User:Vasco Caini/sandbox

{{WPPhilippines|class=Start|importance=Mid}

this article is a complete disaster

I don't even know where to begin. Some Spanish text in the page history. Enigma^msg 03:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

When I started to write on this article, I and maybe God understood what was written. Now, I don't understand anything, and I suspect so does God

It's a complete catastrophe that I can't reconstruct. [User talk:Vicente C. de Jesus]121.54.44.92 (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Vicente Calibo de Jesus/Vasco Caini

=Untangling a convoluted conundrum

The Mazaua landfall controversy is an exquisitely tangled skein. Untangling it requires detailed explanation that requires a painstaking narration of how the confusion started that dates back all the way to 1526 with the first faulty translation of Antonio Pigafetta's account from Italian to French.

The belief Mazaua is today's Limasaua is deep-seated, prying it lose can only be done through a clear chronology of how Pigafetta's account got corrupted and bringing the explanation all the way to the present when a hidden isle was discovered by following the "secret"' clues contained in the unknown Ginés de Mafra account.

The discovery of this hidden isle opens up a new chapter in the unravelling of the Mazaua puzzle. From historiography, the solution has shifted to a new discipline, archaeology. Proving this isle which is found at 9° N, inside terra firma, is Magellan's port, Mazaua, can only come about if artefacts are found that can be directly traced to 16th century visits by Europeans among them Magellan, then the second visit by Ginés de Mafra and some 90+ companions, and a number of other brief visits.--Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk is cheap. If you're that knowing or knowledgeable, shouldn't you be able to know where to start? I think one starts by first reading the canon of Magellan historiography. Perhaps only then should one pretend to have read them. Wish we would be a little less full of ourselves and start to view things from a spirit of collaboration. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mazaua longitude

Are the longitudes given by Pigafetta without sense? Not at all. If you read them correctly, the Mazaua longitude given by Pigafetta is 2°E of Cebù. That meridian do not pass for Singapore or Bombay, but is less than 30' in error for every Mazaua has been proposed until now. That is a very good accuracy for the time.
Vasco Caini (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mazaua coordinates

Every reporter gives only partial information. I will try to analyze the track from Homonhon to Mazaua combining many data.

25 March 1521.
- At h 12 Pigafetta falls on the sea, trying to fish. (Pigafetta)
- Later (h 14?) they start WSW between 4 islands (?) Cenalo (Dinagat? Silago?) , Hiunanghan (Cabugan ? Hinunangan?), Ibusson (Hibusson?), Abarien (Cabalian?). (Pigafetta)
- They start W to Seilani (Leyte?). They coast along. (Albo)
- They are hit by a big storm. (Oviedo-Navarrete)
- They start to go to Seilan (Leyte?). Taken by a tempest, the weather push them to another island called Masana. (Massimiliano Transilvano-Navarrete) (in corrent hand writing Massana and Massaua are written in the same way)
26-27
Where do they pass nights and days under the storm? Not navigating, as you suppose, but trying to escape the storm (unfortunately, when the ship does not coast, Pigafetta stops to write). When one is in a strait does not go in open sea to encounter big waves. The best thing to do is to approach the lee shore. According the web site of Underground Weather, the prevailing winds here in March and April are from E. Only a fisher or a sailor of Surigao could know well. If this is true, they could go on Dinagat coast, beating E, S, E, S and so on, entering the Melgar bay, Awasa bay or Hinatuan passage (subject to tide currents), well sheltered by the sea waves and large. Here they could anchor to the wheel or, better, being not practical of the bottom and of the spot and afraid of the reefs, stay lying to (hove to, a la capa).
27 night.
- They see a fire on a near island (Mazaua). (Pigafetta)
28.
- They anchor at a side of this island. They receive the Mazaua King. Later they move near the King’s house. (Pigafetta)

Coordinates.
- Mazaua: 9°40’N, 162°W. (Pigafetta)
- Mazaua: 9°40’N. (Albo)
- Cebù anchorage: 10°19’N. (Google Earth)
- Cebù anchorage: 10°11’N, 164°W. (Error: -8’N). (Pigafetta-Denucé/Canova)
- Cebù anchorage: 10°N, 164°W. (Error: -19’N). (Pigafetta-Da Mosto/Manfroni/Pozzi)
- Mazaua corrected: 9°48’(±10’?)N, 2°(±30'?)E of Cebù. (Pigafetta-Denucé/Canova)
- Mazaua corrected: 9°59’(±10’?), 2°(±30'?)E of Cebù. (Pigafetta-Da Mosto/Manfroni/Pozzi)
- Cebù anchorage: 10°10’N, (Error: -9’N). (Albo)
- Mazaua corrected: 9°49’(±10’?)N. (Albo)

Two of these corrected latitudes pass for the north point of Mindanao.

Note 1. The Denucé latitude seems more trustworthy, on the basis that a good copyist may do errors or omissions but not additions.
Note 2. Apart from the figures, which depend from the reporter and the version chosen, all the report give the impression that the track during the storm remains inside the Surigao Strait. Also the fact that Pigafetta does not speak of the two days 26 and 27, suggests that the ship is not navigating, but only steering against the storm.
Note 3. The Roteiro of the Genoese Pilot (Leone Pancaldo?) cannot be taken in consideration regarding the coordinates. Reading his report, it is clear that he is giving the latitudes just to give a roughly idea of the position, not as a result of a measurement: usually he expresses the data with only integral numbers of degrees (11, 10, 9), sometime adding words as almost or more than. The curator of the italian translation from the Portuguese version, Camillo Manfroni, believe that this text more than a traslation is a summary of the original italian version now lost. In particular he as well complains that latitudes are often coarsely wrong.
Note 4. The Pigafetta’s curators do not believe to the originality of the pictures added to the report. Pigafetta never speaks of them. If one looks the picture of Bohol, Mactan and Cebù remains horrified by the grossness of the drawings. Only one who has never been there nor has listen anything about the unicity of the Cebù harbor could do so gross mistakes.
One has to insist on being blind to reality to believe that the portolano attached to his report has been drawn or devised by Pigafetta himself.
Other fulish drawings can be easily found in this portolano.
YSOLE DE LI LADRONI. It is drawn a kind of catamaran with the balancing vessel (outrigger) of the open type. It could be submerged and filled by water. Nobody has never made a catamaran so. Pigafetta speaks of a bipointed pole. Generally, still now, they use, a bamboo cane.
AGUADA LY BONI SEGNALY (Pigafetta, 323: Acquada dali Buoni Segnialli). The islands are named something differently in Pigafetta's report, as the title. Zzamal (Zamal, 293) should be on the right and is on the left. Zuluam (Zuluan, 317) should be on the north and is on the south. Abarien should be in the south and is on the north. It seems that the painter/amanuensis draws the islands by chance only for decoration.
MALLUCO. Pigafetta never uses this name but uses 20 times Moluco or Molucho. Probably the painter saw some chart made by the portuguese sailors which frequented this archipelago many years before the Magellan's journey.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.224.38.186 (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Pigafetta's reference: critical editon of Andrea Canova, Editrice Antenore, Padova, 1999.
Vasco Caini (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see the lead paragraph of WP:V. Also, please see WP:SYNTH. Also, please see WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Mazaua shape

(Magallanes) llegò a otra isla que tendrà de circuito de tres hasta cuatro leguas. Esta isla tiene un puerto bueno a la parte de poniente. (Ginès de Mafra)
Nobody wrote that Mazaua was round or almost so. The word circuito is so defined by El Vox Mayor:
1. Terreno comprendido dentro de un perimetro qualquiera.
2. Bojeo o contorno.
That in english is only perimeter or boundary.
Regarding the shape in the drawing we can see that it is unreliable as the position in the same drawing (see my note 4, on Mazaua coordinates).
Mazaua has an harbor in the west side (for 3 big ships!). (Gaspar de San Augustin, O.S.A., Conquistas de las islas Filipinas, C.S.I.C., Madrid, 1975, pp. 145-146).
Vasco Caini (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Map of Antonio Pigafetta correlated with de Mafra's "circuito"

Pigafetta's map of Mazaua shows an island that is not triangular, no polygonic, not squarish, not rectangular. It is rounded enough to be able to calculate its area according to the usual scientific formula for getting the area of a rounded object. The shape of Mazaua may be seen at this URL http://lh3.ggpht.com/_MFbxwaETdHk/SFR7zuvUysI/AAAAAAAAAIU/11vwTJyIpoI/Slide11.JPG. The calculation made by a scientist may be found on Page 56 of the article at http://www.xeniaeditrice.it/mazaua.pdf. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Gatighan

Is Gatighan, as Mazaua, a misterious island? It does not seem so, if you read literally the Pigafetta's report. He say: we went NW passing between five islands, that is Ceylon, Bohol, Canighan, Baybay and Gatighan. Pigafetta usually mentions places in order, so the last one should be logically to the north of Baybay. And Gatighan is last place described as the spot of the 18 o.c. hunt. Baybay is a town on a south bank of a river. Going W from Gatighan they arrived to the Camotes Islands, so Gatighan is E of the Camotes. Est of Camotes there are only the surroundings of Baybay. There is an island immediately north of Baybay? Yes, there is one of these characteristic islands that usually form in the river estuaries and which grow a lot if the man lets growing their vegetation (now it seems a triangular shape of 500mx800m). This is the more likely Gatighan. From here to Cebù harbor there are exactly and directly 54 nautical miles (Google Earth). Pigafetta writes 15 league, equal to 52 nm. And the estuary of a river is a good anchorage as the bottom is mud.
The fauna described by Pigafetta are typical of land. These birds could not live in a small sea island, as the seagulls, where they could not find water to drink and fructs to eat. Moreover, these bats drink water only flying, as they are not able to walk. So, they need a strip of fresh water. What strip of fresh water is longer and better than a river?
It is the first time that Pigafetta talk of bats, probably he never saw them in previously visited islands. That means that he is in a different surroundings as a florid river valley is different from a rocky sea island. That statement could be controlled by the distribution of that kind of bats (flying fox, pteropus vampirus?) in the islands and coasts between Cebu and Siargao group. The climatic conditions probably are not changed too much, even now.
The 18 o.c. hunt is the last think done in the day, so it could not have done at the start of the journey.
A small island in a middle of river, is also more safe as it is sheltered by climber predators. All the many birds described by Pigafetta could stay in only one tree.
Instead to consult historians lived centuries later, sitting at their desks, and copying errors each other, it is better to take in account only the reports of the original sailors.

CARTOGRAPHY. The maps contained in the extant Pigafetta's manuscripts are not original nor reliable. See my Note 4 on a previous section Mazaua coordinates, and J. Denucé, Pigafetta, 1923, Anvers, Paris, p. 25, note 31.
Vasco Caini (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Correlating textual with cartographic testimonies

The textual rendition of Gatighan is correctly stated as an enumeration where Gatighan is at the end of the series. There is however a different "reality" which is described by the cartography of the area in the Surigao Strait where Gatighan is shown as an island sandwiched between Bohol and Panaon (spelled variously as Ceylon, Seilani, Ceilan).

Which of the two "realities" is correct? The presumption that "Pigafetta usually mentions places in order" is just a presumption, it is not an absolute statement of fact. I can very well also claim that Pigafetta's maps are absolute rendition of reality of a higher value than what the text says.

How do historians or for that matter any logical mind reconcile conflicting testimonies? By projecting description of reality with reality itself, as we can perceive it in real time in the here and now. There is today one and only one island that is sandwiched by Bohol and Panaon. It is Limasawa. From latitude 9° N, which is the latitude of Mazaua as calculated by The Genoese Pilot, there is only one island that one encounters taking the northwest track. Pigafetta says it took 80 nautical miles (20 leguas) to reach Gatighan; it takes a little less than that from 9°N. But to impose absolute exactitude in the calculation of distances during he Renaissance is not valid since the instrument for measurement was at best flawed. The method for sailors then was to time with the use of the ampolleta for a bubble formed by the bow of the ship as it hits a wave. One can appreciate the difficulty considering a bubble can burst before it reaches a predetermined point in the ship by which to measure the distance traveled and the time it took for the bubble to reach that point. There are a number of variables affecting this method, the wind, the tide, the waves, the current, the rolling and rocking of the ship.

A number of Magellan scholars have guessed Gatighan is Apit or Himuquetan which are little dots on the map and islets that are just barely above sea water. These are also above 10° N the latitude Francisco Albo indicated for Gatighan.

One has to insist on being blind to reality to refuse to consider the validity of the map of Pigafetta which shows Gatighan as an island near or at 10° N and which is the only island that is sandwiched by Bohol and Panaon. This set of facts are possessed by today's Limasawa. --Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Mazaua-Butuan relation

... Butuan que es en la isla de Mindanao que es de la parte del norte della quince leguas de Macagua... (Ginés de Mafra)
The pedestrian english translation is:
...Butuan which is in the Mindanao island which is on the northern part of it fifteen leagues from Mazaua...
And more smoothly it can be translated:
...Butuan which is on the northern part of Mindanao island, fifteen leagues from Mazaua...

The idea that Mazawa is fifteen leagues south of Butuan is a sheer invention of an english translator.
So the Gines de Mafra's report has not changed anything to the location of Mazaua.
Vasco Caini (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Genoese's pilot reliability

The Genoese's pilot doesn't calculate latitudes but gives a summary of them, sometime roughly, sometime very wrongly.
...is notably lacking in the technical detail which would have interested a pilot, or a mariner as well. Where the author does refer even to such simple matters as latitude, he is notably weak. For instance, our author speaks of "an island in a little more or less than eighteen degrees, or nineteen degres, and also another , which was in from thirteen to fourteen degrees, and this in south latitude." Pigafetta, who was at least a mariner, places these two islands in fifteen degrees and nine degrees southern latitudes, showing a much more precise understanding of the first elements of navigation.
...Hernando (de Bustamante of Alcantara, barber), we think was the author of this account. ... The whole caracter of the account is that of an observer and not a navigator; and of course a barber in those days was a man of some standing...
Filipiniana book guild, Carlos Quirino, First voyage around the world and de Moluccis insulis, Manila, 1969, appendix IV, p. 158-159.

...Osserviamo anzitutto che, assai probabilmente, noi non possediamo nel testo portoghese una vera e propria traduzione, ma un transunto.
"Let to observe that, very probabaly, we do not have in the Portuguese text a translation but a summary."
...Anche molte cifre, di latitudine per lo più (della longitudine il roteiro non parla mai, come se non esistesse) sono errate grossolanamente; ed anche questi errori possono essere imputati al traduttore.
"Many figures as well, mainly of latitudes (of the longitude the pilot never speaks, as it was non existing) are grossly wrong; also these errors could be ascribed to the translator."
Relazione del primo viaggio intorno al mondo, Camillo Manfroni, Verona, 1928/1983, p. 185-186. Luigi Avonto, p. 265, p. 353, nota 70.
In less than one page we find: 11° scarce (the first island seen in Pilippines, no name); 10° (second island, The Good Signals); 10° (third island, no name); 9° (forth island, Maçangor); 10° (fifth island, Cabo); it seems that the Roteiro doesn't like minutes . Or was Magellano looking only for integral latitude islands?
Ibidem, pp. 195-196. Luigi Avonto, I compagni italiani di Magellano, ediciones El Galeòn, Montevideo, 1992, p. 318 (Portuguese), pp. 352-353 (Italian).
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.224.38.186 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Vasco Caini (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

...so, where is Mazaua?

From the reliable reports, the characteristics of Mazaua should be as follow.
Latitude: around the latitude of Surigao (+-10'?).
Longitude: 2° (+-30'?) est of Cebu (~ est coast of Dinagat).
Harbor: good west harbor.
Perimeter: 10/14 nautical miles (estimated, not mesured).
Distances: 15 league from Butuan (Ginès de Mafra); 20 league from Gatigan (Pigafetta, 451).
It borders with North of Mindanao (Pigafetta, 753).
It is NE of Camiguin (Rodriguez/Valdemoro/Rizal).
It is in a line about 100°E from Cebu (Albo/Navarrete).
Let examine all the islands in the sorroundings of Surigao.
LIMAZAWA.
Pro. Acceptable coordinates. Suggested by the Legazpi's report, Instituto historico de Marina, Madrid, 1947, pp. 71-72. Legazpi say little shelter: possibly is just the isla seen by Legaspi as Mazaua, but for a misunderstanding with his local guide. Possibly her name has not invented by an historician but was already similar to the name Mazaua, or the guide brought the fleet there by purpose and deception.
Contra. longitude far from that given by Pigafetta and Albo.
Legazpy did not find people nor shelter. Ginès de Mafra, on the contrary, say that he found good west shelter and people which was remembering Magellan visit and shown his presents.
No harbor, no cove. No boat could enjoy a rest in front of a rocky coast and bad bottom for a week or months without a shelter.
Skipped even by Legazpi as of little shelter (poco abrigo).
UNIB.
Pro. Latidude almost concident with the complex of datas given by Pigafetta in the Ambrosian MS.
Good west cove sheltered by the Sibanac island.
The Admiralty chart 4475, based on a survey of 1913, shows an height of 198 m. Google Earth gives 20 m less. Possibly the island is subject to subsidence and in 1521 could have been much higher and its perimeter much bigger.
Contra. The perimeter is now about 6 nautical miles.
The datas on french MS (Denucé) seem more reliable. According to these datas the latitude should be lower.
Very small for a king.
HANIGAD+SIBALE. (They are 2 islands with high tide and one island with low tide).
Pro. Acceptable coordinates, as given by Albo and the Pigafetta's french MS.
Good west harbor. Physically is the best suited island.
Perimeter: point-to-point 12 nm. The island has a very jagged coast line. The indented perimeter could be 15 nm.
Height: a hill of 107 m and a hill of 163 far each other. The first is near to the harbor and open to the sea.
Hanigad-Sibale could explain a detail of the Pigafetta's report. He arrives to this island and encounter many persons, so he is near to the village. Still later he moves his ships near the King's house, which could be presumed near the village. If he has arrived from Nord-Est he is in the Nord-Est bay, but the good harbor is the opposite South-West bay. The two bays are divided by a narrow streep of ground, at least now, alternatively under low water following the tide. To go to the other bay the ship has to do the turn of the Sibali island, coming back in a point very near to the previous one, but sheltered from Est typhoons, prevailing in this area during March/April months.
Hanigad-Sibale is 65 n.m. (19 league) from Gatigan;
and is 52 n.m. (15 league) from Butuan estuary and 56 n.m. (16 league) from Butuan City.
DOOT.
Pro. Good coordinates as given by Albo and Pigafetta's french MS.
Good west harbor formed with the Nonoc island.
Contra. Very small. Perimeter 3 nm.
Too much near to bigger island escluded by Magellan for safety reason.
BAYAGNAN.
Pro. It is the nearest to the Pigafetta's longitude.
It is near to the latitude given by Pigafetta's french MS and Albo.
Good west cove.
Perimeter: point to point, together with the Bilabid island to which appears connected by mangrove, 10 nm; the indented perimeter could be 14 nm.
Heigth of the nearest hill to the cove is 59 m.
Contra. The surroundings are subject to big tide currents. The tide currents are no harmful to the navigation as far as they are know. But they did not know them. And the tide currents are a phenomenon too much important for the navigation to be hided.
CEPAYA.
Pro. Latitude near to the Albo's one. West harbor.
Perimeter: 10 n.m. with the Maanoc and Condona islands strictly connected.
Contra. To arrive one has to pass a place of high tide currents not reported.
COGSAMON PASS.
It is delimited by 3 islands (Lamagon, Bilabid, Maanoc); it could be a good west harbor, unless subject to important tide currents. It is not an island, althoug possibly mangrove could join apparently the 3 islands in only one.

The choice should be easier by a control on the spot.
Pigafetta's reference: critical editon of Andrea Canova, Editrice Antenore, Padova, 1999.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.224.38.186 (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Vasco Caini (talk) 15:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

league

In the Navigation treatise (possibly translated by the Rui Faleiro's one) Pigafetta writes: a league on the sea is 4 mile (millia); every degree on the equatorial line is 17,5 league, so the length of the equatorial line is 6300 league. We know now that the equatorial line is 40076 km, so we have 1 league = 6,3613 km = 3,4348 international nautical mile. The accuracy probably is not good, so it is in doubt also the second decimal digit.
Did all they use the same unit? It should be so in a good scout team. But in a team where the spanish captains hated the portuguese Admiral, so much to arrive to mutiny and death penalty, that is not sure.
Vasco Caini (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mazaua and history

The controversy of Mazaua shows that quoting an enormous number of authors, although most not afferent, nor reliable, nor eye-witness, writing an enormoous number of pages, forging a little some datas, one can succeed to demonstrate everything and its opposite.
Vasco Caini (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Mazaua's name

Many names has been used by different authors to the first mass island. One is that given by Giovanni Francesco Gemelli Careri, in his history Viaggio intorno al mondo, ed. Coleti, Venezia, 1728, Tomo V, Filippine, Lib. I, Cap. X, p. 63, relating his journey done there in 1696. That name is Dimassavan (and a few lines below, Dimassivan). In other part, Lib. II, Cap. VIII, p. 135, that name is given as Dimassava.
In Italian handwriting the letters u and n are very similar. Although all the transcribers have interpreted the sign as u, the writing in the original Ambrosiana Pigafetta's report is more similar to a letter n, which could give the transcription as Mazana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasco Caini (talk • contribs) 10:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Vasco Caini (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Mazana is called also in the report of Maximiliano Transilvano, Martin Fernandez de Navarrete, Colecciòn de los viages y descubrimientos, Tomo IV, n. XXIV, § XI, p. 268, Imprenta nacional, Madrid, 1837. Vasco Caini (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
95.224.38.186 (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Maßana is written in the same original report in latin, Maximilianus Transylvanus, De Moluccis insulis, p. 14, Köln, 1523. Vasco Caini (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This prompted me to do some googling, from which see [1] and [2]. A google books search for "Dimassavan" turns up other hits. (just mentioning this in case it is useful) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The word "Dimassava" was an invention of Fr. Francisco Colin who wrote in 1665 an epitome of the Magellan sojourn in Philippine waters. Based on his sources, principally Giovanni Ramusio whose work Colin presumed as an authentic account of Antonio Pigafetta and the secondhand account of the Mazaua incident by Antonio de Herrera de Tordesillas, Colin resolved the conflicting testimonies of his two sources. Ramusio wrote the port of March 28-April 2, 1521 was BUTUAN where, Ramusio wrote, an Easter Sunday mass was held and a huge cross planted on March 31, 1521. Herrera for his part, based on a lost report of Andres de San Martin, wrote the incident happened at Mazaua. Colin resolved this conflict by adopting Ramusio (a valid decision if it were really Pigafetta's account) and rejecting Herrera who, unbeknownst to Colin, wrote an authentic and factual and truthful account of the Mazaua incident. So Colin wrote the fleet was at Butuan where the "first mass" was held and a cross planted. Ramusio wrote that from Butuan the fleet found itself at Messana/Massana. Now Colin could not have, considering his clerical mindset, accepted this testimony: To Colin the word "Messana" connotes "missa" or mass which he had just located at Butuan. This is why he invented the word "Dimassava", a word that is not found in any primary or secondary source, and does not exist in any Philippine language. So what does his Dimassava" signify? The word consists of the Bisayan article "di" which means "not" and the second word is "masawa" the name Herrera gives to the port of March 28-April 4, 1521. The word means, therefore, "This island is not where an Easter mass was held as reported by Herrera." Colin's Dimassava points to an island in southern Leyte that is today named Limasawa.

The word "Limasawa" comes from the three paragraphs of Fr. Francisco Combes whose abstract of Magellan's sojourn in the archipelago was based on another edition of Ramusio and the same writing of Antonio de Herrera. In this version of Ramusio, the Magellan fleet anchors at, again, Butuan. This time however Ramusio does not mention any mass happening but writes of a cross being planted at a hill in Butuan. Combes adopts Ramusio again on the mistaken notion it is an authentic Pigafetta account. Since he does not have to deny a non-existent mass--which Colin had to wrestle with and negate having been held at Messana--Combes invents a new prefix, "Li", to characterize his rejection of Herrera's Mazaua (he spelt it "Mazagua" the gua having the value of w).

Combes "Limasavva" ironically--tragically--is today seen as "the site of the first mass." At Facebook, I recently launched a contest that any one who can find the word "missa" in Combes' three paragraphs will win an all-expense-paid travel around the world. This contest is also open to all editors of Wikipedia. You don't have to write any argument or anything. All one has to do is point to the word "missa" (meaning "mass" to stand for the Easter Sunday mass of March 31, 1521 that was celebrated at Mazaua). Up to this point (July 1, 2011), some three months after launching the contest, not one among the 700 million subscribers of Facebook has come up with the word. (See Facebook http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150167665373502.362462.761273501) The government historians at the National Historical Institute of the Philippines who affirmed they see such "first mass" having occurred at Limasawa, not one has found the word. They will not, no one will, no one can. There is no reference to a mass of any kind in the Limasawa story. The word does not exist in the Combes story. Vicente Calibo de Jesus (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Cebu, Mazaua and Suluan.

It is common to believe that the Magellan's fleet entered the Surigao Strait by the North, after passing some days in the island now called Suluan (and/or Homonhon) and that the latitude given by Albo (9°40') for this island is only a manifest error.
There are instead other data given by Albo, which are in accord with that latitude. Albo say: Subu con la isla de Mazawa y Suluan, estan leste oeste cuarta del noroeste sueste. This sentence seems rather dark. Lackely Navarrete give us a wise interpretation: the 3 islands lie in a line with an inclination of 281°/101° (West + a cuarta NW / Est + a cuarta SE). Even the longitude given by Albo pass for Bucas Grande and Kangbangyo Islands, as well as the new Suluan island of course, (Navarrete say that this happens only by chance, but so it is). This 3 island line pass in the Siargao group and the Albo's Suluan latitude is coherent. The Mazaua island, being in the middle of this 3 island line, should stay just in the North of Mindanao. And the distance between the Albo's Suluan and Mazaua could be well 25 leagues, according to Pigafetta, as they had to surround Dinagat. The Hinatuan passage was unknown, narrow and dangerous for the big tide currents and whirlpools. Of course the Albo's Suluan island is not the one which is called Suluan now.
Another fact induce to retain that the Suluan of Albo is in the Siargao group. Pigafetta (which call it Humunu) say that in this island Magellan leaved some ill men and every day he was going to visit them. Could the ships remain for a week near to the actual Suluan, a rocky island in front of the Ocean, with a rocky bottom? That should be likely instead around W Siargao and Bucas Grande, well sheltered by the Ocean and with mud bottom.
Vasco Caini (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasco Caini (talk • contribs) 10:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

- Martin Fernandez de Navarrete, Colecciòn de los viages y descubrimientos, Tomo IV, Expediciòn al Maluco, Viage de Magallanes y de Elcano, Madrid, Imprenta Nacional, 1837, § III, p.54/58.
- Francisco Albo, Diario ò derrotero del viage de Magallanes desde el cabo de San Augustin en el Brasil, hasta el regresso à España de la nao Victoria (Arch. de Ind. en Sivilla, leg. 1°, papeles del Maluco desde 1519 à 1547), doc. XXII, op. cit. p.220.
- Pigafetta, Relazione del primo viaggio intorno al mondo, testo critico e comment di Antonio Canova, Editrice Antenore, Padova, 1999, pp. 205-211, §§ 293-337.
Vasco Caini (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Vasco Caini (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Camiguin/Mazaua relation.

Mazaua is at NE of Camiguin.

Esteban Rodriguez, (1564-1565), Relaciòn muy circunstaciada de la navegaciòn que hizo el Armada de S.M. a cargo del General Miguel Lòpez de Legazpi..., p. 29, / Miguel Lòpez de Legazpi, Relaciòn circunstanciada de los acontecimientos y suceso del viaje y jornada que hizo el Armada de SU Majestad, de que fué por General el muy Ilt. Señor Miguel Lòpez de Legazpi ..., p. 71, Colecciòn de diarios y relaciones para la historia de los viajes y descubrimientos, V, Instituto Històrico de Marina, Madrid, 1947. (See the doubt expressed in the item LIMAZAWA.)
That new is reported also by hand of Rizal. Escritos, Tomo VII, Escritos polìticos e històricos, Ediciòn del centenario, Comisiòn nacional del centenario de José Rizal, Manila, 1961, Apendice B, p. 380.
Vasco Caini (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

See also

Gatighan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasco Caini (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Pigafetta & drawings

Map of Cebu attached to the Pigafetta's report

Drawing attached to the Antonio Pigafetta's report (1522-1531) extant at the Venerabile Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Fondo manoscritti, Piazza Pio XI, 2, 20123 Milano, Italy.
Observations.
1) The name of one island in the drawing is Mattam, in the Pigafetta's report is matan (the today's name is Mactan).
2) The name of one island in the drawing is Zzubu, in the report is Zubu (the today's name is Cebu).
3) The port is drawn as an estuary, or creek, or cove: the actual is a singular canal harbor, 5 nm (9km) long, delimited by the Mactan and Cebu costs, very near each other. It is unique and the best natural harbor in the word; well described by Albo.
4) The highest part is conventionally considered as the South, the lower part as the North. Actually the 3 island Cebu, Mactan, Bohol are placed from West to East.
5) The islands are drawn in a fanciful way. In reality the Mactan island is very small, the Cebu island very big, and the shapes are completely different.
6) In the Mattam island drawing there is an Italian inscription (with some error): Quivi mori Il cap.mo gñale (Quivi morì il capitano generale).
7) Pigafetta in his report never cites any drawing.

May an honest man, let alone an historian, to believe that this drawing has been drawn or supervised by Pigafetta?

Vasco Caini (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC) 09:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Who started the hoax?

Legazpi asked a local guide to drive him to Mazaua, known to have a village on the East and a harbor on the West. The guide, or for a misunderstanding or for deception, brought him just to Limasawa. Legazpi, arriveded there, sent one of his ship to make the turn of the island. The report was: no people, no shelter. Legazpi then skipped this island and went to Camiguin. (see: Camiguin/Mazaua relation)
Why should the local guide deceive Legazpi? The reason appears when Legazppi ask the guide to guide him to Camiguin. The guide say: they are our friends! It should not be a friendly act to guide big ships, full of warriors and guns, in a small island.
So, the Legazpi's report contains two opposite statements: Mazaua is Limazawa and Limazawa has not the ethnical and geographical characteristics to be Mazaua.
Vasco Caini (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)