Daily Tribune‘The stone houses are Ivatan in their authorship and environmental intelligence, Austronesian in their deeper cultural foundations, and Philippine in the historical path through which masonry, the bahay na bato and Dominican town-building were received and remade.’
Sta. Rosa de Lima Chapel in Chavayan Village in Sabtang.
PHOTOGRAPH COURTESY OF DOT
Rock House in Sabtang that is sturdy to strong typhoons.
A t a symposium held on 30 June, scholars from Chinese universities reportedly argued that Batanes was a “natural extension” of Taiwan and therefore belonged to China. The Philippine government rejected the assertion, while Beijing itself had not formally endorsed it as of 9 July.
The claim should invite a closer reading and appreciation of Batanes from the general populace. Architecture can preserve a remarkably detailed record of who lived in a place, how they organized their communities, and which historical forces shaped them.
Long before the stone houses now familiar from postcards, Ivatan communities were built largely with timber and cogon. They also used elevated fortified settlements called ijang — terraced hilltops and ridges that provided defensible positions during periods of conflict. Archaeological studies by Eusebio Dizon, Rey Santiago and Peter Bellwood place these sites within thousands of years of migration, settlement and exchange across the waters north of Luzon.
The architecture for which Batanes is now known took shape during a later chapter of Philippine history. Spanish administration was established in the islands in 1783, and Dominican missions began reorganizing settlements and constructing churches as part of the Spanish colonial Philippines. The introduction of larger-scale lime production, masonry construction, and craftspeople from Cagayan allowed stone building to become more widespread.
The Ivatan house that emerged joined imported stone-and-lime technology with Ivatan knowledge of terrain, weather, domestic life and available materials. Architect Jose F. Ignacio’s survey of Batanes heritage architecture describes this tradition as a combination of precolonial Ivatan forms and the colonial Philippine bahay na bato, modified for conditions unlike those of the mainland.
Among its principal forms is the sinadumparan, which commonly appears as a low, one-storey stone house. Its storage level may be partly sunk below ground, while the main living spaces occupy the floor above. The larger rakuh retains a more visibly two-storey arrangement, with storage and service functions below and the principal living quarters upstairs.
This organization connects it to the broader Filipino bahay na bato tradition, although the Ivatan version replaces the more open and frequently timber-dominated upper floors found elsewhere with a compact masonry form suited to Batanes.
The houses are identified by thick stone walls, limited openings, timber doors and shutters, and steep roofs traditionally covered in cogon. The walls provide mass and enclosure against severe weather, while the roof carries rain away quickly and can be repaired or replaced as its organic material deteriorates.
The same process of adaptation appears in the churches. Basco’s first church was constructed from wood and cogon, but stone-and-lime construction began around 1795 with the assistance of masons, stonecutters and carpenters brought from Cagayan. The cathedral that followed belonged to the Dominican mission system of the Philippines, yet its materials and construction were increasingly adjusted to the islands.
Sabtang Church, begun in lime and stone in 1844, uses thick masonry walls, exterior buttresses, four broad pilasters and an espadaña, or bell gable, integrated into its weighty façade. Mahatao Church similarly uses stone and lime, with step buttresses and buttress walls increasing the thickness of portions of the structure.
These churches are recognizably part of the Filipino colonial town-building tradition. At the same time, they demonstrate how the Ivatans transformed that tradition: towers became more compact, walls became heavier, and buildings settled more firmly into the terrain.
Its architecture makes that history visible. The stone houses are Ivatan in their authorship and environmental intelligence, Austronesian in their deeper cultural foundations and Philippine in the historical path through which masonry, the bahay na bato and Dominican town-building were received and remade.
