrell came to Guam from California in 1977 and taught at Inarajan Jr. High and John F. Kennedy High School before switching careers in 1980 to become a public relations officer for the Guam Legislature. He was chief of staff to the Speaker of the Guam Legislature, Carl Gutierrez, from 1982 to 1986. Farrell moved to Tinian in 1987 where he continues to do historical research, write, and teach. Among his numerous publications are the three volume Pictorial History of Guam, including The Americanization of Guam: 1898-1919 (Second Edition 1986), The Sacrifice: 1919-1943 (1991) and Liberation 1944 (1984); as well as History of the Northern Mariana Islands (1991) and History of the Mariana Islands to Partition (2011). Modern History of the Northern Mariana Islands is in publication.

2nd Marianas History Conference 2013 ・ !449

ORRO AM CH

DIPÅTTAM EN T

AO GUI NA AOH IK H A

N

N O

EN

FF AI

RS

R PA DE

TM

R TO F C H A MOR

O

A