 As defined by law, cultural heritage refers to the totality of cultural property preserved and developed through time and passed on to posterity. Cultural property refers to all products of human creativity by which a people in a nation reveal their identity. These include churches, mosques, and other places of worship, schools, and natural history specimens and sites, whether public or privately owned, movable or immovable, and tangible or intangible. In the series of lectures, esteemed educators from our national university lend pertinent discussions thus open academic discourses on Philippine cultural heritage relating to their respective fields of discipline and expertise. These can and may be used as resource materials for further learning and study. Respected archaeologist and professor Mandy Mejares points out that archaeology and cultural heritage cannot be decoupled from each other. Archaeologists must be concerned with the preservation and protection of our cultural heritage. They are lectured beyond archaeology and cultural heritage. First, we find what is archaeology. Cultural society's past likewise is focused on materials that have been remained by past civilizations and understand and construct their likewise. While cultural heritage is defined by Tikkobos, it is an expression of the ways and healing developed by the people and pasts on the region, including hostels, practices, and most of our cultural behaviors. When we talk about cultural heritage, they mostly think about large scale monuments such as, for example, in Europe. We have a stonehenge on the famous site in England. And of course Asia, our biggest monument, in such a case would be the Angkor Wat. So when people think of cultural heritage, always think of this grand scale. Unfortunately, we don't have any really large ancient monuments in the Philippines. And we would have to rely on something else to be able to understand our cultural heritage. Most archaeologists would focus on the artifacts per se. The cultural remains instead of the good monuments. Like, for example, stone ghouls, batteries is different designs, and the beads or glass beads are metal-implemented. So these are the artifacts that are focused on archaeologists. No longer the bigger monuments that most archaeologists have. For me, when we talk about archaeology, it's just not talking about the artifacts, but that's to be concerned also with the site. The site is the matrix and the context of these cultural materials without understanding them using the artifacts plus the beautiful materials. So most archaeologists focusing on artifacts devoid of the matrix would have just been describing it without really understanding the cultural past. The top of the site, as a building example of the open sites, is our large-scale habitant sites. The one up there is a booth. The one down there would be Pona Pampanga. We also have cave sites for which I primarily work on. Cave sites would depict a different types of enclosed excavations. And of course, we also have underwater cave sites. Especially, wreck sites that we've been able to recover mostly in historical materials. Take example of this site that was created in 1995 at Ngbatanes, in Guz Island, excavating these bones, bone shape barrels. The bones always been the burial and the bone shape as a heritage. And of course, it's also granul. You can see this nice bone shape excavated to see these human remains. But if you only look at the bone shape and the burial, without this surrounding environment, we're losing a lot. For example, this is a site of a plenary of what Pampanga is. We see the bone shapes, but the bone shapes has to be connected with the lab bahayans, the old structures, the jans. So, both as we understood, as told to each other, other than look at the bone per se, we have to look at the environment and its social context. In order to understand the past, context-wise, we need to understand if we do research on the matrix. So, we do a lab now of context-understanding the artifacts, we understand the soil, soil structure, using soil mineralogy, using technical analysis to understand how things are being deposited. And we do it so we may be able to reconstruct the history of how the artifact was buried, what transformed after the burial and what transformed after the burial. For example, it's invading soil sediment. We are now going over a lot of charcoals. Charcoals are not just simple circles. If you look at the microscope, they can be different types of plants. For example, this is Pampangaima. Pampangaima is basically the skin of a corugra. When it's buried, it can be preserved well. And if you be subjected to another analysis, like samples scattered in the microscope across the field, we're in to see the details of the class structure. And with that, should be required whether it's Pampangaima or wood. So, it's not just simply collected charcoals for dating anymore. It's collected, tending charcoals for identifying the plants remains of the past. This is an interesting story. We're in to find an biological sample associated with the future remain. This eye is our bone marrow portfolio or ramean. Ramean to what rameans are used for is fiber. This model is called the white ramean. It's being used again as fiber to give a type of viewing. So, let's see at the background. There, these are basically the states that we will go over archeologically. And you have the fiber that's derived from the stem. So, you have the biological material and we have the artifact used to spin the fiber. It's one of the rare questions when you have the correlation between the plants and the artifacts. So, skin on walls like this are used to spin it before weaving. And these are samples that are dated to about at least 3,000 years ago. Because a lot of what you call microtonicus, such as asphyxidids are samolong morasea or bread food. You have the samples for the cibera or coconut. So, we know from this plant remain that they were actually using these plants 3,000 years ago. The human types of grass, bamboo and seprasea. Seprasea type of grass that grows along the riverbanks. So, we know that they're collecting grass from riverbanks and probably using that as mats or baskets. Suppose you think that okay, organics don't survive, but there are remains that can be used to identify the plant remains. This calo cave, malama main at low to the side. It's a very exclusive place. It's one of the biggest cave sites in the formation. It's located in the northern zone. And it's called the Calo Man's Formation. There are 25 hundreds of cave sites. And most of them are not yet even excavated. All of us make around 12 cave sites in this area. But it's also the home of the Calo Man. 67,000 old fossils discovered in 2007. During the excavations, as you can see in this map, thousands of excavations in the 70s and 80s. At this time, the excavation started in 2003 until 2003. It's always been a problem in how the artifacts, the bones were being deposited. Most of my colleagues will think that this big gap here of rock wall was the former ceiling that collapsed. If we take that view, the mouth of the cave is farther south of what's now okay. But during my excavations, it seems that there must be something wrong with the depotations. Because when we excavated, just from the area, I'm not even sure about any fossils. So what's wrong with the depotations? The problem is, it's not actually part of the falling ceiling, but actually it's a falling wall. So the wall collapsed around in the homes ago. And during the time of the cave being used, there was actually no entrance. The only way to end the cave is by a simple. See if you'll be able to see the form of a circular meaning a digital structure of a safe home. So when this 70-years-old company was working around this area, he or she did not enter via the cave mouth, but via the safe hole that looked down before we were able to access the cave at the chamber A. In understanding that, then we have to check now how are things being posted. Looking at the different types of rock formations we've excavated since 1990 in 2003, you'll see that most of the caves rock formations are deep in south-west. So why are we saddening now? Why are we saddening now? Looking back when this creature was living in this area, there was actually a spiral river across where this is the most-being-impossed cave of the outside cave. People came via this spiral river. Understanding that, then, enough people were, most of the fossil would be, and they would be mostly along the side of the wall. So without understanding soil sedimentation and the structure, the context of the aquifax, the more difficult to pass, the more pain-point where to locate our excavation sites. So that understanding made people understand different depictional history of the usage. Now, we know that the bones was washed in, that this person did not take this at the cave, but he died outside the cave but the bones were washed in by the palm of the river. You see that this is a cave site. And the main agent for the position is watery water pigs. Even if it means removed to the palm of the channel, to the eastern cave, is the water of the cave. In the palm of the channel, with this side of the palm of the river, the brexit at the probation for serving all the fossils. Archaeology and cultural heritage did actually be separated. One, two, three. And for me, if you're an archaeologist, one has to be concerned for the protection and observation of all these heritage sites. It would be unethical for an archaeologist to just excavate and leave the site without any protection, or form of safeguarding at the area at the same age. I think it's because the it's because F word towards seeing the site as part of a full guarantee of heritage or in the artifacts, the void of the site is meaningless. But the problem is most archaeologists are just focused on the the artifacts per se and most often the sites are forgotten and sometimes even subjected to elemental destruction or the worst human destruction as a shahandi. When I was excavating the channel cave in 2007, we need to be able to protect the site yet make it part of the learning process that comes in into the cave. So what we mean is we did a story of the wall to make sure the walls won't collapse. We put an iron in parts as explanation for tourists of coming into the cave that they may be able to be educated. We have even placed a number of artifacts along the wall. So when people comes in the cave it means able to see what artifacts would be over to the site. The problem is when I left the site I thought the management of the cave would be able to protect it. What happened is that they removed all the art and then they created a long cave type that basically consumed the whole excavation area. So people will be able to see what's inside Once the site has been done what happens at the inside is that the cave becomes a big garbage pit. People are going there to stuff there. So it's a lower interactive as possible. The plan is if it be like a site museum so it would be quite partial of that penalty. But when people will have the close test that the site will say it's also as important as the artifacts the sites. In 2015 when I went back to the excavation at Calo Calo cave again had to excavate deeper wider and even going beyond the fence area. I'll destroy it part of the pathways. But that's not important once you stop excavating you go to the next stage of post excavation preservation. So what we did was again created a structure pull up on the sacks so sediments and before we left after a scene nothing happened. So for me and that's how you preserve sites you need to be able to really it's really expensive. One has to invest if you have money to excavate you have to have money to preserve if you don't if you only have one half of it then why excavate? It's nice to have all these artifacts being brought in to the museums. When at the museum you see them all these dioramas but the problem is it's devoid of this proper context. For me the site percent as part of the heritage that once we leave the site we also be able to develop it normal people there can be able to appreciate their heritage if you remove the artifact out from the museum to satin there anymore for the local people to appreciate without that they won't be educated and they won't be protecting the site. The only way to put the site is to get them involved in the protection but this has been done where indeed we are able to see that there is a proper way to preserve the heritage based on the local situation based on the local environment That's why for me I don't keep the heritage to know artifact in the site preservation I'm Dr. Armas Egotomi Harris U.P. at Dollar Stardust Program Thank you