Filling the Gaps in Magellan’s Route through the Pacific Ocean and the Philippines
A new candidate is added to Limasawa and Butuan as the location of the first Easter Sunday Mass in Mazaua (Philippines) in 1521, with an eastern route at Mindanao. Pigafetta’s maps, combined with his distances in modern reconstructions of the archipelago’s map, advocate a Mazaua beyond Mindanao’s north-eastern corner. Reconsidering the primary sources suggests Masapelid Island with Mahaba Island. An appendix shows Magellan’s day-to-day progress in the Pacific Ocean. In it, the Fakahina and Caroline Islands are confirmed by calculation as Magellan’s San Pablo and Tiburones (Sharks) Islands.
Une nouvelle candidate s’ajoute aux villes de Limasawa et de Butuan comme lieu de la première messe du dimanche de Pâques en 1521, connu sous le nom de Mazaua, aux Philippines, selon un itinéraire passant par l’est de l’île de Mindanao. Les cartes de Pigafetta, combinées aux distances qu’il a établies, transposées sur les reconstructions modernes de la carte de l’archipel, laissent supposer que Mazaua se situe au-delà du nord-est de Mindanao. D’après une réévaluation des sources primaires, il s’agirait plutôt de l’île Masapelid et de l’île Mahaba. Une annexe suit les avancées quotidiennes de Magellan dans l’Océan Pacifique. Des calculs qui y sont effectués confirment que les îles que Magellan appelle San Pablo et Tuburones (requins) correspondent aux îles Fakahina et l‘île du Millénaire (île Caroline).
Discoveries in the Pacific Ocean, Fakahina, first Easter Mass in the Philippines, Magellan’s route, maps of the Philippines, Masapelid Island, Mazaua, Philippine toponyms, Pigafetta
cartes des Philippines, découvertes dans l’Océan Pacifique, Fakahina, île Masapelid, itinéraire de Magellan, Mazaua, Pigafetta, première messe de Pâques aux Philippines, toponymes des Philippines
Introduction
This study has as its focus three gaps in Magellan’s route through the Pacific Ocean. They need to be filled with reliable information to get the correct overall picture. The crucial issue is to establish an optimum location for Mazaua, the famous place where the first Easter Sunday Mass was celebrated in the archipelago. So far, three candidates have existed for Mazaua. The first is modern-day Limasawa, mainly based on the similarity of the two toponyms. The second claimed location is Butuan City, while the third one is Pinamanculan, with Bancasi nearby. This article contains a fourth competitor, a pair of islands to the east of Surigao City. Because 87.9 percent of the Philippine population are Christians (including 82 percent Roman Catholics), the memory and the correctly identified location of the first Easter Sunday Mass celebrated in the Philippines is an important national and historical issue for that country. The second and less important question is to finalize the true location of the Magellan expedition’s two uninhabited “unfortunate islands” in the Pacific Ocean. The Appendix after the References shows Magellan’s progress in the Pacific Ocean. The third issue is the visibility of a mountain in Chile on 1 December 1520 in their logbooks. Some of the figures and the list of coordinates do not relate directly to the Mazaua controversy.
Historical Background
Magellan’s five ships had 270 men on board, but only 22 survivors upon return (Schreurs 1981, 196–97). Boruchoff (2009, 172) stated that fewer than 240 men formed Magellan’s expedition, and 21 returned alive. Sánchez Imizcoz (2017, 3) wrote about the ship Victoria: “Only eighteen [End Page 161] men of a 250-man crew returned; they were more dead than alive” (Field 2006, 314). Fernández de Navarrete (1837, 26) listed the expedition’s 265 individuals. The author believes that 264 seems more correct if “Diugurria” and “Diego Arias” were the same person.
The main disagreement in the earliest sources is the correct location of Pigafetta’s Mazaua Island. “[T]he discussions that have ensued between the Butuan and the Limasawa protagonists, argumentation is often based on the nomenclature of a place, distances from one place to another or the time taken by ships sailing the distance, on longitudes and latitudes mentioned by primary sources . . . the discussion is about a few minutes of a degree!” (Schreurs 1981, 201). The “Mazaua controversy” is mainly about the uncertainty in Mazaua’s correct longitude.
Primary and secondary sources agree with modern scholarship on the fact that Magellan arrived at Cebu City on 7 April 1521. They agree on the date of the first Easter Sunday Mass held in the Philippines, in Mazaua: 31 March 1521. All dates in this article are as they appear in the contemporary accounts of Pigafetta and others, without considering the discrepancy of 24 hours by crossing the International Date Line (Field 2006, 318).
A few authorities disagree on the date of Magellan’s final departure from Mazaua. A modern editorial note (Pigafetta and Cachey 2007, lxii) states, “6 April 1521: The fleet departs Limasawa.” One cannot dismiss an academic publisher’s date as a typo, even if it is hard or impossible to find that directly in primary sources. It may mean that Magellan’s fleet was at Limasawa on April 6. Such an assumption is acceptable, without proving that Limasawa was Pigafetta’s Mazaua.
Schöner’s (1523–24) globe indicates Magellan’s route, between Selano and a Buthnann (Butuan)–Zuluan pair, south of the equator. He placed them to the south of Zoiton (Zaiton, China) and Messigo (Mexico).
FROM THE ISLAND OF THE THIEVES TO SAMAR
On Wednesday, 6 March 1521, Magellan’s expedition sighted Rota and Guam at 12 degrees north, at 146°? west from the demarcation line between Spain and Portugal. Magellan left Guam (“Ladrones” or “Thieves”) on 9 March 1521 and then sighted a peak of Samar Island (Zzemal, Zamal) at daybreak on Saturday, 16 March 1521 (Stanley 1874, 71). The modern Guam–Samar distance is approximately 1,750 km, 300 leagues (1,667 km) in the expedition’s documents. They sailed about 250 km per day. Using a 6378.137 km radius of Earth and an observer 20 m above sea level, from a point at 13.75°N 145.30°E, three peaks were visible for them on 6 March 1521, one to the north-west and two to the south-west. The former was a 496-m-high peak (Sabana) in Rota Island, with the 305-m-high Mount Tenjo and the 406-m-high Mount Lamlam, both in Guam. Thus, Pigafetta’s text was correct regarding the apparent three islands at first. Mafra ([1543] 1920, 14 of 115) confirms that they seemed to be three islands when Navarro shouted, “Tierra!”
Magellan learned that the first island of the Philippines they sighted was Yunagan to the north, with several bays, at barely 11°N. It was not Yonaguni,1 Japan’s westernmost island. In Ramusio (1550, 377), after 3 months 20 days of sailing (from 28 November 1520 to 16 March 1521), they found an uninhabited island named Iuuagana at 11°N latitude, guessing that it was 143° to the west of Cadiz. A puzzling possibility for the name “Iuuagana” would be Agana (Hagåtña) in Guam. However, it is hard to imagine that when the natives at Humunu heard that the fleet sailed nine days westward from an island of thieves, they immediately knew the name of a port in Guam.
In establishing where Samar’s highest peak was first sighted, a controversy posed as a dilemma. Google Maps and Mapcarta show an 811-m-high Mount Huraw (12.064° N, 125.054°E). The “Peak Visor” website (https://peakvisor.com/peak/mount-huraw.html) gives an elevation of 890 m, and the “Hill Top Views” website (https://hilltopviews.org.uk/hill.php?id=352020731) indicates either 890 m or 619 m for it.
PIGAFETTA’S DETAILED(?) MAP OF SULUAN ISLAND
The shorelines of many islands are sketchy in the manuscripts of Pigafetta (1522–25). Initially, it was tempting to compare the outlines of his islands with those given by Google Maps but without much success. If one of the vessels circumnavigated Suluan, it may have been the first and last opportunity for Pigafetta to draw a sketch map of an island.
Such musing was only the instant author’s wishful thinking. At the point of giving up his identification game, some success crowned part of his efforts: half of Pigafetta’s shoreline for Zzuluan/Zuluan matched well with that of Suluan by Google Maps. This was not a proven identification because finding “similarities” usually involves some subjectivity or the trembling hand of a map-maker. Originally, the author inserted a nice figure with eight pairs of matching points marked by letters. Eight pairs of red arrows belonged to them. Their suggested locations were as follows: northern-most point of tiny islet: 10.7738°N, 125.9372°E; rocky cape near the islet: 10.7713°N, 125.9400°E; end of long rocky island or peninsula: 10.7759°N, 125.9554°E; north-eastern cape: 10.7759°N, 125.9591°E; small cape between two bays: 10.7693°N, 125.9626°E; bay to the north of lighthouse: 10.7595°N, 125.9663°E; easternmost cape on a rounded shoreline: 10.7539°N, 125.9694°E; a cape at 10.7510°N, 125.9692°E; and eastern point of a twin cape: 10.7469°N, 125.9669°E. At the end of day, if none of Pigafetta’s shorelines resembles the modern islands, why should Suluan’s case be different? Starving persons cannot draw better maps near the point of dying. [End Page 162]
Fortunately, the reviewers of Cartographica liked the article’s first version, being more sober and academic. They suggested restructuring with a stricter referencing to the primary sources rather than secondary ones. The author’s silent reasoning was a possibility as follows: Say, a captain or navigator gives a detailed account to his best friend. Soon he becomes a captive who is executed by rival Europeans or eaten by cannibals. Another witness is a bad observer uninterested in details. His primary eyewitness account is full of gaps and controversies, so the “secondary” source can be more reliable than such a description. (A modern paper considers the records of the Legazpi expedition as a primary source for this subject. The author disagrees.)
While restructuring this article, the research started from square one, concentrating on the original sources. Google searches showed three French versions of Pigafetta’s manuscripts with his sketches plus one in Italian. Their impartial comparison yielded a conclusion that arbitrarily picking a sophisticated and accurate-looking map was not an academic approach. While this article does not allow the inclusion of a “genealogy” of Pigafetta’s sketches in different manuscripts, Figure 1 gives an idea to the readers about the major differences in depicting Guam and Rota islands. Consequently, the apparent similarities in Suluan’s shoreline between Pigafetta’s simplest sketch and Google Maps are gone. Typically, repeated copying of an island’s outline means losing details. In this case, the sketchy “field notes” of Pigafetta received more and more details from the pens of the artist(s) that beautified his maps. If insular maps gain details during later stages, such changes were probably not suggested or approved by the traveller (Pigafetta, who maybe lived from 1491 to 1531). A general note should be added about the orientation of Pigafetta’s map sketches: most, if not all, of them have south pointing up, toward the manuscript’s top.
From Homonhon to Mazaua Island
The expedition spent eight days at Humunu-Homonhon Island, from 17 to 25 March. The fleet left it in the afternoon of 25 March, steering between ponent/west and garbin/south-west (Ramusio 1613; Pigafetta 1522–25, 64 of 215) toward Leyte Island. A storm, reported as a mistral from the north-west, prevented them from keeping that westerly course and drifted them toward the south or south-east. Here comes the report of Maximilian of Transylvania into the picture. When he interviewed the returning sailors, at least one of them remembered the storm that had changed their course. Transylvanus (1523) wrote, “Our men, having taken in water in Acaca, sailed towards Selani; here a storm took them, so that they could not bring the ships to that island, but were driven to another island called Massaua, where lives a king of (the?) three islands” (Stanley 1874, 198). Acaca was Aguada (Acquada, Gada, Homonhon); Selani was Pigafetta’s Ceylon (Leyte, Dinagat, or Mindanao). Massana is Pigafetta’s Ma(z)zaua. This report reveals that the expedition has never touched the eastern coast of Leyte. The letter of Transylvanus lists the following islands: Iuuagana, Acaca, Helena (Selani), Messana, and Zubut (Ramusio 1613, 349v). He placed Iuuagana on the 11° latitude. The natives with the two canoes told them that both Iuuagana and Acaca were uninhabited, but Selana nearby was populated. (“Iuuagana” may have been an alternative tribal name for Suluan Island.)
Malte-Brun’s 1837 map shows “Mindanao ou Sélangan” [Sarangani?] that argues against a Seilani/Ceylon = Leyte identification. Magellan perhaps sailed toward Mindanao, not Leyte. The king of Spain ordered him to sail to the Moluccas by the possible shortest route. A Selangan– Seilani identification could mean that some early European sailors once knew Mindanao as Ceylon, from Sarangani Islands at its southern limits. There are “Calian” (Cailan?) ports on Panaon Island and eastern Mindanao. If Magellan did not touch the eastern shores of Leyte, Pigafetta’s Ceylon would not refer to Panaon Island.
Candulo Island (10.924°N, 125.837°E) at south-eastern Samar may have been Pigafetta’s Cenalo, to the north-west of Suluan (10.763°N, 125.957°E). He refers to thousands of islets, including Cenalo or Cenale, Hinnangar (Hiunanghar), Ibusson, and Abarien. His Hinnangar, Hiunanghan on his map, and Albo’s Yunagan-Hyunagan, may refer to Tanauan in north-eastern Leyte. If Hinnangar and Hyunagan were two versions of the same name, the letters R and N may correspond to each other sometimes, just like in Gatighan/Satighan-Cattigara. The sounds S and H, the latter written as Spanish J, often correspond to each other in Spanish, Italian, or Portuguese: MejicoMessico, bajo–basso (low), pajaro–pássaro (bird), or rojo–rosso (red). Russian maps show Sogod (in Cyrillic letters) for Sogor in Leyte, pointing to a sound between D and R. Dinagat Island is Linago I. on Arrowsmith’s maps. Similarly, the word earthquake is dinug or linug in a few Philippine languages (Reid 1971).
Pigafetta often gives a list of islands,2 but their names are not evidence for landing on all of them. Enrique, Magellan’s servant and Malay translator – originally from Sumatra and Malacca – may have helped Pigafetta to record names, heard from the first friendly group of natives while they rested in Homonhon. Pigafetta’s Hiunanghar was Hinunangan town (10.4°N, 125.2°E). His Abarien may have been Cabalian (10.28°N, 125.22°E). Both are on Leyte’s eastern shore but in the reverse sequence on his sketch. Another candidate is Pta. (Cape) Cabanián (near 11°N) at Guiuan. Pigafetta’s sketch placed Abarien roughly to the north of Humunu, which fits Cape Cabanián. “Caburao” Island on Sanson’s map (1654), north of Abuyo(g) in Leyte, might be Abarien. For the author’s map of these southern Philippine islands combined from Pigafetta’s sketches, see Figure 2. [End Page 163]
“Isles des Larrons” (“Islands of the Thieves,” Guam) from Pigafetta’s three French manuscripts. A (top): Pigaphete. 1522–25b. Navigation et descouvrement de la Indie superieure . . ., MS 5650, Folio 25v; B (bottom left): Pigaphete. 1522–25a. Navigation et discov(r)ement de la Indie supérieure, faicte par moy Anthoine Pigaphete, Vincentin, chevalier de Rhodes, MS 24224, Folio 20v. Bibliothèque nationale de France; C (bottom right): Pigafetta, A. 1522–25. Journal of Magellan’s Voyage. Yale University Library.
[End Page 164]
Combination of two folios taken from Pigafetta’s manuscripts, turning them upside down. His Masaua or Mazzava is depicted with the cross above a bay where Magellan anchored his fleet. Magellan’s route from Samar toward Cebu is shown in black.
Source: The author’s sketch (2024), not to scale, created using the Publisher program.
In the afternoon of 25 March, Pigafetta had an accident. When he put his feet on a spar to go down to the storeroom, his feet slipped, because it had rained. He fell into the sea and almost drowned. Then they were weighing anchor and took the course between west and south-west from Homonhon, westward in Albo, passing among Cenalo, Hiunanghan, Ibusson, and Abarien. The most easily identified islet is Ibusson (Hibusong I. at 10.44°N, 125.49°E). When they had sailed approximately 20 km from “Magellan’s Landing Site” westward, at 10.65°N and 125.61°E, a storm changed their course in the evening, for 21 km toward the south-east. Then the mountains of northern Dinagat Island probably reduced the strength of the winds, allowing them to cast anchor that night. We assume that they were at approximately 10.42° N, 125.67°E. On the evening of 26 March, their approximate location was 10.11°N, 125.67°E, after sailing 35 km that day. On the evening of March 27, about 41 km farther south, their location may have been approximately at 9.750°N, 125.754°E, where they saw a fire (toward the west-south-west as Albo recorded), about 10 km away. On 28 March, they came to Mazaba Island (Stanley 1874, 75, 224).
Herrera, the Cronista Mayor of the Royal Court of Spain, wrote: “Magellan discovered many islands, and sailing between them, they went ashore at a little one, called Mazagua, near a small village” (Schreurs 1981, 216). A map (Pigaphete 1522–25b, 36v) depicts Mazaua with a village along a bay, just below a white cross on a hill.
Later, a nasty Portuguese captain interrogated Martin de Ayamonte, who said: “At these islands [Homonhon] they took in water, after which they saw an island with the name of Massava which was at fifty leagues further on. [End Page 165] Magellan concluded peace with the ruler of that island who brought them from there to Cebu where another ruler lived whose vassal he was” (Schreurs 2000, 92). Ayamonte overestimated the Homonhon–Mazaua distance as 50 leagues (277.8 km), instead of Pigafetta’s 20 leagues (25 in his Paris MS). The latter two correspond to 111.1 km and 138.9 km. According to Google Maps, it is approximately 127.5 km as the crow flies, meaning 22.95 leagues. Pigafetta’s estimate between 20 and 25 leagues was correct for our candidate. A “legua marina” was 5.5557 km, but the “legua” varied from country to country and in time. Fernández de Navarrete (1837, 55) wrote that after 1493, 1° along the (40,075.017-km-long) equator consisted of 17.5 leagues, and 1 league – both for Spain and Portugal – was 3 3/7 miles. His “league” would be 111.3195 km divided by 17.5, that is, 6.3611 km. His “mile” would be 1.8553 km.
The Genoese pilot placed Mazaua (Mazzaua) at 9°N, Albo at 9°20ʹN, and Pigafetta at 9°40ʹN. The fleet remained there for seven days, arriving by maestral,3 passing through the neighbourhood of five islands: Ceylon, Bohol, Canighau, Baibai, and Gatighan (Pigafetta 1522–25, 76). His Canighau-Canigault is Canigao, between Bohol Island and Baibai town in Leyte. Pigafetta must have mixed up the names: with a north-westerly wind, one cannot get directly from Homonhon Island to Mazaua (or even Limasawa) by sailing through the Bohol–Baibai region. He may have simply recorded the geographical names heard from their Philippine informers.
On the island (Mindanao) belonging to the king who came to the ship there are mines of gold, these brothers were kings or lords of two cities on the coast of Mindanao, of which one was named Butuan and the other Calagan (Caraga at ca. 7.287°N). The King of Butuan was also King of the Island of Massaua between Mindanao and Samar (Stanley 1874, 79). “The island of this king is named Zuluan and Calagan, and when these two kings wish to visit one another they come to hunt in this island [Masaua] where we were . . . the painted king is called Raia Calumbu, and the other Raia Siani” (Stanley 1874, 80) or Si-Agu. “We went together with the two kings to the middle of the highest mountain we could find, and there the cross was planted. . . . The captain, being desirous to depart the next day in the morning, asked the king for the pilots to conduct us to the above-mentioned ports,” that is, Ceylon, Zzubu (Cebu), or Calagan (Caraga or Surigao).
“The first king said that he would go himself and conduct him to this port (Cebu), and be his pilot, but that he should wait two days. . . . This the captain agreed to. . . . In this island there is a great quantity of dogs, cats, pigs, fowls, and goats, rice, ginger, cocos, figs, oranges, lemons, millet, wax, and gold mines. This island is in nine degrees and two-thirds north latitude, and one hundred and sixty-two longitude from the line of demarcation: it is twenty-five leagues distant from the island where we found the two fountains of water [Aguada-Homonhon]. This island is named Mazzava. We remained seven days in this place; then we took the tack of Maestral, passing through the midst of five isles, that is to say, Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Satighan.
(Stanley 1874, 82–83)
LEAVING MAZAUA ISLAND
In sailing, the tack (of Maestral) means “change course by turning a boat’s head into and through the wind.” They had to sail in the direction from which the wind was blowing, to the north-west. Therefore, Pigafetta’s Satighan-Gatighan, the cape and town of Surigao, was located to the north-west of Mazaua-Mazzava Island. Such a description is correct, agreeing with Pigafetta’s maps. Albo states that first, they sailed northward from Mazaua. It probably means that they sailed north along Bilabid Island’s western coast, where Maanoc and Lamagon Islands protected them from the wind. They may have turned to north-west at Raza Island (near the present-day Nonoc Airport), heading San Ricardo, east of Limasawa.
Since they arrived in Mazaua on 28 March, they left it early on 4 April. They landed at Cebu City on 7 April around noon (Pigafetta 1522–25, 79), reaching it after more than three days’ sail westward from Mazaua Island. As we have seen in the modern editorial interpretation of Pigafetta, the fleet left Limasawa on 6 April. If they needed two days to get from Mazaua to Limasawa, from 4 to 6 April, the two islands cannot be identical. Limasawa’s middle is about 650 m wide. The island is too small for regular hunting. Its highest point (ca. 210 m) is at 9.943° N, 125.072°E, and its southernmost point, at 9.895°N.
THE MYSTERIOUS GATIGHAN OR SATIGHAN
The main geographical obstacles in any research are the reliable identification of three toponyms, Pigafetta’s Mazaua, Ceylon and Gatighan, all islands. Pigafetta’s sketches do not support a Ceylon–Leyte identification. Instead, he clearly depicted (Leyte) island with Baibai town on its western shore as a northern island near Zzamal (Samar), with a separate Ceylon Island to the south. The latter can be reasonably identified as Dinagat, a very long island to the south of northern Leyte. The two islands had different kings. It is hard to detect the original form and meaning of “Ceylon.” It may have simply meant the “eastern” island in the local languages since east sounded like “silangan,” “silaqan,” or “silatan” in many areas. Another possibility is Silago in Leyte island. Perhaps it had a busy port.
Pigafetta placed Humunu-Homonhon Island at 161°W of the repartition or demarcation line between Spain and Portugal, while Mazaua Island at 162°. His information may have been derived from Albo, who knew that they left Homonhon westward, then sailed south, and finally [End Page 166] west-south-west after seeing a fire. Pigafetta wrote about the true position of Cape Cattigara of the ancients, and he suggested approximately 12°N (Ramusio 1613). Carigara Port in Leyte island (11.303°N, 124.688°E) may have been Ptolemy’s Cattigara, the last port visited by Chinese ships. (Around 150 CE, Chinese speakers must have had difficulties in pronouncing the sound r, just like today.) Those ships may have entered Carigara Bay via San Bernardino Strait and Capul Pass. It was not Pigafetta’s Gatighan, because his distances and directions from Cebu, Mazaua, and Homonhon require a town much more southerly than such northerly Carigara. Surigao City fits better his description.
Pigafetta, the expedition’s official chronicler, gives 15 leagues (83.34 km) from Gatighan (Satigaan, Satighan) to Cabo or Zzubu (Cebu). In Ramusio (1550, 385), the distance from Messana to Catighan was 20 leagues to the west and then from Cathigan to Zubut (Cebu), 50 leagues. Ramusio (1485–1557) may have received a corrected copy (or the Italian original) from Pigafetta. As for Gatighan, Pigafetta (1522–25, 54) calls it “cap de Gaticara” near 12° or 13°N. The “Figure du cap de Gatighan. . .” is depicted in Pigafetta (1522–25, 77). Gatighan is a version of Satighan. It could not have been Canigao Island between Canigao Channel and Matalom in Leyte. Canigao is an islet only 0.5 km long, without a settlement. It could not have been Calagan (Caraga) either, one of the three ports the kings recommended. Their suggestion for Caraga allows that Mazaua was on Mindanao’s east coast. In Pigafetta’s understanding, Gaticara-Gatighan-Satighan was a cape with a port on an island. The best candidate for it is Punta Bilar/Bilan, just to the west of Surigao City. His Gatighan-Satighan was a cape, an island, and a town. The modern-day Surigao City has the same triple function, except it is on a peninsula but Mindanao is an island. Google Maps shows the distance to be 180 km between the modern-day Surigao and Cebu cities. Pigafetta gives 20 leagues (111.11 km) between Mazaua and Gatighan, and a total of 30 leagues (166.67 km) from Mazaua to Cebu City. Indeed, the latter is 187 km as the crow flies, in the same range. For comparison, the real distance from Limasawa to Cebu is too short, only 135 km. Limasawa and Mazaua-Masapelid Islands are at the opposite mouths of the Surigao Strait. The “Li” component in “Limasawa” is apparently not in the original text of any primary source.
Both Pigafetta (Antonio Lombardo) and Albo (Francisco Alvaro) travelled on the Victoria. They may have assumed that ‘“Seilani” (Dinagat Island’s southern part) was Leyte’s peninsula. The friendly king probably guided them to Cape/Punta Bilar, where he turned south to visit his wife and family in Butuan. From that cape, both Limasawa and Leyte (5.5 km apart) were visible, enabling the king to show them the correct direction. Later, Pigafetta wrote that he “was much astonished at our navigation,” since the fleet reached Ponzon and Polo from Mindanao. Sailing from Limasawa to those islands was a simpler exercise that could not cause much surprise.
From this island of Mazzabua to that of Satighan there are twenty leagues, and on leaving Satighan we went by the west; but the King of Mazzabua could not follow us; therefore we waited for him near three islands, that is to say, Polo, Ticobon, and Pozzon. . . . Thus we went to Zzubu, which is fifteen leagues off from Satighan.
(Stanley 1874, 84; emphasis added)
Perhaps the king mentioned “Ticobon” to them in the sense that if they sailed much further than Poro (Polo) and Ponzon (Pozzon), they ended up in Tacloban. The islets of Polo, Ticobon, and Pozzon are commonly identified as the Camotes Islands (Pacijan, Poro, and Ponson). There is no toponym “Satighan” or “Gatighan” between Limasawa and the Camotes Islands, militating against the Mazaua-Limasawa identification. The word Masawa (brilliant light or dazzling light) has meaning only in Butuanon, spoken around Butuan.
The readers could get easily lost among these strange toponyms, so a brief summary of the main towns and stations of the expedition will be useful. The best primary source is Pigafetta’s sketch map of Mindanao. Looking at a French manuscript (N° 4537 du Catalogue de La Vallière, t. III), from west to east, we find five towns on that island. Along the north shore are Cippit (Quipit) and Butuan. In the middle row are Maingdanao and Calagan (Caraga at 7.32°N, 126.55°E), the latter correctly to the south of Butuan. The town “Benaian” corresponds to the modern-day Banay-Banay at 6.96°N, 126.01°E. Cippit is Kipit (with its Quin-centennial Historical Marker at 8.071°N, 122.481°E, repeated as Canit, now Kauit Kauit at 7.495°N, 122.090°E). It is the Chauit on N° 4537 du Catalogue de La Vallière, t. III, page 35, correctly with Subanin (Subauen) town to the south. Pigafetta depicts an island named Tagima (now Basilan, west of Subanin), then Zzolo (Jolo Island at 6.05°N, 121.00°E). Folio 58 shows Ciboco, Birahan Batholach, Candinghar, and Saranghani islands from west to east. These constitute the first useful map of Mindanao’s region. Pigafetta’s Berahang was probably Parang (7.373°N, 124.260°E) near Cotabato City. Ciboco was Sibago (6.74°N, 122.40°E).
In short, Pigafetta’s distances in leagues are Cagayan Island (43) Quipit (50) Zzubu (15 or 50) Cape Gatigan (20) Mazzaua. Modern equivalents on Google Maps, converted to leagues: Cagayan I. (39.5) Quipit River (52.76) Cebu City (40.0, on curved line) Punta Bilar (4.86) Masapelid Island.
Mafra ([1543] 1820, folio 16) wrote of Magellan’s expedition that on Good Friday (“Viernes de la Cruz”), the local ruler came to Magallanes; they made casi-casi peace treaty ceremony. The expedition of Villalobos met the same local ruler who showed them things received from Magal-lanes in 1521. “This same chief [Rajah Siaiu] we saw in the [End Page 167] year 1543 by those of us in the fleet of general Ruy López de Villalobos, and he still remembered Magellan, and displayed to us some of the things he had given him” (Mafra [1543] 1820). This king resided in Butuan both in 1521 and 1543. Villalobos met him there. An unnamed sailor took Mafra’s manuscript to Spain after having been transcribed by an unknown editor.
The Murillo-Cruz map (1744) depicts our Mazaua as Mahaba Island to the south-east of Dinagat, also Caraga. Caraga is spelled Canaga, north of Sancol (Arrowsmith 1832, and Carragan (Santini 1778), also “I. Panlog ou de. S. Jean”, identifying the two toponyms, like Senex (1721) and Tirion (1740). If Ibusson was Cabusao-Caburao, shown on many maps, then Satighan corresponds to Surigao. Similarly, Hainan in southern China was often spelled “Ainao” in Portuguese maps and by Wytfliet (1611). Dalrymple’s Samboangan was Zamboanga, and Dapitan was often Dapito. These and the spelling form of Tigan for Ticao Island near Masbate City indicate that the endings -an and -ao were often interchangeable. The toponym Gatighan is Satigan in some of Pigapetta’s maps and copies (Stanley 1874; Pigafetta and Cachey 2007, 33). A Portuguese vessel under Captain Jorge de Castro sailed northward from Sarangani to “Soligano” (Surigao), “Camizino” (Camiguin), and “Buthuamo” (Butuan) in 1538 (Schreurs 1983, 107). Satigan, Soligano, and Calegan were Surigao. Vaugondy (1750) shows a S. Jean Island (our Mazaua) to the east of the Panon/Panaon – Tanda (g) line that is against the Limasawa identification.
Pigafetta’s Hiunanghan (Huinanghar on his map) means the region of modern-day Hinunangan (Hinonangan) town. From afar, they assumed it to be an island. Then a storm blew them to the east to Hibusong (Ibusson) Island and the northern cape of Dinagat Island. They followed the eastern shoreline of Dinagat (believing that it was a peninsula of Seilani-Leyte), beyond Hinatuan Island. There they saw a fire on Mahaba Island (of Mazaua) to the west-south-west. (Another unlikely pair of candidates for Hiunanghar and Ibusson is Hanigad and Awasan islands, between Dinagat and Nonoc.)
Pigaphete (1522–25b, 36v) and Schreurs (1981, 198) depict Pigafetta’s original maps, usually in a south-up orientation. These sources reveal that Satighan Island was about the latitude of Bohol Island, roughly to the south of three tiny islands (the main islands of “Cuatro Islas” – “Four Islands” – near Inopacan). They correctly depict Mazzana (Mazzaua) Island to the south-west of Satighan (Siargao?) Island, and south-east of Bohol. Mazzaua Island is shown on lower latitudes than Bohol’s southern shores. If we consider the supportive role of primary cartographical evidence, we need to find a Mazaua below the latitude of 9.803°N, the easternmost point of Bohol near Lamanok Island. Indeed, there is a Masapelid Island to the southwest of Siargao Island. Its extreme points are at 9.728°N, and 9.664°N. If Satighan Island was Siargao Island or Surigao, Mazaua could have been Masapelid Island with Mahaba Island (Figure 3). Our suggested location for the cross of Mazaua is between Tinago Island and Fabio (Elementary School) on Masapelid Island: a hill approximately 125 m high, at 9.706°N, 125.625°E (the grey circle on Figure 3 by Google Maps) and 145 m high by Mapcarta. Three islands are visible to the west and south-west: Condona, Tinago, and an unnamed island. For the comparison of Magellan’s commonly suggested western and the newly proposed eastern route to Mazaua, refer to Figure 4.
Pigafetta heard about large gold deposits on the island of the king. His island was called Butuan and Calagan (Schreurs 1981, 202). He learned that Ceylon, Zubu, and Calagan were large ports. Butuan and Calagan (Caragan) towns belonged to King Siaui’s large island (Mindanao). The Europeans named some islands after major towns on them. “Abuyo Island” (Leyte) was named after Abuyog. Writing about Quipit on the west coast, Pigafetta relates: “That part of the island belongs to the same land as Butuan and Calaghan, and lies towards Bohol and is bounded by Mazaua” (Schreurs 1981, 206). Thus, Mazaua was at Mindanao’s opposite, eastern boundary. Pigafetta’s Mazaua, Albo’s Masava, Transylvanus’s Massana, De Brito’s Mazaba, and the Roteiro’s Macangcor do not have “Lima-sawa” (Schreurs 1981, 203). If Magellan were at Limasawa, at least one of these five primary sources would have recorded the Limasawa form.
One renowned scholar of history in the person of Prof. Teodoro A. Agoncillo, Chairman, Department of History, University of the Philippines, . . . commenting upon the question of whether the First Mass was held at Limasawa or at Butuan, and in effect dismissing Butuan’s claim to that distinct honor, poses these hypothetical questions: “Why would the Spaniards call Masao Masava? That is, why should one syllable be added to Masao?” We shall borrow his learned argument by posing a similar question: Why should the Spaniards remove one syllable – the syllable of Li – from Mazaua if they actually meant Limasawa?
(Schreurs 1981, 203)
One can imagine the confusion created if certain authors would start doing the same thing, by adding a Li- prefix randomly to geographical names. We would get Librazil, Limexico, Limadagascar, Lichina, and LiUSA in our maps. As for the spelling “Masabua,” the Spanish letters B and V often refer to the same sound: “Boy a Balensia” means “Voy a Valencia.” In Latin American Spanish, our words one or Walter often sound like guan and gualter. (The w is absent in the Spanish alphabet.)
The lexicographer Pigafetta gladly explained foreign names and special circumstances. He is silent about a king with five spouses (“lima asawa”). He had a friendly and [End Page 168] intimate connection with one of the native kings who had one wife, baptized as Isabella (Stanley 1874, 93). Pigafetta would have mentioned that she was the first wife out of five. The king of Limasawa with five wives must have ruled decades later. Abeto (1989, 77) wrote that Panaon’s chief was “Alimbusay Lima-asawa” (with the five spouses) but that “Limasawa island was not existing when Magellan came” (xxi). He probably meant that the name Limasawa did not yet exist.
Masapelid and Mahaba islands as Masaua, to the east of Surigao City. The grey circle south of “Fabio” shows the suggested location of the cross.
Source: Google Maps.
According to Mafra, “from Humunu, they sailed on and reached a small island with a circumference of some three or four leagues. It had a good harbor on its western side and was populated” (Schreurs 2000, 94). If Mazaua Island’s circumference was 3–4 leagues (16.7–22.2 km), Masapelid is a much better candidate than Limasawa. Furthermore, Limasawa Island does not have a good port in a bay on its western side.
The natives probably informed Magellan that he had seen the fire on Mahaba Island, say, at 9.704°N, 125.671°E. Pigafetta spelled it Mazaua or Mazzava, as if the main (Masapelid) island had the same name. We can find a Mangcagangi or Macangani Island by Google Maps at 9.115°N, 126.227°E. It is only 586 m long. Another Mahaba Island exists at Hinatuan. Certain maps show Mazaua as Mababa, Maltaba, Mahaba, or Manaba. A Rossi–Cantelli–Widman map (1683) depicts Calegan (Surigao?), Buthuan, and Messane islands along a north-north-west–south-south-east line, west of Bohol, illustrating the general confusion. Carey (1814) first showed a long Dinagat at 10°N as “St. Juan” Island. Such a long Dinagat Island reappeared in 1879.
We find in Quezon (2021): “5th April: Sights the terrain of Baybay (Leyte). spends a night in Gatighan (approximately Himokilan, Hindang, Leyte), feasts on a kabog (a megabat), and marvels at the fauna of the place.” At this point, we find an interesting hint to megabats around Gatighan in Pigafetta’s reports. A search leads us to Wikipedia about “Large Mindanao roundleaf bat range.” Its map shows their central habitat around Lake Mainit near Surigao but not in Limasawa and Himokilan Islands. The large Mindanao roundleaf bat (Hipposideros coronatus) is a species of bat in the family Hipposideridae. [End Page 169]
Masaua (Masaba, Maçagua, or Maçangor) was probably the modern-day Masapelid Island with Mahaba Island, east of Surigao City where the cross of the first Easter Sunday Mass in the Philippines stood. Three sources gave 9° to 9°40ʹN for the location. Magellan’s commonly suggested western route is shown in orange, and the newly suggested eastern route in magenta.
Source: The author’s sketch above, and his cartographic reconstruction below, not to scale, created using the Publisher program and Google Maps (2023).
There is a village on Himokilan, without a Gatighan as an important port in that region. Canigao Island (Pigafetta’s Canigau at 10.249°N, 124.750°E), is correctly placed on his sketch to the north-east of Bohol, although its direction related to his group of three islets (actually named “Cuatro Islas”) is incorrect. Pigafetta perhaps vaguely remembered and showed the islets as an afterthought. His Gatighan on the sketch is to the south-east of [End Page 170] Canigau Island to the east of Bohol. These directions fit well with Surigao City, with the north-east cape of Mindanao, but not Himokilan. A Gatighan-Himokilan identification simply does not work because Pigafetta did not place his Gatighan to the north-north-west of Canigao Island but to the south-south-east of it. The pilot Albo recorded:
We departed from Mazaba and went N., making for the island of Seilani, and afterwards coasted the said island to the N.W. as far as 10°, and there we saw three islets; and we went to the W., a matter of 10 leagues, and then we fell in with two islets, and at night we stopped; and on the morrow went S.W. and ¼ S, a matter of 12 leagues, as far as 10 1/3°, and there we entered a channel between two islands, one called Matan, and the other Subo.
(Stanley 1874, 225; the latter two names meant Mactan and Cebu)
If they sighted the 90-m-high Himokilan Island from 10.170579°N, 124.753807°E (Cape of Guadalupe at Himoaw Bay), and coasted till Inopacan, the mountains of Baybay became visible, indeed. From there to Pacijan Island’s south-west point, where they spent the night, the distance by Google Maps is 9.443 leagues, almost due west. That is excellent for 10 leagues. We note that Barbay in Ramusio (1550) is a typo for Baibai. A ‘Roteiro da Viagem’ (Academia das Ciências de Lisboa 1826, 160) recorded 30 leagues (167 km) from Macangor to Cebu.
Schreurs (1981, 209) quotes Combés ([1667] 2020), “Guided by people of Limasaua they passed between Bool [sic] and Leyte, skirted the Camotes Islands and entered Cebu via the narrows of Mandaue on April 7, 1521. They had left Limasaua on the first day of that month.” Mandaue is Mactan; 1 April refers to the date when a group of Spaniards accompanied the king to Butuan to help him, involving local guides of (the eastern) Mazaua, off Mindanao’s eastern shores. Originally from Gada (Aguada-Homonhon) the expedition sailed west-south-west, then coasted Seilani (here Dinagat) Island, and then went to west-south-west, to a small island called Mazaba. “[W]e placed a cross upon a mountain; and from thence they showed us three islands in the W.S.W. direction” (Stanley 1874, 224). At first glance, no island is visible in that direction from Limasawa. However, calculating carefully, we understand that many islands are visible, including Mount Matunog (840 m) in Bohol, Mont Timpoong (1614 m) in Camiguin, and an 830-m-high mountain at Jubgan. Magellan did not abandon his fleet for a visit to Butuan. Combés incorrectly assumed that, while coasting Leyte to the northwest, Magellan stopped at Limasawa to get guides. He did not need guides, and such a stop is missing in the primary sources. (The letters Li- are later additions in the literature.)
Schreurs (1981, 210) claims, “[W]hether we place the Cross at Butuan or on Limasawa, and no matter what date we may assign to it, if we are to accept the clear dating that Combés gives for the final departure from Limasawa. . . . For he says explicitly that the date of the final departure from Limasawa was April 1st.” We disagree because if the local king’s Spanish helpers returned to Mazaua by 4 April, it was not their “final departure” from Mazaua on 1 April. If they did not return there, they would have been picked up after 4 April, perhaps near Butuan or Surigao, before coasting Leyte. Combés is not a primary source; his date is wrong. The Spaniards helping the king probably worked in the local fields of Mazaua Island on 2 and 3 April.
Later Expeditions
Magellan must have passed through the Surigao Strait in 1521 from the east to the west. But if Mazaua was Lima-sawa, he would have needed to cross it on his route from Mazaua to Cebu from the west to the east: an absurdity. (Sailing from Limasawa to Cebu City, no ship needs to touch the Surigao Strait.) During Mafra’s second visit to Maçagua (1543), only two vessels of Villalobos’ fleet, with Mafra on board, travelled “west along 11°N latitude and succeeded in entering the strait and reaching Maçagua. . . These ships caused considerable trouble at ‘Abuyo, Tandaya and Maçagua,’ and a number of the crew were taken hostage by the inhabitants and eventually had to be ransomed. The other ships, having sailed too far south, missed the entrance and drifted southward along the east coast of Mindanao to the ‘bay of Malaga’ (Lianga) and on to Sarangani where they ran into great difficulties” (Schreurs 2000, 96). These details illustrate that they – at least Ginés de Mafra – were looking for Maçagua beyond Mindanao’s north-eastern shores, not at Limasawa. Captain Villalobos pressed Mafra to closely follow Mindanao’s coastline, so Mafra could not find the old Mazaua, despite Schreurs’s assertions. Or, if such assertions are correct, the Portuguese authorities may have heard during Mafra’s interrogation in 1543 that he had found Mazaua with the Bay of Resurrection. The Villalobos expedition resorted to eating grubs, unknown plants, land crabs that sickened the crew, and a phosphorescent grey lizard that killed most of those who ate it. Both the 1543 and 1565 expeditions had a vessel named San Juan, but the association or combination of the four notions (bay, resurrection, St. John, and eastern Mindanao) probably originated from Mafra.
The reports of 1565 are not in the same class of primary sources for Magellan’s route. Letters of the royal officials of the Philippines and Legazpi (1565), head of a Spanish expedition, reported that in a large town named Cavalian (Cabalian), on the island of Buyo or Abbuyo (Abuyog on Leyte), they met a chief called Canatuan, Malate’s son. This chief, aka Canutuan or Camotuan, “by signs and as best he could, informed me of the names of the islands, of their rulers and people of importance, and their number. [End Page 171]
He also promised to take us to the island of Mancagua, which was eight leagues from this island. We set sail with the Indian, and when we reached Macagua” (Blair and Robertson 2004). Thus, Legazpi requested the natives of Cabalian (named San Juan since 1961) that someone bring him to Mazaua, because “the people there were friends of the Spaniards whereas in other places we had found no friends” (Schreurs 1985, 15). Canatuan guided Legazpi to Limasawa Island nearby: the recorded distance of 8 leagues was correct. They left Cabalian on 9 March for Mazaua (here Limasawa) and sailed to Camiguin Island on 11 March 1565 and then to Butuan on 14 March.
The Legazpi expedition’s map (1565) was in the Documentos Ineditos; originally found in the logbook of the pilots Jaime Martinez Fortun and Diego Martin (Schreurs 1985, 16). It depicts the Primer surgidero (first landing, perhaps at Batag Island), Calaya (in San Pablo Bay), two capes of Samar (at Gigoso and Maliwaliw), two islands of eastern Leyte in Hinungagan Bay (San Pedro and San Pablo), Pal-mares in Sogod Bay, and the large Panaon Island with Maçagua Island (here Limasawa). It shows the northern shoreline of Mindanao, with Camiguin Island, the cape at Balingoan town, Gingoog Bay, the cape at Vinapor Marine Sanctuary, and another bay with Butuan. It places the southernmost point of Panagon Island at 9°30.4ʹN, while Google Maps does so at 9.91°N. It shows Maçagua Island between 9°54ʹ and 9°46ʹN, which correspond to 9°58ʹ and 9°54ʹN as Limasawa’s extreme points today. Undoubtedly, Legazpi had been in Limasawa, searching for Magellan’s Masaua. Despite the matching latitudes between their 1565 map and Google Maps, Legazpi could not find Magellan’s Masaua that the pilots in 1521 placed at lower latitudes, between 9° and 9°40ʹN. Canatuan guided him to a different island.
The Legazpi expedition’s documents cannot serve as primary sources for Magellan’s route. It is true that we can find a “Maçagua” on a map of the Legazpi expedition (1565), but nothing indicates that it was Pigafetta’s Mazaua. During their short stay in Limasawa, they could not find any trace of a wooden cross on a prominent point of the island or a single friendly native whose family remembered the first Easter Sunday Mass allegedly celebrated there.
MAZAUA DESTROYED IN 1563
A letter from the Royal Officials of the Filipinas states,
We reached these Felipinas on 13 February [1565]. . . . We have found not a friend or a people who submits to his majesty. The reason for this was disclosed to us after we had sailed about in this archipelago for two months, namely, that the Portuguese who are in the Malucos came to an island called Bohol, . . . they had made peace with the natives and given them to understand that they came to trade with them, they called together one day as many natives as they could; and while the latter, thinking themselves safe, were trading with them, the Portuguese gave a war-signal and killed five hundred people, capturing six hundred more whom they took to Maluco as slaves.
(Blair and Robertson 2004, 184)
Tomo I of the Documentos Ineditos de Ultramar, Document 33 (1565, 405) reads: “Next day we went to Mazagua. . . . Two years before, 8 big paraos from the Moluccas had arrived there: feigning that they were Spaniards they destroyed the island, because they knew that these Indios were well befriended with the Spaniards: that is why they had come here.” Tomo II, Document 43 (1565, 303–4) states, “A detachment of Legazpi’s expedition had eventually come to Butuan (Botuma) and . . . while the small boat ‘San Juan’ was staying there . . . they saw one Indio who said that he was the son of the datu of Masagua. He was going around wearing a mourning dress and said that strangers, that means the Portuguese, had destroyed his homeland; that’s why he was staying here among his relatives” (Schreurs 1981, 215). If the ruler of Masaua and his son lived in Butuan, that islet belonged to Mindanao, not Leyte. Ortelius (1570) correctly placed Messana and Calagan (Caraga) in Mindanao, east of Bohol (Figure 5). Gastaldi (1561) plotted Ciabu (Cebu), Lozon (Luzon), Chippit (Quipit) Catigan (Surigao), Messana (Masapelip), Calugan (Caraga) and Zubut (Cebu) along a west-northwest–east-south-east line (Figure 6). A map by Pedro Murillo Velarde and Nicolas de la Cruz Bagay (1744) depicts the southern Philippines (Figure 7).
The large and mysterious “Island of St. John,’ translated into other languages in later maps, must have been related to Mazaua Island and a “Resurrection Bay” in its southern neighbourhood. One day, archaeologists may be able to find a “destruction layer” in the real Mazaua Island, possibly burned houses made of wood or bamboo. That may settle the debate between the proposed locations, although the Portuguese with the natives from the Moluccas could have burned both settlements. Even the broken bottom part of the wooden cross embedded in rocks, if found, could be dated by the radiocarbon method. The unidentified “Island of St. John” may have been Dinagat Island or the eastern Mazaua that Legazpi searched for in 1565 by a vessel named San Juan.
Legazpi relates in 1565:
This Macagua, although small, was once a thickly populated island. The Castilians who anchored there were wont to be kindly received. Now, the island is greatly changed from former days, being quite depopulated, for it contains less than 20 Indians: and those few who are left, are so hostile to Castilians that they did not even wish to hear us . . .
(Schreurs 1981, 214) [End Page 172]
The Philippines. Detail of Ortelius in Indiae Orientalis (1570).
Source: David Rumsey Historical Map Collection.
Detail of Gastaldi’s map (1561) with duplicates of many Philippine islands from Mindanao (“Vendanao”) to Zamal (Samar). Messana (Masaua) is to the south-east of Catigan and Hibusson. Its shape is similar to Pigafetta.
Source: Barry Lawrence Ruderman Antique Maps.
[End Page 173]
The southern Philippines on the map of Pedro Murillo Velarde and Nicolas de la Cruz Bagay (1744). At east-northeast of Surigao, Mahaba Island appears. The letter h was first written as a b (“Mababa”) but corrected to Mahaba. Dinagat is depicted as two small islands, at 10°26ʹN and 9°32ʹN.
Source:
RESURRECTION BAY IN LATER MAPS
Villalobos’s ship of 70 toneladas, the San Juan de Letrán under Alonso Manrique, was piloted by Ginés de Mafra. “St. John Island” and “Resurrection Bay” seem associated with Mafra. Pigafetta and Mafra mentioned “Resurrection” before 1550. Linschoten (1595) showed “B. de Resurreiçam.” Langenes and Claesz (1598/1599) a “Resurrection Bay,” Blaeu (1640) a “B. d: Resureiçam.” We find a Calegan (Surigao), Buthuan (Butuan), Messane (Mazaua) sequence north to south, with “B. de Resureiçãon” in eastern Mindanao (1654); ‘B. d. la Rosurecion’ there (1667); “Baye de le Resurection” between two islands named I. de S. Iean (1703); and “Resurrection Bay” near Tanda(g), west of Yap (!)4 (Bowen 1747). Its Portuguese spelling is Ressurreição. [End Page 174]
Resurrection Bay must be connected with the first Easter Sunday Mass in Mazaua, in the Philippines. It was the feast of Resurrection of Jesus Christ, commemorating the event of 9 April 30 CE that took place on Sunday, after a double Sabbath, similar to our long weekends.5 No map placed “Resurrection Bay” of Mazaua Island to the west of Surigao Strait, so it was located to the east of it.
Conclusion about the Four Competing Candidates for Mazaua
For several decades, two camps were fighting for their candidates. One supported the Limasawa-Mazava identification, and another defended the theory that Mazaua-Mazava was Butuan. The former advocates gained the victory. Vicente C. De Jesus (2003) posted his paper for a proposed third location, indicating that Limasawa could not have been Mazava. He declared that “1521 Butuan” of the primary sources could not have been the modern-day Butuan and then picked an arbitrary location (Surigao) for it. De Jesus (2003, 53, and figure 1) claims that “Mazaua was 45 n.m. below 1521 Butúan (today’s Surigao).” He wrote about Pigafetta, “He states Mazaua was south of or below Butúan some 15 leguas or 45 n.m. away” (De Jesus 2003, 59 and 61–62). (Pigafetta did not say “below”.) He adds, “If Mazaua were Limasawa at 9°56’ N, it takes only one legua (4 n.m.) not 20 to reach Gatighan.” However, according to Albo, they sailed north from Mazaua, toward a large island named Seilani, Pigafetta’s Ceylon. Then, “[w]e set out westward from Gatighan” (Pigafetta and Cachey 2007, 41). The three islets must mean the three larger islets of Cuatro Islas, not the Camotes group. De Jesus’s two leagues or four nautical miles between Limasawa and Gatighan is another mysterious step in his analysis. There is no Gatighan there, and such a requirement is missing in the sources. Pigafetta and Albo referred to gold mines 15 leagues away, in the province of Butuan, without claiming that the natives showed them at least one mine. In that century, European readers wanted to learn about gold and its locations as their first wish.
De Jesus (2003) admitted that no islands were visible to the west or south-west from his proposed site at Pinamanculan-Bancasi. People’s visual memory is stronger than their memory regarding numbers in distances. Objects from archaeological digs at Dalingdingan cannot prove that Magellan has ever landed there. He may have given a pestle and other gifts to Butuan’s king that took those home. In the caption of his figure 2, De Jesus adds a jump of logic: “Mazaua with a circumference of 3–4 leguas (9– 12 nautical miles) has an area of from 2,213 to 3,930 hectares” (2003, 6). He refers to “Mazaua’s area of 2213 to 3930 hectares converted from Ginés de Mafra’s estimate of its 3–4 leguas circumference” (De Jesus 2003, 6); “circuito de tres hasta quatro leguas” in Mafra (1543, 16). We cannot calculate an island’s area from its vaguely given circumference unless it has the shape of a perfect circle or square. Could we calculate the area of Sulawesi or Halma-hera from the length of their shorelines? De Jesus assumes that “Magellan’s limp precluded climbing [a] steep incline” (2003, 20). He may have taken a mildly sloping trail to the hilltop, not a 45°-plus climb. Also, the witnesses wanted to say that the bay with an anchoring place was on the west side of the island(s), not to the west of it (Mafra 1542, 16). The white cross was on a mountain, but the Mass was probably held far from it, near the village in the bay. All these indicate that the Mahaba-Masapelid pair as Mazzava island(s) fits well with the eyewitness testimonies, including Pigafetta’s sketches. There is no need to introduce a Pinamanculan-Bancasi or Dalingdingan. The former lay within 8 km from Butuan. Such a theory was rejected. Scholars, editors, and reviewers are good observers, and Magellan’s sailors were able to distinguish a small island in the ocean from small hills near Butuan. They could not describe two hills inland as an island with a cove and a village. The geological forces of nature are always at work but five centuries were too short for radical changes.
A final note is needed about the fire in Mazaua. Perhaps it was a bonfire to celebrate the rice harvest. It is a decisive proof against any candidate for Mazaua to the west of Punta Bilar (9.825°S, 125.441°E), Mindanao’s northern-most point. There is no point in the Surigao Strait where Magellan’s crew could have seen a fire in Limasawa from the west-south-west. It could not have been observed because Panaon Island with the 680-m-high mountain above San Ricardo blocked their view. Also, 104 km to the south, Butuan’s Masao suburb – about 10 m above sea level – and today’s “Magellan’s Anchorage” were below the horizon, invisible from San Ricardo. Clearly, Magellan’s expedition did not cross the Surigao Strait before 4 April.
An Additional Primary Source
After the submission of this paper’s first draft, the author purchased Martínez Shaw’s (1999) book written in Spanish. It contains the report of García de Escalante Alvarado (1548) of the Villalobos expedition. The toponyms “Maçagua” and “Bahía de Resurrección” often appear in the text: “Maçagua que está de la banda del Norte de Cesarea” (49); that is, Maçagua is in the northern zone of Mindanao (aka “Cesarea Karoli”). We read that from Cabite (Kipit, Quipit) and Isla Balantaguima (Pulo Tagima) they coasted Mindanao to Maçagua and then continued to Abuyo (Abuyog in Leyte; 71). They found in (Maçagua’s) Resurrection Bay the letters of General Villalobos, Fray Geronimo, and Captain De la Torre (62, 71), indicating that the pilots found their old base, using it as a postal station [End Page 175] for poste restante mail. He adds, “Bahía de Resurrección, (En Mindanao)” (136). If Maçagua was Limasawa Island, they could have reached it on a shorter route from Kipit by navigating around Mindanao clockwise. In any case, Mafra and his pilot companions had no difficulty in finding Masaua again and again.
Zoltan A. Simon is a Canadian Hungarian land surveyor, born in Budapest, 1949. His book on China was published by Rhombos-Verlag; his papers about Fra Mauro and Robinson Crusoe’s travels were published by the University of Toronto Press. His recent article entitled “Solar Eclipse Maps” is in the International Journal of Cartography. He lives in Red Deer and is available at zasimon@hotmail.com.
Notes
1. The V Centenario website does not show Yanaguni on Magellan’s route. Rather, their yellow line runs through the following islands: Pukapuka, Caroline, Wake, Ogasawara, Iwo Jima, and Guam.
2. For example, to the south of Mindanao. His Cabaluzao and Lipan are Kawaluso and Lipang.
3. The “maestral,” or mistral, is a strong, cold, north-westerly wind.
4. Yap Islands in Micronesia, near Guam.
5. Other related dates are harmonious with these: a new star (comet) appeared just after Christ’s birth. Ichiro Hasegawa’s (1980) catalogue of ancient comets shows it in the spring of 5 BCE, recorded in East Asia. Josephus and John 2:20 correctly dated the temple’s construction: Herod began it in his 18th regnal year, early in 19 BCE. It was still under construction for 46 years at the first Passover of Christ’s ministry in 28 CE.
References
Appendix. Magellan’s Progress in the Pacific Ocean
Our title promises the identification of Magellan’s two uninhabited islets sighted early in 1521. This article identifies “San Pablo” Island with Fakahina, and “Tiburones” (Sharks) with Caroline Island. Stanley (1874, 176–77) offers a small-scale map showing Magellan’s route. The pilot Albo alone gave a coherent sequence of their true positions in the Pacific Ocean. Table A1 summarizes his logbook’s points, starting on 28 November 1520 at the Magellan Strait’s western end (52.653°S, 74.545°W). After sailing two days and three nights, they saw two pieces of land in the morning of 1 December. Albo recorded their position at noon as 48°S, 20 leagues from Cabo Deseado (Stanley 1874, 220). The latter is a mistranslation. Fernández de Navarrete (1837, 51) wrote that the land was 20 leagues from the ships (around 48.0°S, 76.156°W), likely the 700– 800-m-high peaks of Isla Patricio. They could not have seen – lower than 400 m – hills at Cabo Tres Montes (too far away) as many websites claim.
The location of Magellan’s fleet in the Pacific. Before noon, 1 December 1520 they saw two peaks of Chile. At noon on 24 January 1521, they were about 113 km east-south-east from Fakahina-Fangahina, their San Pablo Island.
Our method of calculation utilized a series of right triangles. Albo always gives the direction (azimuth) from point A and B, taking the latitudes at noon. From their latitudinal difference and the Earth’s size, we can calculate the “Delta North” in degrees between those points. From the angle given by the azimuth, with ΔN in degrees, we can compute from our right triangle the longitudinal distance component. Knowing the latter, and the latitude of the new point (B), we can calculate the full (360°) length of our latitude circle going through point B. From that length and our longitudinal distance component, a ratio gives us the longitudinal difference in degree(s) for their daily progress. Using this method step by step, triangle by triangle, we calculated that they sighted San Pablo Island (Fakahina) before sunset on 24 January. At noon on 25 January 1521, their assumed position was 15.75°S, 140.24° W. From there, one can safely compute the expedition’s daily progress to 10.666°S, 149.39°W on 4 February; the next day at 10°S, 150.067°W near Caroline Island (9.955° S, 150.212°W), their “Tiburones.” The earliest sources, quite correctly, recorded 9° longitudinal difference between these two islands. Pigafetta placed them at 15°S and 9°S, at 200 leagues from each other (Ramusio 1613), 228 leagues by Google Maps.
