The Kapampangan People: Its Origins and Culture

Traditional Origins of the Kapampangan People

Archaeological evidence shows that the earliest post-Neolithic inhabitants of Pampanga started living in what we now call Porac. Excavations by H. Otley Beyer reveal a sophisticated material culture corresponding with the late Tang Dynasty, as the latter's distinctive porcelain style shows. The next oldest habitation site is what is now the town of Candaba, then called Candawe. Wilhelm Solheim notes that earthenware remnants date to before AD 1000, during the early Song Dynasty. These two authors also found Neolithic material evidence in these two sites. As John Larkin notes, however, a millenia-long gap exists between these two times. Oral accounts collected in Spanish times, however, may provide an answer.

A Jesuit priest, Fr Francisco Colin SJ, records this anecdote from a Kapampangan who drifted to Sumatra:

A Pampango of sense, finding himself adrift and astray there [Sumatra] through various accidents (and from whom I learned it), testified that those people [of Sumatra] spoke excellent Pampango, and wore the oldtime dress of the Pampangos. When he questioned one of their old men, the latter answered: “You [Pampangos] are descendants of the lost people who left here in past times to settle in other lands, and were never heard of again.”

This anecdote finds similarities in Kapampangan oral traditions, a notable example being the forged "Will of Fernando Malang Balagtas". Despite its forged nature, the document repeats known (at that time) oral traditions about Kapampangans coming from adventurer parties from Sumatra. The document itself details the alleged exploits of a Prince Balagtas, who fleed Majapahit and established a dominion in Pampanga dedicated to liberty and economic freedom. While a fanciful tale, this myth manifests the Kapampangan values of liberty (katimawan) and fortitude (tepangan).

The Kapampangan Social Structure

In precolonial times, Kapampangan society was notable for banning chattel slavery. No rigid castes also existed, unlike in Tagalog or Visayan domains. Instead, three broad societal divisons existed. Noblemen, or "guinu" lead communities both in peace and war. In peace, nobles were expected by custom to settle disputes, judge cases, direct construction, and collect annual tributes. While normally hereditary, anyone could rise to the nobility. Anyone could also challenge a community leader's place in arms or wisdom, subject to the council's decision. In war, nobles would lead bands of freemen in campaigns abroad. While nobles had rights in judicial and executive matters, they were expected to work and produce the same way freemen were. Next to the nobility were freemen, or "timawa". Freemen could own property, perform economic activities, and trade freely. Other than an annual tribute to subject nobles, freemen could do whatever they wanted. Freemen could also enlist with nobles to soldier outside of their communities. Both freemen and nobles could get into debt or obligations, turning them into serfs. Serfs, or "ipus", became bonded to masters from debts or crimes. Serfs were expected to help their master in production and management. In this way, they acted similar to European serfs in that other than their obligations, Kapampangan serfs could do anything else in their free time. Serfs could also have their contracts bought and sold freely between freemen and nobles. Lastly, marriage between a freeman and a serf would cause half of the union's children to be serfs in turn. Serfs could buy themselves out of bondage through enough work. Kapampangans had a customary code of law that dictated how they would act with respect to each other. Juan de Plasencia recorded these customs in great detail. These arrangements continued well into Spanish times. Kapampangan guinu became part of the Spanish nobility, receiving titles in the Spanish peerage. Kapampangan nobles and freemen studied alongside Spaniards in universities and colleges in Manila and Spain. Nobles would recruit freemen in wars against the Dutch and British across the Pacific. Despite the encomienda system's abolition early into Spanish rule, Kapampangan leaders leveraged their control of Manila's food supply to keep serfdom in place until the mid-17th century.

The Kapampangan Character

Springing from their origins as Sumatran adventurers who seeked liberty and freedom, Kapampangan society remains individualistic, self-reliant, and maverick. This can be seen in precolonial and Spanish times, where chattel slavery was banned and nobles and freemen both worked for produce. Individual liberty and freedom outside of debt and obligations remained the norm, especially after serfdom's final abolition in the mid-17th century. This individualistic character contrasts with Tagalog and Visayan societies, where tall poppy syndrome, two-facedness, and collectivism prevail. Kapampangans have gained a reputation for boastfulness and arrogance for their refusal to conform, their confidence in one's own skill, and sheer straightforwardness. Kapampangans also have an enterprising attitude, with energetic readiness for action. Lastly, a saying goes that one may not feed a Kapampangan scraps, even if he is starving. Kapampangans will gladly complain of present circumstances while being ready enough to act and overturn them. One may see this character in action with the number of new businesses that start in Pampanga every year. Kapampangans have done well despite, or even becasue of hardship and adversity. Witness how after Mt Pinatubo's eruption, Pampanga became richer than it was before. On the other hand, Tagalogs would either whine or act subserviently in face of a threat. Tagalogs would gladly bark loud while their bite scarcely pierces the skin. Tagalogs will also keep a non-confrontational facade, and will constantly beat around the bush rather than get to the point. Tagalogs also practice permanent employment, while Kapampangans would gladly leave employment to start their own businesses. Duplicity marks the Tagalog character, and Kapampangans would be wise to be cautious in dealing with one.