Where on Earth is Masaua? Search for the Mysterious Island of the First Mass

Many know how Magellan's expedition became the first recorded circumnavigation of the world, albeit Magellan himself did not manage to complete the journey. However, despite the documentation of the expedition through firsthand participants such as the Italian chronicler Antonio Pigafetta (Antonio Lombardo), the flagship boatswain Francisco Albo (Francisco Alvaro), the Jerezano sailor Gines de Mafra (Ginez de Mafra), Martin Ayamonte, the "unknown Portuguese," and the "Genoese pilot," among others, there were still many questions on this expedition which sparks controversy to this day. On March 16, 1521 (March 17 in Philippine Standard Time), Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan or Fernão de Magalhães (Spanish name: Fernando Magallanes) and his mostly Spanish crew landed on Homonhon, one of the islands of what is now the Philippines. Thinking that he discovered a new land, he named the area Archipelago of Saint Lazarus (San Lazaro), but when they encountered native inhabitants, they had to depend heavily on their slave Enrique for translation and interpretation.

As history textbooks would now tell us, Magellan did not discover the Philippines. Precolonial Filipinos discovered Magellan. Soon enough, it was time to move on and they met the ruler of Calagan (Yunuguan, Guiuan) and Zuluan (Suluano, Suluan), Rajah Calambu (Rajah Kolambu), and the ruler of Calaghan (Caragua, Caraga) and Butuan, Rajah Siani (Rajah Siagu). After performing casi casi or peace ceremony, Magellan pledged to return to their lands to help them against their foes, a likely offer that he would also say to Rajah Humabon when they arrive at Cebu by April 1521. Then, the first ever Christian mass recorded in the archipelago was conducted. Officiated by the only religious in the crew, the friar Pedro de Valderrama, the mass was done on Easter Sunday and the cross was planted "upon a mountain," the highest peak in the island so that they could always look up to it for protection. This was March 31, 1521. However, where was the mass actually held? Eyewitness accounts like Pigafetta's would indicate that one place being called Masaua, Masaoa, Masao, Masawa, Masava, Massava, Mazzavua, Mazana, Messana, Mazagua, Macaguoa, Macangor, Mazzaba, or Mazaba, but where was it really?

Depiction of the first mass to be held in the Philippines
Photo courtesy of gov.ph

Limasawa: the recognized spot

As early as 1960, through Republic Act No. 2733, Limasawa was officially recognized a the site of the first mass. In 2009, the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP) under the chairmanship of Professor Ambeth Ocampo reviewed its earlier position that the first mass was held in Limasawa, now a municipality of Leyte. With Resolution No. 05, series of 2009, NHCP declared that it reaffirms "an island now known as Limasawa" being the site of the mass. Also, as far as oral history goes, it was said that Leyte locals also refer to Limasawa as the chief of the area, an abridged version of Alimbusay Lima Asawa, the namesake of the island. Almost a decade later, as the Philippines commemorates the 500th year of this event, the National Quincentennial Committee (NQC) formed a panel headed by Professor Resil Mojares, a historian who was also recognized as National Artist for Literature (2018). The so-called Mojares panel reviewed once more the true site of the first mass. As the panel undertook this endeavor, they had to deal with the arguments of those who propose other places.

Butuan: the ancient polity

Limasawa is widely believed to be the true site of the first mass.
Photo courtesy of Around the World in 200 Messages

There appeared to be some considerable support for another area where the mass could have been done. Such proponents forward Butuan, which was usually attributed as the kingdom of Rajah Siani and the ancient polity which sent envoys to China as early as 1001. Indeed, there was a place named Masao in Butuan today, and unlike Limasawa, Butuan actually had a good port and a mountain to place the cross. However, the primary sources of those who propose Butuan seem to be dated centuries after Magellan actually arrived in the Philippines.

According to Father Miguel Bernad (2002), the traditional belief that the first mass was conducted in Butuan began around the 17th century. In fact, a memorial to its honor was erected there in 1872, albeit it gave a wrong date for the mass itself (April 8). One such source was another friar, Francisco Colin, who in 1663 wrote that the mass was done "in the territory of Butuan." A contemporary source would be Francisco Combes. In 1667, he noted that while Magellan did land in Limasawa, he planted the cross in another area, which was Butuan. However, unlike Colin, Combes says Magellan went to Limasawa first. Colin believed he first landed in Butuan. This would be carried on later. That is, until a Filipino scholar, Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, and a Spanish friar, Pablo Pastells, argued against Butuan in 1894. Their rebuttal was based mainly on the rediscovery of at least two primary sources, Pigafetta's chronicles and Albo's logbook. Pastells even put it quite emphatically, "Magellan did not go to Butuan." Besides, Butuan was no island, but a land of rivers. There was no mention of any river in the landscape. An island in a river delta, perhaps? Anyway, this rediscovery thrilled even Jose Rizal, who wrote about the need to study Italian in order to examine these eyewitness accounts. It appeared that Masaua was replaced in the translation as Buthuan or Buthuam, which did not make sense because Pigafetta for instance identified Butuan as a separate entity from Masaua in his own garbled way. The two would conclude that it was indeed Limasawa which was the site of the first mass, and Bernad seemed to agree to this perspective.

None of the above? A unique identity for Masaua

If the choice was between Limasawa and Butuan, the following question would be: Who was the King of Masaua? Following the traditional options, it would either be Calaghan's Rajah Siani or Zuluan's Rajah Calambu. However, while the King of Masaua proved to be of great help for Magellan in charting the path to Cebu, Pigafetta nor any of the eyewitnesses bothered to consistently name who this generous ruler really was. A convenient choice? Was the King of Masaua not really a king but a vassal or a tributary? Also, how was Calagan translated into Limasawa, and Zuluan into Butuan, whereas the contention was that these islands were nearby? In fact, Albo would mention that they arrived in Calagan and Zuluan within "the same day" they reached Homonhon. What then if Magellan did not actually go to either Limasawa or Butuan?

In light of this, alternative interpretations of the available sources surfaced, one of which was that of Vicente Calibo de Jesus (2003), a researcher and media practitioner, whose claim revolved around Masaua being further south of Limasawa. de Jesus even comes to the point of calling the Limasawa story a hoax, because he firmly believed Masaua was not Limasawa nor Butuan. Using geomorphological and navigational studies, de Jesus identified Masaua as an "isle of improbability fused with Mindanao." That is, Masaua was not an island anymore, and that the island's ruler was indeed Rajah Siani. Still, upon examining Pinamanculan, the shores of the presumed former island, some 80 kilometers south of Surigao (which he identified as de Mafra's Butuan), de Jesus claimed that significant precolonial wares were unearthed from the area. Also, there was a mountain nearby, Mount Kitomoy. Then again, there was nothing much which indicated early Spanish contact such as the gifts Magellan gave to the local rulers. Still, Limasawa was, and is, obviously not a good spot for anchorage for large ships. Limasawa also lie north of Butuan, whereas Masaua was supposedly located south of Butuan, at least if we are to believe de Mafra's account.

De Jesus also contended that while Pigafetta and the other crew got the longitude wrong (placing Masaua at Pigafetta's 162 degrees longitude would mean the middle of the Pacific Ocean), they at least got the latitude right (anywhere between the Genoese pilot's 9 degrees N and Pigafetta's 9.67 degrees N latitude). Following his proposed adjustments, the coordinates would result to the waters of Gingoog Bay and Butuan Bay with no island to be seen within the vicinity (9 degrees N latitude, 125.07 to 125.47 degrees E longitude). Limasawa, meanwhile, was around 115 kilometers from Homonhon, and 120 kilometers from Butuan. He also stressed de Mafra's measurements that Masaua was around 30 square kilometers, while Limasawa today is much smaller at 7 square kilometers (supposedly, most of its land sunk due to rising waters). To support this claim was another statement from Pigafetta, which indicated that Quipit (Cippit, Zamboanga), 278 kilometers (50 leagues) from Cebu, was actually bordered by Masaua. Another alternative interpretation did not involve Limasawa, but the island Matan (Mactan). In this proposal, it was argued that Lapu-Lapu's domain was not in the vicinity of Cebu City, but further east, among the Camotes Islands. That would be set aside for another story.

Map of Masaua (upper right) and
neighboring islands. Notice Bohol
and Satighan (Gatighan) near Masaua.
Invert the map and notice how Masaua
was south of Ceylon (Leyte) and Bohol.
Note how Masaua was the only island
in this map with a cross and houses.
Masaua had 3 houses, while on another
map, Cebu had 16 houses.
Photo courtesy of Antonio Pigafetta's account

Inaccuracies by Magellan's eyewitnesses?

Then again, de Jesus's defined area at Pinamanculan, while somewhat close enough from Butuan (some 70 kilometers from Surigao, and less than 10 kilometers from what is now Masao in Butuan), was a far shot from Homonhon at around 220 kilometers away. His apparent confidence in less known accounts like de Mafra's and the Genoese pilot's needs to be reexamined. This paves the way for another point of contention: Could Magellan's crew have been inaccurate in their coordinates and distances? Could they have misidentified islands as parts of a whole? After all, they did not have the benefit of satellite and GPS technology. They had to work with the compass, as well as astrolabes, which could create an error of some 15 minutes (1/4 of a degree), perhaps even more. Meanwhile, sextants would not be of widespread use until some two centuries later. For instance, Pigafetta, Albo, and the Genoese pilot got Homonhon's coordinates wrong. 

The island was not in 10 degrees N latitude, 161 degrees W longitude. Albo even placed Homonhon at an impossible 189 degrees W longitude (there are only 180 degrees, which indicated Albo probably just added the numbers in his log after crossing the International Date Line), while the Genoese pilot did not note this at all. The island was located at 10.73 degrees N latitude and 125.73 E degrees longitude. This inaccuracy may seem narrow and insignificant during their time, but for an archipelago like the Philippines, it would create a huge difference. Just a discrepancy of a few minutes (say 10 degrees latitude, 125.5 degrees longitude), would likely place Magellan's expedition not in Homonhon Island, but in Dinagat Island.

It begs the question. Were Magellan's crew quite prone to such minor errors? Apparently. Of some of the coordinates Pigafetta noted, the discrepancy in the following landmarks were observed:

• Ladrones (Guam): 1.44 degrees latitude, 1.21 degrees longitude
• Zamal (Samar): 1.62 degrees latitude
• Zzubu (Cebu): 0.32 degrees latitude
• Quipit (Zamboanga): 0.39 degrees latitude
• Tadore (Tidore): 0.40 degrees latitude
• Timor: 1.13 degrees latitude

Not only so, but there could also be minor differences in their measurement of distances. For instance, they reported that Guam and Homonhon were 1,667 kilometers apart (300 leagues), but is actually more than 2,000 kilometers from each other. Considering this, de Mafra's measurements of Masaua's area might have not been also absolute. He might not have had even the chance to chart the entire island despite the whole week they spent in Masaua, for they also failed to explore other islands in entirety like Leyte itself. How about Albo's logbook and its coordinates?

• Ladrones (Guam): 0.44 degrees latitude
• Humunu (Homonhon): 0.73 degrees latitude
• Subo (Cebu): 0.02 degrees latitude
• Bohol: 0.35 degrees latitude
• Quipit (Zamboanga): 0.11 degrees latitude
• Borney (Brunei): 0.88 degrees latitude
• Tidori (Tidore): 0.37 degrees latitude
• Timor: 0.13 degrees latitude

On average, Pigafetta was likely to miss the correct coordinates by a whole degree, while Albo around half a degree. A significant difference. Still, one important corroboration among the available primary sources was that the three islands which the Masaua locals pointed them towards, namely Ceylon (Seilani, Leyte), Zzubu (Subo, Cebu), and Calagan (Calaghan, Caraga), were in the west-southwest direction. This Calagan in the west is not to be confused with the earlier Calagan in the east which was near Homonhon, because in this instance, Pigafetta described Calagan as within the same island as Butuan. That is, Maingdanao (Maguindanao, Mindanao). Albo would only mention Cebu and Leyte, which probably indicated the little interest to go further south. Thereafter, upon charting Leyte, the Magellan crew went northwest, where they passed through the following islands: Bohol, Canighan (Canghu, Canigao), Baibai (Barbai, Baybay), and Satighan (Gatighan). Then, they reached Cebu, which was their conscious choice after the locals mentioned that it was the island with the most traffic and the most riches among the three (again, Leyte, Caraga). Evidently, at least in Pigafetta's map, the explorers thought Baybay and Leyte were different islands, albeit correctly placing Caraga and Butuan within the same landmass of Mindanao. In fact, Pigafetta's Baibai and Ceylon were part of the same island of Leyte. Meanwhile, in terms of distance, Pigafetta identified Masaua as 139 kilometers (25 leagues) from Homonhon, the Genoese pilot said it was 111 kilometers (20 leagues) from Homonhon, and de Mafra placed it 83 kilometers (15 leagues) from Butuan. Then again, it has to be reiterated that these figures might not be absolute. Their measurements were likely to have some margin of error as well, which needed to be considered upon further examination of the matter.

Map of Mindanao according to Magellan's expedition
Notice Calagan (Caraga) and Butuan near each other,
but Masaua was nowhere in the area.
Also note the absence of the cross.
Photo courtesy of Antonio Pigafetta's account

Despite these apparent errors, de Mafra would actually return to Masaua, this time as part of the Ruy Lopez de Villalobos expedition (1542-1545), known for naming the archipelago after Philip II as Las Islas de Filipinas. However, this was not particularly a planned revisit. It turned out de Mafra was separated from Villalobos's crew due to a storm. They had to repair their ship in what he called Masaua Bay. Identifying the King of Masaua as Rajah Siani (in his account, Siaiu), he indicated that the Masaua locals remembered Magellan's expedition two decades earlier, and so they treated the Spanish well, probably as a display of utang na loob. It was perhaps fortunate that de Mafra got separated because during the time they searched for their main crew, Villalobos was actually imprisoned by the Portuguese. Like Magellan, Villalobos died in a foreign land half the world away. Then again, there appeared to be some inconsistency in de Mafra's account. Rajah Siani was the ruler of Calaghan (Caraga), not Masaua, albeit later interpretations attribute him as King of Masaua all the same. Either he really ended up in Calaghan, or he misappropriated the ruler's name. Another possibility was the ruler having the same name as the past ruler they met. Yet another option was that provided he got Masaua correct, the old rajah would have actually remembered the past foreign expedition, if presumably the former rajah who accommodated them was the same.

Another point of contention to the theory of Masaua being a former island was geologic movement. Considering the pace of seismic activity of the Philippine Plate, any island would probably not be displaced by more than a kilometer within the course of 500 years, save for massive activities like an earthquake, or if there was land reclamation in the area, provided it was already near the mainland. According to the Department of Science and Technology (2009), the Philippines is moving towards mainland Asia at a rate of around seven (7) centimeters a year. Also, the magnetic poles have been moving throughout the years. The bearing they have reported 500 years ago might be quite different when compared with modern standards. For instance, the north magnetic pole moves at a rate of 55 kilometers a year.

Unraveling the Masaua mystery

Taking into mind these intricacies, there might be at least one method to deal with the matter and the criteria have to be established. First, it can be assumed that the differences in coordinates were correct, but the coordinates themselves were wrong. For example, the difference in latitude between Homonhon and Masaua was 0.33 degrees according to Pigafetta, 0.67 degrees according to Albo, and 1 degree according to the Genoese pilot. In terms of longitude, the difference between Homonhon and Masaua was 1 degree according to Pigafetta, while Albo and the Genoese pilot did not mention a difference. If the tendency was for Pigafetta to miss the coordinates by 1 degree, while Albo half a degree, the range would therefore be from 0.33 to 1.33 degrees basing on Pigafetta, and from 0.67 to 1.17 degrees basing on Albo. The Genoese pilot did not have as many locator coordinates indicated, but examining his reports elsewhere (e.g., coordinates of the Strait of Magellan), he was also likely to miss by 1 degree. To reiterate, Homonhon was located 10.73 degrees N latitude and 125.73 E degrees longitude, and Limasawa 9.93 degrees N latitude and 125.07 degrees E longitude. Thus, Masaua should be anywhere between 9.4 degrees N latitude and 10.4 degrees N latitude, as well as between 123.73 degrees E longitude and 125.73 degrees E longitude. Then again, the distance must also be taken into consideration. With the margin of error, the distance from Butuan should be between 66 and 100 kilometers, while the distance from Homonhon should be between 89 and 167 kilometers. These are, of course, estimates. Anywhere near these numbers might indicate that the goal site would be in reach.

This eliminates areas east of the 124.73 degrees E longitude because it would be too far from contention. Also, it would miss Bohol, Leyte, and Camotes as a whole because moving northwest from this area would already be Cebu. Siquijor, the only major island in the area, might have fitted de Mafra's bill in terms of area, provided he got the measurements correctly. Siquijor was 344 square kilometers, ten times larger than de Mafra's Masaua. It also sounds near the Genoese pilot's Macangor. Also, taking note from oral history involving Miguel Lopez de Legazpi's later expedition (1565-1571), the Spanish crew noted a glow of fire emanating from the island, earning the alternate name "Isla del Fuego." Pigafetta would also note that before landing on Masaua, they saw at night "fire upon the island." And so, they did not proceed until morning. This peculiar light, which may seem like a footnote, was actually a possible etymology for the name Masaua. In Butuanon, it meant "bright light." It would have taken Magellan's crew an awful lot of speed, however, to arrive in Siquijor if they would come from Homonhon, which was around 300 kilometers away. At best, galleons and caravels at the time could go as fast as 14 kilometers per hour. While theoretically possible within the three-day trek from Homonhon to Masaua which Pigafetta noted, they would have had to sail nonstop at top speed in order to reach Siquijor.

Reenactment of Magellan landing on the Philippines
Photo courtesy of GMA

How about in the areas within the vicinity of 124.73 degrees E longitude? Going south, at 9.40 degrees N latitude, there would only be Gingoog Bay. However, adjust 0.20 degrees further south, one would find Camiguin. While the island name today does not sound anywhere near Masaua or its variations, one of its barangays may be quite near linguistically speaking: Mambajao. While smaller than Siquijor at 283 square kilometers, Camiguin could still be big enough to fit the bill of de Mafra's measurements. As for the distance, Camiguin was around 210 kilometers from Homonhon, and 90 kilometers from Butuan. Of course, these appear to be long shots still. Both Siquijor and Camiguin were traditionally believed to have not been visited by the Magellan expedition. Also, the Legazpi expedition distinguished Masaua from Camiguin. It took them at least two days to reach Camiguin from Masaua. Why the rush? Unlike the goodwill de Mafra recalled, Legazpi did not receive a warm welcome from the people of Masaua (Mazagua), so they set forth for Camiguin, which the Spanish then called Camiguinin (Canuguinen, Kamiginin). Another two decades was the difference between these two encounters. This implied that in the four decades between Magellan and Legazpi, Masaua was still a distinct polity.

Going further north, there are no large islands between 9.40 degrees N latitude and 10.40 degrees N latitude. One of them, Canigao Island, was small (0.13 square kilometers) like Limasawa. Also, it was supposedly charted by the Magellan expedition after staying for seven days in Masaua. In addition, Albo was definitive that they first went straight west from Homonhon, replenishing supplies at an uninhabited island called Gada, before reaching Leyte, and eventually, Masaua. Meanwhile, Pigafetta indicated that they passed through four different islands, namely Cenalo (Silago), Huinanghar (Hinunangan), Ibusson (Hibusong), and Abarien (Cabalian, now San Juan), before arriving at Masaua. Perhaps Albo correctly identified that these areas, perhaps with the exception of Ibusson, were not islands, but part of one place called Leyte (Albo's Seilani). Was Albo's Gada the same as Pigafetta's Ibusson, for instance, or another place altogether? If the former was correct, then Magellan might have went to Hibusong first before going to the Leyte coast.

Two great islands remain at this juncture. One was Leyte's Panaon Island, located 10.09 degrees N latitude, 125.19 degrees E longitude. The other would be Dinagat Island itself, which was mentioned earlier, located 10.13 degrees N latitude, 125.61 degrees E longitude. These two seem to fit de Mafra's bill in terms of size. Panaon Island was 191 square kilometers, while Dinagat Island was 802 square kilometers. In terms of shape, however, they might not fit Pigafetta's bill because both islands were elongated than round. But could have it been possible that they failed to chart the entire island? For instance, in Murillo Velarde's map (1734), Dinagat looked smaller than Panaon, even when it was not the case, which displays how even during Murillo's time, some 200 years after Magellan, islands were still left uncharted by the Spanish.

The Murillo Velarde map (1734), regarded as
one of the more complete historical maps
of the Philippines, featured Limasawa, 
Butuan, and Zuluan, but no Masaua.
Notice how Dinagat Island was placed east
of Panaon Island and Surigao Strait, while
southwest of Homonhon and Zuluan.
Murillo posited that Magellan landed east of
Masaua, while de Mafra said it was west.
Photo courtesy of Wikipedia

Distance? Both islands appear to be within the range designated earlier. Panaon was around 100 kilometers from Homonhon, while Dinagat was some 70 kilometers from Homonhon. From Butuan, Panaon was around 60 kilometers away, while Dinagat some 70 kilometers. Both islands have nearby mountains and parts of the islands have geographical configurations which somehow resemble Pigafetta's maps. That is, Panaon's northern part, now Liloan, and also Dinagat's northern part, either what is now Loreto, Tubajon, or Libjo. Otherwise, if Magellan went further south of Dinagat, they would have found more islands along Melgar Bay and Awasan Bay, which was probably not how the narrative went. It was far too south, albeit from this position, Panaon and the rest of Leyte would already be at northeast.

Thus comes the clincher. Where did Magellan actually land prior to Masaua? Provided they charted the Leyte coast, the direction with which they landed would be significant. Albo noted that from the last place they went, they sailed west-southwest, arriving at Masaua. The locals showed the three significant islands in the direction further west-southwest, then they sailed north of Masaua to reach Leyte. This meant they left the Leyte coast and then went back there again. This reconciled how Pigafetta only mentioned Leyte after they landed in Masaua, while Albo mentioned Leyte twice, before arriving at Masaua and after leaving Masaua. But what was the last island they landed before arriving at Masaua? If they landed last on Hibusong (Ibusson), immediate south would be Dinagat, but if at Abarien (Cabalian), immediate south would be Panaon. However, if Dinagat was Masaua, they likely would have landed on the western side. If Panaon, meanwhile, they likely landed on the eastern side, unless they went through the Panaon Strait to settle on the western side of the island. This would have been quite difficult considering Panaon's northernmost town, Liloan, was named after whirlpools appearing in Panaon Strait due to convergence of waters. Pigafetta also mentioned rain at the time (between March 25 and March 28), which he could not forget because he almost fell from their ship then. This may have been brought by the easterlies. It has to be recalled they sailed in March, the start of the dry season in the Philippines. Meanwhile, some scholars such as Raleigh Ashlin Skelton and Donald Lach have also identified Panaon as Ceylon (Seilani) instead of the traditional belief that it was Leyte. In that case, if Seilani was Panaon, they could have not returned to Seilani with the route Albo described, and Pigafetta would have mentioned it earlier, prior to their Masaua encounter. Considering these, what could lead to a possible resolution? What if neither Panaon, which sounded like Masao, nor Dinagat was the mystery island of the first mass? In fact, the Legazpi expedition called Panaon as Panae the Little to distinguish it from both Panae (Panay Island) and Masaua (Mazagua). They also referred to another island called Mazoga (Limasawa) west of Panaon as small enough to only have "six to eight" inhabitants. Apparently, this meant Limasawa might not even have a king or a societal organization which could support such government at the time. How could an island as small as Limasawa even accommodate the repair of de Mafra's ship, for instance? What would be left as an option?

Mystery island not really an island?

In P. Pagteel's map (1788), there are
two unnamed islands north of Dinagat
and east of Leyte. Masaua and Gada?
One of the unknown islands appear
similar to the shape of Pigafetta's Masaua,
but so does Panaon's northern area.
It may be assumed they are really part
of a single Dinagat Island, while
the outlying island is Hibusong.
Notice how both Pagteel and Murillo
thought Dinagat was composed of
several small islands.
Photo courtesy of Europeana

How about the farfetched? Masaua being a modern-day Atlantis, forever submerged, never to be found? At any rate, it has been established earlier that Magellan's crew have been quite prone to errors, including identifying different islands which were not really islands like Baybay, Sigalo, Hinunangan, and Cabalian (now San Juan) being distinguished as separate isles from Leyte. However, while de Jesus appeared to be headed in a direction that might have degraded both Limasawa's and Butuan's claims, his defined area also presented some issues. For instance, Masaua locals showed Albo the route to the islands being west-southwest. That is, the Magellan crew only had to continue their current route, likely southwest through Surigao Strait coming from Homonhon, before going northward. This was the vantage point from which Albo was directed by the Masaua locals on top of their mount. They never sailed eastward. If de Jesus's interpretation, or even the argument of Butuan proponents for that matter (since de Jesus's Masaua was particularly close to present-day Butuan, albeit he identified de Mafra's Butuan as Surigao, placing Caraga further east), was correct, a northward route would have not allowed a return to Panaon, which de Jesus also identified as Ceylon, or any part of that Leyte coast the crew called Ceylon or Seilani. If not southwest, a northwest route would have had them landing on Bohol instead, but clearly Pigafetta indicated that they only passed through Bohol. Combining this with Pigafetta's statement that the three great islands which the Masaua locals pointed them to were Ceylon (Leyte), Zzubu (Cebu), and Calagan (Caraga), two of these would have not been west of Gingoog Bay nor Butuan Bay. Even if they charted the east coast of Surigao, Panaon or any part of Leyte would still have not been placed in the west. It was also clear in Pigafetta's map that Butuan was west of Calagan (Caraga). Going westward from this area would have not brought them to Calagan, but to Camuigin or even Zamboanga. Either the Masaua locals were wrong, or Magellan's crew did not follow their instructions and overshot their landing place. Pigafetta even noted how they had to wait for the King of Masaua near Camotes Islands (Polo as Poro, Ponson as Pozzon, Pacijan as Ticobon) because they were sailing too fast. Provided the Masaua locals were regularly interacting with Cebuanos, among others, they might have known better a shortcut which would probably not require a dash to the north. In relation to this, if Lapu-Lapu's Mactan (Matan) was in Camotes, would have they not met him already before Humabon? Pigafetta and Albo were clear that they arrived both at Cebu and Mactan at the same time, so they must have been within vicinity of each other, just like how Homonhon was nearby Guiuan and Suluan, both of which are now part of Samar. Pigafetta's map of Cebu also showed Mactan in between Cebu and Bohol.

Also, de Jesus identified Satighan as Limasawa. While it somehow aligned with Pigafetta's distance of 111 kilometers between Satighan and Masaua (20 leagues), Limasawa was smaller than any of the major Camotes Islands, and he dismissed Camotes as unsuitable to sustain the wildlife which the crew described. Pigafetta even indicated that they ate at the island what is now an endangered species (Barbastigly or flying fox). If Limasawa was just as unsuitable to support such ecosystem, it could possibly not be the richly endowed Satighan. But one nearby island could have supported such an environment: Leyte. Thus, Satighan could have not been an island as well, but one of the places in Leyte, presumably near Baybay and Canigao, since they charted these islands as they sailed north. It should be reiterated how Magellan's crew also have a margin of error in terms of distance covered.

It appears we would have to return to the original issue at hand: Where on earth is Masaua? Wherever Masaua was, it must conform to all these conditions, not just one or two of them. In history, conclusions are at best tentative. Then again, there are clear implications which may result from this re-investigation of Masaua's true nature, as NHCP has done throughout the years. As a predominantly Christian nation, identifying the real site of the first mass would be an enormous accomplishment. There are also political and economic consequences. For instance, Quezon City and Caloocan City have long contended between themselves as to where the Cry of Pugad Lawin really occurred. The same probably goes for the site of the first mass, considering the myriad of claimants, but may this be more of a unifying factor for all Filipinos than a dividing one. Not all countries have this kind of commemoration in their history. In everything, to God be all the glory.

See the references here.