Puso

The Green Heart of the Visayas: A Historiographical and Anthropological Analysis of Pusô and Palm Leaf Art

Introduction: The Ephemeral Architecture of Rice

In the vast material culture of the Austronesian world, few artifacts encapsulate the intersection of utility, artistry, and spirituality as profoundly as the woven palm leaf pouch. Known in the Visayan region of the Philippines as pusô, this object is far more than a mere vessel for cooking rice. It is a woven text, a tangible remnant of pre-colonial geometry, and a surviving testament to an ancient gastronomic science that predates the arrival of European explorers in the archipelago.¹ The pusô represents a sophisticated mastery of the environment, specifically the domestication and utilization of the coconut palm (Cocos nucifera) and nipa palm (Nypa fruticans), transforming ephemeral organic matter into intricate, structural forms that serve specific social, religious, and economic functions.²

This report serves as a comprehensive analysis of pusô, grounded heavily in the pioneering archival work of Elmer Nocheseda, whose scholarship on the vocabularios of the 16th to 19th centuries has provided the primary window into the historical status of this art form.¹ By triangulating Nocheseda’s archival discoveries with broader Austronesian linguistics, comparative ethnography of the Malay world, and modern food science, we reconstruct the “Green Heart” of the Visayas. We traverse the journey of the pusô from its linguistic roots in the Proto-Malayo-Polynesian lexicon to its sacred role in the paganitu rituals of the babaylan, and finally to its persistence as a utilitarian street food in contemporary Cebu.¹

The analysis operates across four primary movements. The Linguistic Archive examines the Spanish-Visayan dictionaries that froze the diverse typology of pusô in time, revealing a lost vocabulary of shapes that mirrored the social hierarchy and animist worldview of early Filipinos. Ritual to Utility explores the anthropological function of these pouches, particularly the pagbutas ritual, where the breaking of the woven leaf symbolized the severance of the living from the dead.² The Pan-Asian Context places the Visayan pusô in dialogue with the Indonesian ketupat and the Tausug tamu, highlighting the subtle technical divergences—such as midrib utilization and exit points—that mark distinct cultural identities within the “Coconut Civilization”.³ Finally, Gastronomic Science investigates the chemical and physical properties of cooking in palm leaves—from the infusion of aseptic lactones to the thermodynamics of compression—that allowed this method to persist as a superior technology for food preservation in a tropical climate.⁴

This investigation posits that the pusô is not merely a passive container but an active agent in Visayan history. It functioned as a currency of spiritual negotiation in the 17th century, a marker of social stratification in the feasts of the datu, and today serves as a symbol of regional identity against the homogenization of globalized food systems. The survival of pusô weaving, despite the fragility of its medium and the erosion of its ritual context, speaks to the resilience of ephemeral architecture in the face of colonial and modernizing pressures.¹

Part I: The Linguistic Archive

1.1 The Vocabularios as Ethnographic Windows

The reconstruction of pre-colonial Visayan material culture relies heavily on the lexical inventories compiled by Spanish missionaries. These vocabularios—dictionaries intended to facilitate evangelization—inadvertently preserved the terminology of the animist world they sought to dismantle. Elmer Nocheseda’s rigorous analysis of these texts, particularly those by Fray Mateo Sánchez (1617), Fray Alonso de Méntrida (1637), and the historian Francisco Ignacio Alcina (1668), provides the foundational data for understanding the complexity of pusô.¹ These texts are not merely lists of words; they are archaeological sites of meaning, preserving concepts that have no direct translation in Western thought.

It is crucial to understand that for the early Visayans, there was no generic word for “art” in the Western sense. Artistry was embedded in the creation of functional and ritual objects. The Spanish entries for pusô do not merely describe a “rice cake”; they describe a complex taxonomy of forms that functioned as a visual language. Sánchez (1617), stationed in Dagami, Leyte, listed fourteen distinct types of pusô, while Méntrida (1637), working in Panay, recorded six, some of which overlapped with Sánchez’s list but included unique regional variants.⁵ This geographic distribution of terms between Leyte and Panay suggests a widespread, inter-island cultural practice with localized dialects of weaving.

This proliferation of terms suggests that pusô weaving was a highly developed skill, a literacy of the hands possessed by the general population, particularly women. The fact that specific shapes had specific names indicates a codified system where the form of the pouch dictated its function or symbolic weight. For instance, the Spanish records differentiate between pusô used for travel (sustenance) and those used for paganitu (offerings), although the material—lukay (coconut fronds)—remained consistent.¹ The entries also reveal a deep integration with the natural world; the shapes are not abstract geometric forms but mimetic representations of the flora and fauna surrounding the weaver.

1.2 Etymology and the “Heart” of the Matter

The term pusô itself is derived from the Visayan word for “heart,” explicitly referencing the biological organ. This etymology is visually consistent with the most common form of the pouch, the kinasing (from kasing, heart), which resembles the human heart with the loose strands of the palm leaf emerging from the top like the aorta and vena cava.⁵ The linguistic choice to name the rice pouch after the seat of emotion and life (in many Austronesian cultures) suggests an ontological connection between rice—the sustenance of life—and the heart. In Cebuano, the term pusô functions as a synecdoche, where the heart-shaped vessel stands in for the life-giving essence of the cooked grain it contains.

However, the linguistic archive reveals a divergence in terminology as one moves south. In the Sulu Archipelago and among the Yakan and Tausug peoples, the cognate term is tamu or temu. This shifts the etymology from anatomy to social interaction. In Proto-Malayo-Polynesian, *temu or *tamu relates to “meeting,” “guest,” or “to meet”.⁶ The tamu is the food served to guests or consumed at communal gatherings. This linguistic split—pusô (Heart/Anatomy) in the Visayas versus tamu (Guest/Meeting) in the South—highlights two different cultural emphases: the Visayan focus on the object’s vitality and the form itself, versus the Southern focus on the social occasion the object facilitates. The Tausug term tamu implies a reciprocal obligation of hospitality, whereas pusô implies a vital offering.

Furthermore, the archive distinguishes between the types of leaves used. The term lukay generally refers to the young, pliable, yellowish-green leaves of the coconut palm, which are preferred for weaving due to their flexibility and aesthetic quality.⁵ The choice of lukay over mature green fronds is significant; the pale, yellow-green hue is visually associated with vitality and freshness, distinct from the dark green of decay or maturity. In contrast, nipa (Nypa fruticans) leaves were also used but often for different culinary preparations or specific ritual pouches, possessing a different tensile strength and flavor profile. The Spanish records note the specific use of “whitest possible palm leaves” for ritual birds, indicating that the color (aging) of the leaf was a semiotic marker; white/pale yellow signified purity and the sacred, while darker green leaves were perhaps for mundane consumption.⁵

1.3 A Taxonomy of Lost Forms

The vocabularios provide a haunting inventory of shapes, many of which are no longer woven today or are woven only by a dwindling number of manlalah (weavers). Nocheseda’s collation of these terms reveals a world where the weaver mimicked the natural and social environment with exacting precision. The taxonomy ranges from the mundane to the celestial, indicating that the pusô was a microcosm of the Visayan universe.

The following table synthesizes the major forms documented in the 17th and 18th centuries, cross-referenced with their likely symbolic meanings and source texts.

Visayan Term	Literal Translation	Shape/Form Description	Symbolic Implication	Source
Cumol sin datu	The Datu’s Fist	Shaped like a clenched fist	Power, masculine authority, hierarchy	5
Linalaqui	Male / Like a Man	Phallic or angular / “Esquinado”	Masculinity, fertility, active principle	5
Binabaye	Female / Like a Woman	Breasts / “Mouthful”	Femininity, nurturing, passive principle	5
Pinawikan	Sea Turtle-like	Oval, shell-like	Longevity, maritime connection	2
Linangbay	Crab-like	Roundabout/Crab shape	Aquatic resource, dexterity	2
Binitoon	Star-like	Star-shaped	Celestial navigation, cosmology	7
Minanok / Ginawig	Chicken-like / Hen	Bird-shaped	Ritual offering, medium to the spirit world	5
Sinaop	Clasped Hands	Two hands joined	Prayer, unity, agreement	7
Binungî	Extracted Tooth	Irregular/Gapped form	Rite of passage, incomplete state	5
Binangkito	Stool-like	Upside-down stool	Altar offering, foundation	5

The existence of cumol sin datu (“The Datu’s Fist”) is particularly revealing. It suggests that the consumption of rice was stratified. The datu, the pre-colonial chieftain, was associated with the fist—symbolizing martial strength and the holding of power. To eat a pusô shaped like a fist was to partake in a symbol of that power, or perhaps it was reserved for the datu’s table.⁵ This form likely functioned as a status symbol during feasts, distinguishing the leader’s portion from the commoner’s. Conversely, the linalaqui and binabaye forms suggest a dualism common in Austronesian cosmology, where the world is balanced by male and female energies. These shapes were likely essential in fertility rituals or marriage ceremonies, where the union of the two forms on a banquet table (or dulang) would invoke blessing.⁵

The zoomorphic forms—pinawikan (turtle), linangbay (crab), minanok (chicken)—reflect the immediate environment of the Visayans. They were a maritime people living in an archipelago. The weaving of a turtle or a crab into a rice pouch is a form of sympathetic magic or homage to the spirits of nature. The minanok, in particular, is significant because chickens were the primary sacrificial animals in Visayan animism. Weaving a rice-chicken might have served as a substitute offering or an accompaniment to the actual blood sacrifice during a paganitu.⁵ This substitution implies a sophisticated ritual economy where representation (the woven image) could stand in for the reality (the animal).

Forms like binitoon (star-like) point to an awareness of celestial bodies, crucial for a seafaring people who navigated by the stars. The consumption of such shapes could be interpreted as an internalization of cosmic order. The binangkito (stool-like) from Bohol, often used on lantayan altars, reinforces the idea that pusô were not just food but structural elements of the ritual space itself.⁵ They were building blocks of the altar, creating a sacred architecture out of rice and leaf.

Part II: Ritual to Utility — The Metamorphosis of Meaning

2.1 The Paganitu and the Sacred Geometry

Before the pusô became the “hanging rice” of modern Cebuano street food, it was a conduit to the divine. Father Francisco Ignacio Alcina, in his monumental Historia de las islas e indios de Bisayas (1668), provides the most vivid accounts of pusô in its ritual context. He describes the paganitu, the animist rituals performed to communicate with the diwata (nature spirits or ancestors). In these rites, food was not merely for consumption; it was a medium of exchange between the visible and invisible worlds.¹

Alcina notes that specific pusô shapes were “invented” for these rituals. The linangang (woven like a small bird) and ginawig (woven like a large hen) were crucial.⁵ The diwata were believed to consume the “essence” or “soul” of the food (the aroma, the steam), while the participants would later consume the physical matter. The intricate weaving was a way to make the offering attractive to the spirits. A complex weave demonstrated the dedicator’s patience, skill, and intent—a higher value offering than loose rice. The labor invested in the weaving was part of the sacrifice.

Nocheseda highlights that these ritual pusô were often left unopened, consecrated to the spirits, and allowed to decay naturally, or they were consumed in a communal feast following the ritual.¹ This establishes the pusô as a vessel of transubstantiation in the animist sense—the rice inside became charged with spiritual energy through the ritual of the weave and the ceremony of the babaylan. The pouch acted as a battery, storing the spiritual potency of the ritual. The distinction between “food for humans” and “food for spirits” was often marked by the complexity of the weave; the spirits required the aesthetic labor of the linangang, while humans might suffice with the simpler kinasing.

2.2 The Pagbutas: Severing the Ties

Perhaps the most profound ritual usage of the pusô documented in the Spanish archives is the pagbutas. The term comes from the root butas, meaning “to separate” or “to create a hole/passage”.⁸ This ritual was a funerary rite performed after the burial of the dead, specifically to manage the grief and spiritual danger associated with death.

According to Alcina and interpreted by Nocheseda, the pagbutas involved tying together a cluster of pusô, specifically the fist-sized variants (likely the cumol sin datu or a similar form), into a large bunch. This bunch was placed in a basin of water. The daitan or baylan (shaman) would then take a knife and cut the strips of palm leaf that bound the pusô together, allowing them to separate and float individually in the water.² The cutting was accompanied by prayers invoking the separation of the living from the dead.

The symbolism here is stark and moving. The bunch of pusô represented the family unit or the community, tightly bound together in life. The cutting of the ties symbolized the necessary social and spiritual severance of the deceased from the living. It was a ritualized enactment of grief and release. Without the pagbutas, it was feared the spirit of the dead would linger, causing illness or misfortune to the living relatives (a concept known as awog or onong).⁹ The pusô here functions as a doll, a stand-in for the human soul. The cutting is not an act of violence, but an act of liberation, ensuring the social order is restored after the disruption of death. The water in the basin likely symbolized the transition, a fluid boundary between the realms. This ritual underscores the pusô’s role as a metaphysical tool, capable of mediating the most fundamental human transition.

2.3 Syncretism: From Diwata to Santo Niño

With the Christianization of the Visayas, the pusô did not disappear; it adapted. The Catholic Church, while suppressing the overt paganitu rituals, often tolerated the use of material culture that could be re-signified. The pusô found its way onto the altares of the new faith, engaging in a complex process of syncretism.

In modern Cebu, specifically in the mountain barangay of Taptap, researchers have documented the continued use of pusô in rituals that blend folk Catholicism with animism. The minanok (chicken-shaped pusô) is still used as an offering, now often directed toward the Santo Niño or family ancestors during All Souls’ Day, rather than the nature diwata explicitly.¹⁰ The pusô are placed on the family altar (ofrenda) alongside Catholic icons, candles, and rosaries. This juxtaposition illustrates how the pusô serves as a bridge between the indigenous past and the Catholic present, maintaining its function as a conduit for prayer and offering.

The Sinulog festival in Cebu, nominally a feast for the Holy Child, retains echoes of this rice culture. While pusô is now primarily sold as street food to the millions of pilgrims, its presence is ubiquitous. It is the “festival food” par excellence. Furthermore, in other festivals like the Pahiyas in Lucban (though Tagalog, sharing the palm leaf tradition) or the feast of San Isidro Labrador in various Visayan towns, woven palm leaves (palaspas) and rice pouches remain central to the aesthetic of thanksgiving.¹¹ The woven palm, once the antenna for calling the diwata, became the palaspas blessed on Palm Sunday, believed by the folk to possess apotropaic powers against lightning and evil spirits—a direct functional continuity from its pre-colonial protective role. The pusô offered at the San Isidro Labrador festival is an explicit recognition of the agrarian roots of the faith, tying the Christian patron of farmers to the indigenous technology of the harvest.¹²

In the Semana Santa (Holy Week) observances in the Visayas, specifically in the ritual of tubong or putong (crowning), woven palm elements often play a role in the aesthetics of the ceremony.¹³ While distinct from the pusô as food, the material language is identical. The persistence of these forms in the most solemn Catholic rituals suggests that the palm leaf remains the primary medium for articulating the sacred in the Visayan imagination.

Part III: The Pan-Asian Context — Ketupat, Tamu, and the Coconut Belt

3.1 The Coconut Belt Connection

To understand the Visayan pusô, one must view it as part of a “Coconut Civilization” that stretches across the Austronesian world. The distribution of the woven rice pouch correlates almost perfectly with the geographic range of the coconut palm in Southeast Asia. From the ketupat of Indonesia and Malaysia to the katumpat of Guam (before corn replaced rice), the technology of weaving rice into palm leaves is a shared heritage.³ This shared material culture points to ancient maritime networks of trade and migration, where the idea of the woven pouch traveled alongside the coconut and the outrigger canoe.

The linguistic connections are undeniable. The Malay/Indonesian word ketupat has cognates in the Philippines, such as the katumpat of the Sama-Bajau and the patupat of the Ilocanos.⁵ However, the Visayan use of the word pusô is unique in its anatomical focus, distinct from the ketupat/atupat (four-cornered/packed) and tamu (guest) linguistic lineage. This suggests a specific Visayan innovation or localization of the concept, elevating the “heart” metaphor over the geometric or social descriptions used elsewhere. The Visayan term centers the object on the body and vitality, whereas the Malay term ketupat (linked to ngaku lepat, admitting mistakes, in Javanese folk etymology) centers it on social ethics and geometry.¹⁴

3.2 Technical Divergence: Pusô vs. Ketupat

While they appear similar to the untrained eye, Nocheseda and other textile experts identify critical technical differences between the Visayan pusô and the Malay/Indonesian ketupat. These divergences are not merely cosmetic; they represent different engineering solutions to the problem of enclosing volume with a leaf strip.

1. The Midrib (Tukog) Utilization:

In the weaving of the standard Visayan kinasing (heart-shaped pusô), the weaver uses the lukay (leaf strip) but often retains or utilizes the tension of the midrib (tukog) to create the structure, or weaves around the base of the leaf stem. In many complex Visayan forms, the midrib is integral to the structural integrity, acting as a spine.¹⁵ The manlalah (pusô weaver) often strips the leaf but keeps the midrib attached at the base to serve as a handle or anchor point. Conversely, for the standard diamond-shaped ketupat (specifically ketupat bawang or ketupat pasar), the midrib is usually removed entirely to create a flexible, hollow ribbon (the janur), which is then woven into a self-supporting geometric lattice.¹⁶ This makes the ketupat a purely woven textile shell, whereas the pusô is often a semi-rigid basket anchored by the spine of the leaf.

2. The Exit Points and Geometry:

The geometry of the weave dictates where the loose ends of the leaves exit. In the kinasing pusô, the two ends of the leaf strips exit at the same point—the top of the “heart.” This allows them to be tied together, facilitating the “hanging” aspect (hence “hanging rice”).³ The pouch hangs like a fruit from a stem, mimicking the natural growth habit of the coconut itself. In contrast, the classic ketupat weave usually results in the two loose ends (the tail and the head) exiting at opposite corners of the diamond. This diagonal symmetry is characteristic of the ketupat and represents a different mathematical approach to enclosing volume.¹⁶ The ketupat is designed to sit flat or be stacked, while the pusô is designed to hang.

3. The Weaving Motion:

The pusô generally utilizes a technique that can be described as “clasping” or “fist-forming,” often starting from a central knot or the base of the stem and working outwards/upwards. The weaver holds the base in the palm and builds the structure around the imaginary volume of the rice. The ketupat often begins with the “winding” of the leaf strips around the hand to create the warp and weft frames before interlacing them. This reflects a slight divergence in the motor memory and transmission of the craft between the Visayan and Malay/Indonesian spheres.¹⁰ The ketupat weave is more akin to mat weaving (banig), while the pusô weave is more akin to basketry.

3.3 The Tamu of the Sulu Archipelago

The tamu of the Tausug and Yakan peoples in the southern Philippines serves as the bridge between the Visayan pusô and the Indonesian ketupat. The tamu shares the nomenclature of the south but exhibits the morphological diversity of the Visayas. The tamu pinad (diamond-shaped) is visually identical to the ketupat, yet the Tausug also weave the kumol sin datu (fist) and pat bettes (cow hooves), shapes that echo the Visayan propensity for biomimicry.⁵ This suggests that the Sulu Archipelago was a transition zone where the strict geometric forms of the Malay ketupat tradition blended with the sculptural, figurative tradition of the Philippine archipelago.

The tamu is often served with satti (spicy skewered meat), mirroring the pusô and barbecue pairing in Cebu, but also the ketupat and satay pairing in Java.⁵ This culinary triad—rice pouch, skewered meat, and dipping sauce—forms a contiguous gastronomic region. However, the tamu retains a distinct identity through its specific ritual uses in Hari Raya celebrations, where the tamu pinad is the dominant form, linking it explicitly to the Islamic calendar and the wider Malay Muslim world.⁵

Part IV: Gastronomic Science and Material Culture

4.1 The Physics of Compression and Thermodynamics

The culinary success of the pusô lies in the physics of its enclosure. Unlike suman or binalot, where leaves are simply wrapped around the food, the pusô is a woven container that exerts mechanical pressure. Rice (unpacked) is poured into this container until it is about half or two-thirds full. The pouch is then submerged in boiling water.⁵ This method is thermodynamically distinct from steaming or absorption cooking.

As the rice grains absorb water and undergo gelatinization, they expand significantly. However, the woven palm leaf matrix provides a rigid limit to this expansion. This creates high internal pressure, similar to a pressure cooker or the compression used in making Japanese mochi or rice cakes. The result is a dense, cohesive cake of rice where the individual grains are fused. This compression serves a utilitarian purpose: the rice becomes solid enough to be sliced (as done with ketupat for satay) or held in the hand without crumbling (as with pusô for street food).¹⁷ The texture is distinctly different from loose steamed rice—it is chewier, denser, and more satiating.

Furthermore, the hydraulic environment of boiling ensures even heat distribution. The pusô is suspended in the boiling liquid, allowing for convection currents to cook the rice uniformly from all sides. The woven nature of the pouch allows water to enter and exit, but the swelling of the rice grains eventually seals the gaps in the weave, creating a semi-closed system that retains moisture while allowing excess starch to leach out. This results in a product that is moist but firm, solving the problem of uneven cooking common in open-fire pot cooking.

4.2 The Chemistry of Preservation: Tannins and Antibacterials

The pusô was the “Tupperware” of the pre-colonial era. Its primary utility was extending the shelf life of cooked rice in a tropical climate. Modern chemical analysis of coconut leaves (Cocos nucifera) reveals why this works. The preservation is not merely physical; it is chemical.

The young coconut leaves (lukay) contain significant amounts of phenolic compounds, specifically tannins and flavonoids.¹⁸ Tannins are known for their antimicrobial and antioxidant properties. When the rice is boiled inside the leaf, these compounds leach slightly into the surface layer of the rice cake. This creates a chemical barrier against spoilage bacteria such as Bacillus subtilis and Escherichia coli. Studies on coconut leaf extracts have shown inhibition zones against these pathogens.¹⁹ The lukay acts as a natural preservative wrapper.

Comparison with nipa leaves (Nypa fruticans) reveals a similar but distinct profile. Nipa extracts also show antimicrobial activity, particularly against E. coli and S. aureus.²⁰ However, the lukay is often preferred for pusô due to its higher availability and specific structural properties. The infusion of these phenolics extends the shelf life of pusô to 24-48 hours without refrigeration, a critical feature for travelers, warriors, and fishermen in the 16th century, and for street vendors in the 21st.²¹ This anti-spoilage mechanism was likely a key factor in the spread of this technology across the tropical coconut belt.

4.3 Flavor Profile: The Lipid Transfer

Gastronomically, pusô is prized for its flavor, often described as having “grassy,” “nutty,” or “earthy” notes. This is not accidental. The epicuticular wax of the palm leaf contains lipids and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). During the high-heat boiling process, lactones (specifically γ-decalactone and γ-octalactone) and other fatty acid derivatives are released from the leaf structure and absorbed by the lipids in the rice.⁴

These lactones are responsible for the characteristic “coconut” or “peach-like” aroma associated with palm products. Additionally, the interaction between the leaf chlorophyll and the heat imparts a subtle tea-like astringency (from the tannins) that cuts through the richness of the fatty meats (like lechon or tuwa) traditionally paired with pusô.⁴ This flavor infusion makes the pusô an ingredient in itself, not just a container. The porous nature of the rice grains acts as a sponge for these volatiles.

Recent studies on the flavor compounds of rice cooked in bamboo and palm leaves confirm the migration of specific aldehydes and alcohols from the container to the grain. The presence of these compounds enhances the sensory experience, adding a layer of olfactory complexity that plain steamed rice lacks. The choice of leaf—young lukay versus older fronds—will vary the intensity of this flavor, with younger leaves providing a sweeter, more subtle aroma compared to the more bitter, tannic profile of older leaves.

Conclusion: The Weaver’s Legacy

The pusô of the Visayas is a masterful synthesis of the environment and the human need to impose order on nature. It is a technology that transformed the ubiquitous coconut palm into a tool for survival (preservation), a medium for art (sculptural weaving), and a vessel for the sacred (ritual offerings). The pusô is a testament to the ingenuity of the Austronesian ancestors who saw in the palm frond the potential for civilization.

Elmer Nocheseda’s work in analyzing the vocabularios has allowed us to see the pusô not as a static object, but as a surviving remnant of a complex pre-colonial visual language. The shift from the cumol sin datu of the chieftain’s feast to the “hanging rice” of the Cebuano street corner reflects the democratization of the object. What was once perhaps a symbol of hierarchy or a ritual exclusive has become the sustenance of the common worker. Yet, in this transition, the memory of the sacred has not been entirely erased; it persists in the pagbutas of the funerary rites and the offerings on the Sinulog altars.

However, the “Green Heart” is under threat. The influx of plastic bags and the loss of weaving knowledge among the younger generation threatens to sever the continuity of this art form. The pusô relies on the manlalah—the weaver—and without the transmission of this tactile literacy, the geometry of the Visayan past will disappear. As Nocheseda argued, the preservation of the pusô is not just about saving a food item; it is about preserving a way of seeing the world, a cognitive map where the heart, the hand, and the harvest are woven into one.¹

The future of pusô lies in recognizing it as a piece of intangible cultural heritage. Its value is not just in its utility, but in its ability to connect the modern Visayan to a lineage of weavers who understood the language of the palm. In every woven heart, there is a history of resistance, adaptation, and an enduring relationship with the land. To eat a pusô is to partake in that history.

Appendix: Proposed Article Outline

Title: The Weaver’s Rice: A History of Visayan Palm Art

Target Publication: Journal of Southeast Asian Studies or Gastronomica

Length: 8,000–10,000 words

I. Introduction: The Rice that Hangs

• Hook: A sensory description of a Cebuano pungko-pungko (street food stall)—the steam, the grease, and the hanging bunches of pusô.
• Thesis: The pusô is a “culinary artifact” that archives the linguistic, religious, and technological history of the Visayas.

II. The Vocabulary of the Weave

• Source Material: A deep dive into Sánchez (1617) and Alcina (1668).
• The Lost Shapes: Visualizing the cumol sin datu, binitoon, and pinawikan.
• Linguistic Analysis: Pusô (Heart) vs. Tamu (Guest)—mapping the Austronesian divide.

III. The Sacred Pouch: Food as Medium

• The Paganitu: How pusô functioned as a “spirit vessel” in animist rites.
• The Pagbutas: The anthropology of grief and the ritual cutting of the pusô bunch to separate the dead.
• Syncretism: From the diwata to the Santo Niño—how the weave survived the cross.

IV. The Science of the Leaf

• Materiality: Why Cocos nucifera? The properties of lukay.
• Food Tech: Compression, sterilization, and the chemistry of tannins/preservation.
• Taste: The lactone transfer—why pusô tastes different from pot-cooked rice.

V. Comparative Geometries

• Visayas vs. Java: A technical comparison of pusô and ketupat.
• The Exit Point Theory: How weaving directionality indicates cultural migration paths.

VI. Conclusion: Untying the Knot

• Current Status: The decline of the manlalah (weaver) profession.
• Future: Plastic vs. Palm—the ecological argument for reviving pusô.
• Final thought: The pusô as a symbol of Filipino resilience—adaptable, organic, and enduring.

---

References

Footnotes

1. Nocheseda, E. “The Art of Pusô: Palm Leaf Art in the Visayas in Vocabularios of the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Centuries.” Philippine Studies, accessed November 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241896494_The_Art_of_Puso_Palm_Leaf_Art_in_the_Visayas_in_Vocabularios_of_the_Sixteenth_to_the_Nineteenth_Centuries ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹

2. Nocheseda, E. “The Art of Pusô: Palm Leaf Art in the Visayas in Vocabularios of the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Centuries.” Archium Ateneo, accessed November 25, 2025, https://archium.ateneo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4492&context=phstudies ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

3. “Pusô Facts for Kids.” Kiddle, accessed November 25, 2025, https://kids.kiddle.co/Pus%C3%B4 ↩ ↩² ↩³

4. “Research Progress on Flavor and Quality of Chinese Rice Wine in the Brewing Process.” PMC, accessed November 25, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10500577/ ↩ ↩² ↩³

5. “Pusô.” Wikipedia, accessed November 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pus%C3%B4 ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³ ↩¹⁴ ↩¹⁵ ↩¹⁶ ↩¹⁷ ↩¹⁸ ↩¹⁹ ↩²⁰

6. “Domesticated plants and animals of Austronesia.” Wikipedia, accessed November 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_plants_and_animals_of_Austronesia ↩

7. “Pusô.” Wikiwand, accessed November 25, 2025, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Puso ↩ ↩²

8. “Tuttle Pocket Tagalog Dictionary.” dokumen.pub, accessed November 25, 2025, https://dokumen.pub/download/tuttle-pocket-tagalog-dictionary-tagalog-english-english-tagalog-9781462921645.html ↩

9. “Waray.” Scribd, accessed November 25, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/912599920/Waray ↩

10. “Lukay art in Cebu: A heritage of living traditions.” ResearchGate, accessed November 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281723187_Lukay_art_in_Cebu_A_heritage_of_living_traditions ↩ ↩²

11. “A Taste of Home.” dokumen.pub, accessed November 25, 2025, https://dokumen.pub/download/a-taste-of-home-pinoy-expats-and-food-memories-9789712733031.html ↩

12. “San Isidro Labrador celebra una emotiva gala de imposición de bandas que refuerza la unión festera en Algorós y Derramador.” Actualidad 24 Noticias, accessed November 25, 2025, https://www.a24.es/2025/09/06/san-isidro-labrador-celebra-una-emotiva-gala-de-imposicion-de-bandas-que-refuerza-la-union-festera-en-algoros-y-derramador/ ↩

13. “TUBONG/PUTONG IN MARINDUQUE AS A RITUAL-DANCE OF HEALING, THANKSGIVING, AND VENERATION.” University of the Philippines Diliman, accessed November 25, 2025, https://pages.upd.edu.ph/sites/default/files/bryviray/files/1-6_viray-tubong.pdf ↩

14. “Weaving Ketupat.” Roots.sg, accessed November 25, 2025, https://www.roots.gov.sg/ich-landing/ich/weaving-ketupat ↩

15. “Puso: More than hanging rice.” Philstar.com, accessed November 25, 2025, https://www.philstar.com/cebu-news/2012/07/18/828966/puso-more-hanging-rice ↩

16. “Ketupat.” Wikipedia, accessed November 25, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketupat ↩ ↩²

17. “Ketupat: The making of.” YouTube, accessed November 25, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGxSvVmWGaI ↩

18. “Utilization of Coconut coir and Guava Leaves For The Natural Preservation of Palm Sugar.” Jurnal FKIP UNRAM, accessed November 25, 2025, https://jurnalfkip.unram.ac.id/index.php/JBT/article/view/4557 ↩

19. “Antimicrobial Feature of Traditional Coconut Leaf‐Based Packaging Coated With Propolis.” ResearchGate, accessed November 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389074794_Antimicrobial_Feature_of_Traditional_Coconut_Leaf-Based_Packaging_Coated_With_Propolis ↩

20. “Antibacterial activity of Nypa fruticans leaf extract to Aeromonas hydrophila, Pseudomonas acruginosa and Escherichia coli.” ResearchGate, accessed November 25, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370236620_Antibacterial_activity_of_Nypa_fruticans_leaf_extract_to_Aeromonas_hydrophila_Pseudomonas_acruginosa_and_Escherichia_coli ↩

21. “Puso in Cebu.” Eat Your World, accessed November 25, 2025, https://eatyourworld.com/destinations/asia/philippines/cebu/what-to-eat/puso/ ↩