Talk:Gatighan

message: It seems to me that this content should be merged into the article for Limasawa, since the conclusion clearly says that they are one and the same. Most non-Filipinos know of the island as Limisawa, and those people would benefit from learning about this part of its history. They wouldn't even think to look for 'Gatighan,' so let's put them together. BaseballBaby 01:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge into [[Limasawa, Southern Leyte]]

message: The above suggestion will help put to rest a grand historical blunder that started with the butchering by 16th century travel writer Giovanni Battista Ramusio of the eyewitness account of Antonio Pigafetta who replaced Mazaua with Butuan, the invention by 17th century chronicler Fr. Francisco Combés of the word Limasawa which is not found in any language much less in any eyewitness account of Magellan's voyage none of which Combés had read, and the final error by 19th c paleographer-writer Carlo Amoretti who had not read Combés and used the neologism Limasawa as identical to Mazaua. 
Mazaua had an excellent port which provided safe harbor to Magellan's fleet in 1521, to Ginés de Mafra's galeota in 1543, to other ships of the Spanish and Portuguese during the Age of Sail. 
Limasawa has no anchorage. It does not possess one property of Mazaua including name, size, shape, latitude, myths and tradition, language, flora and fauna, is not reached by tracks drawn by Antonio Pigafetta and Francisco Albo, and every other possible feature one can think of that describes Mazaua. It is the waystation of Magellan's fleet named Gatighan. 03:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correcting a historical blunder

message: Vandalism is rampant in Wikipedia and someone, who did not sign his name, tried to vandalize this article by asserting a negation of the entire article itself. He refuses to accept Pigafetta's testimony that Gatighan is an island. Here is what Pigafetta said about Gatighan: "We remained seven days in this place, then we laid course to the southwest, passing through five islands, namely, Ceylon(Panaon), Bohol, Canighan, Baibai, and Gatighan. In this island of Gatighan are a kind of birds called Barbastigly, who are as large as eagles." This comes from page 73 of the English translation by R.A. Skelton of the Nancy-Libri-Phillipps-Beinecke-Yale codex, one of four extant manuscripts of Antonio Pigaftta (click http://books.google.com/books?id=RB4usvtAZrEC&pg=RA1-PT1&dq=Magellan%27s+Voyage+by+R.A.+Skelton&ei=FPmyScLaFYbWlQSVv_TLDg#PPA73,M1). Here's the same passage in another surviving manuscript, MS 5650, on page 83 of the English translation by Lord Stanley of Alderley: "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 (sic). In this island of Satighan (sic) is a kind of bird called Barbastigly, which are large as eagles." (See http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=sea;cc=sea;q1=Satighan;rgn=full%20text;idno=sea061;didno=sea061;view=image;seq=169) Note, as I pointed out in my main article, that Lord Stanley misread Gatighan and saw Satighan. The explanation for this error is the difficulty of reading the Renaissance longhand called cancelleresco. Paleographic errors abound in Magellanic documents--not to speak of other manuscripts during the entire 16th century--foremost example of which was the mistranscription of the word Mazaua which came out as Maçangor in the Lisbon manuscript of The Genoese Pilot (see http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=sea;cc=sea;q1=Macangor;rgn=full%20text;idno=sea061;didno=sea061;view=image;seq=95), and Maquamguoa in his Madrid MS. In the Ginés de Mafra account, Mazaua is spelled two different ways, Maçagua and Maçaguaba and in the same page at that! (Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gin%C3%A9s_de_Mafra#Chapter_XI.2C_which_deals_with_what_transpired_after_Magellan.27s_departure_from_the_Ladrones_islands.) Let me quote directly from the French transcription/edition by J. Denucé of Pigafetta's MS 5650, page 110: "Nous demourasmes sept jours en cedit lieu, puys prismes la volte du maestral en passant par le millieu de cinq Isles, c'est assavoir Ceylon, Bohol, Canighau, Baibai, et Gatighan. En la quelle Isle de Gatighan est une maniere d'oyseaulx nommez Barbastigly, qui sont grandz comme aigles.." Let us go to the more universally known Pigafetta manuscript, the Italian Ambrosiana codex, whose English translation by James Alexander Robertson was called by Martin Torodash "one of the triumphs of American scholarship." Here is the same passage: "We remained there seven days, after which we laid our course toward the northwest, passing among five islands, namely, Ceylon, Bohol, Canigao, Baybay, and Gatighan." This is found on page 43 of the Theodore J. Cachey, Jr. edition (Marsillo Publishers, New York: 1995) whose English comes from Robertson's translation. It's on Page 133 in Robertson's (click http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=philamer;cc=philamer;q1=Gatighan;rgn=full%20text;idno=afk2830.0001.033;didno=AFK2830.0001.033;view=image;seq=139;page=root;size=s;frm=frameset).
The person who tried to vandalize my article has been waylaid by the title of the map found in the Nancy-Yale codex, R.A. Skelton edition, where the title of the map says, "Figure of the Cape of Gatighan, of the islands of Mazzaua, Bohol, Ceilon, Baibai, Canighan, Tigobou, and Pozzon." By a strange twist, the island of Gatighan is omitted in the enumeration above and the map has scrolls that are empty of placenames, thus one will not find the name Gatighan. The vandal ignores totally the text of Pigafetta. He also ignores the map of the other extant manuscripts--Ambrosiana, MS 5650, and MS 24224--where the maps show the names of islands including Gatighan. In another forum, I have advised him to read Pigafetta's text in all four extant manuscripts and the maps found in the other manuscripts. He obviously refuses to do so, and if he has read these now wants to foist his ignorance if not willful ignorance on an unsuspecting world.
I hope the editors of Wikipedia will be on guard. Vandalism is a disease that eats up the patience of earnest scholars as well as the integrity of this grand human enterprise. Vicente C. de Jesus 02:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Gatighan an island or a Cape? 

message: I removed the :Category:Geographers for this article. An island is not a person, and a geographer is a scientist, a person. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Geographer category 

message: The passage of Magellan's fleet off the coast of present day Southern Leyte and Leyte is very well documented in all versions of Pigafetta's report. Although there appears to be scholarly disagreement as regards the identity of "Gatighan," the following "islands" that he named can be resolved without much disagreement: "Bohol" (resolves to present day Bohol), "Canighau" (Canigao, a small island off the coast of the municipality of Matalom), and "Baibai" (present day Baybay, the largest municipality in Leyte). The correct identification of these islands can be likened to "dots," which when properly connected, will help shed light on the identities of the remaining two islands, i.e., "Ceylon" and "Catighan." This article appears to resolve "Ceylon" to present day Panaon, even as it equates "Gatighan" with present day Limasawa. Having lived on Leyte from 1979 to 1991, including sailing the seas in and around these islands, and having visited Canigao and several municipalities in Southern Leyte, it appears that an alternate interpretation can be offered for Pigafetta's "Ceylon" and "Catighan," i.e., Ceilon resolves to present day Southern Leyte while Catighan resolves to Himuquitan/Himokilan, the southernmost island of the "Quatros Islas" cluster of islands off the coast of Inopacan. Pigafetta suggested in his map of the area that Baibai was a separate island from "Bohol," "Canighau," "Ceylon," and "Gatighan." If "Bohol," "Canighau," and "Baibai" can be resolved without much difficulty, that leaves a Baibai-sized island that needs a name. It is unfortunate that Pigafetta's map for this area goes unlabeled in the Beinecke-Yale manuscript; however the same map appears to be labeled in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana manuscript, and this island south of "Baibai" is labeled "Ceilon." "Ceilon" has also been referred to as southern Leyte (Thomas Suarez, 1999, Early Mapping of Southeast Asia, p.108). Using this alternate view, four islands will have been identified. That leaves the fifth, which this alternate view posits to be present day Himuquitan or Himokilan. Up to this day, sea turtles nest on the beaches of Himokilan and the surrounding islets that make up Cuatro Islas. This is consistent with Pigafetta's observation that "Gatighan" teemed with fauna.
The above alternate view does not conflict with Albo's notes about their passage off the coast of present day Leyte:
"...We departed from Mazaba and went N., making for the island of Seilani (Pigafetta's Ceylon, present day Southern Leyte; my notes), and afterwards coasted the said island to the N.W. as far as 10o, and there we saw three islets (Himokilan + the three smaller islands; my notes); and we went to the W.(Camotes Islands is almost due west of Himokilan; my notes)., a matter of 10 leagues, and then we fell in with two islets (present day Camotes Islands), and at night we stopped (to allow the travellers from Mazaba to catch up; my notes); and on the morrow we went S.W. and 1/4 S., (exactly the direction to take when sailing from present day Camotes Islands; my notes)a matter of 12 leagues, as far as 10 1/3 o., and there we entered a channel between two islands, one called Matan (present day Mactan; my notes), and the other Subo (present day Cebu; my notes); and Subo, with the isle of Subo and Seilani we saw a very high land to the north, which is called Baibai,..." 
"...From Mazaba and Seilani and Subo, by the course which we came, towards the south part, take care; for there are many shoals, and they are very bad; for this a canoe would not stop which met us in this course."1 This is in reference to the present day shipping lane, which involves sailing north between Canigao and the coast of Southern Leyte, and around the north coast of Bohol and into Cebu. A 1906 nautical publication describes a shoal patch "...covered by at least depth of 27 feet situated with the west tangent to Canigao Island bearing North (N. 1o W. mag.) distant 2 miles..." 2 This same publication describes Canigao Island as lying "on the northeastern edge of a reef, 1 mile long north and south and nearly 1/2 mile wide near the northern end. It further describes that the southwest point of Leyte may be rounded safely at a distance of 3/4 mile." Finally, the same publication describes an anchorage off Limasawa: "Limasaua Island, situated 2 1/2 miles southeast of Taancan Point, is 4 1/2 miles long north and south and 1 mile wide, and has a prominent hill on its northern part. The island is clean, and on its southeast part there is a sandy beach where an anchorage can be had in 2 1/2 fathoms 200 yards from the shore. The channel between Limasaua Island and Taancan Point is safe."
References:
1. First Voyage Around the World, By Magellan, Accompanied by Original Documents, with Notes and an Introduction, by Lord Stanley of Alderley, published by The Hakluyt Society. 
2. Philippine Islands Sailing Directions. Section I. North and West Coasts of Luzon and Adjacent Islands. Third Edition . 1906. Coast and Geodetic Survey Bulletin. Manila.
Pangasugan (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  An alternate view

message: If you look Google Earth, just north of Baybay, there is a small island, on the estuary of the Dancaan river, that has all the requirements to be the Gatighan described by Pigafetta: it is North of Baybay, it is Est of the Camotes Islands, it is 15 leagues from Cebu, it has a good anchorage (mud, in the estuary of the river). And the requirements of Albo: it is E of Camotes islands and 10 leagues from them (obra de 10 leguas). There is no other reliable news about it. The map cited, doesn't belong to the Pigafetta's report, it is an apocryphal drawn by an ignorant amanuensis. The 18 o.c. hunt is the last thing done in the day, so it cannot be done at the start of the journey.  
The fauna described by Pigafetta are typical of land. These birds could not live in a small rocky 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 than a river?    A small island in a middle of a 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.  
It is the first time that Pigafetta  talk of bats, probably he never saw them in the 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. 
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 and get a look on the ground (map of Baybay).  
See my discussion in the site Mazaua/Talk:   
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mazaua  
Vasco Caini (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Gatighan? 

message: Amoretti should be never cited. He intended to improuve the italian of Pigafetta: that was easy as the italian of Pigafetta is orrible. But introduced a lot of errors and misunderstandings; and, worse of all, made censorship.  
Vasco Caini (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amoretti 

message: 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) 09:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pigafetta & drawings