I prefer to say that the first mass was held on a boat. Try to locate that spot now.

It's an entertaining
cartography game. It's a bit of a mystery in Philippine history! Unfortunately, the NHI has a poor track
record of successfully resolving disputes.

It's as though it's taking place on a boat. It's a navigational as well as a cartographic game. While
Pigafetta did take down the coordinates they were intended to be in, the difficulty is that with today's
GPS gadgets and even Google Earth, those coordinates now point to a location outside of the
country.

Given that this was their first excursion outside of South America, I suppose it's logical that the
readings they're getting aren't as accurate as those from following expeditions.

It's worth noting, though, that another chronicler, Gines de Mafra, was able to return to Mazaua after
joining the Villalobos expedition several years later. It's still unclear if de Mafra employed
navigational tools, charts, or a guide. His narrative of the voyage has not received as much attention
as Pigafetta's.

However, when searching for information, I came across this story by Rolando Borrinaga in the
Philippine Daily Inquirer:

The long-running Limasawa vs. Masao conflict was finally resolved in March 1998, when the
National Historical Institute (NHI) ruled in Limasawa's favor. The pro-Masao side, however, persisted
in their claim and held parallel celebrations notwithstanding the judgment.

The NHI judgement ignored another historical inaccuracy by implicitly affirming the assumption that
the First Mass was held near the present-day Barangay Magallanes on Limasawa's southeastern
coast.

The new Shrine of the First Holy Mass, which was opened two years ago and is fashioned of bricks
and polished concrete, rests on top of a hill overlooking the barangay as a legacy of this error.

Vicente C. de Jesus, an independent scholar who strongly supports the Butuan claim, has chastised
the NHI commission that investigated the matter for allegedly dismissing an eyewitness account
implying a western site of the First Mass on the island, which was recorded as Mazaua in 16th-
century documents.

Gines de Mafra, a participant of both the Magellan and Villalobos expeditions in 1521 and 1543, was
the witness. On both occasions, he had stopped through Limasawa. He ran into the same chief,
likely Rajah Kolambu, who had received Magellan in 1521 in 1543.

De Mafra's narrative had been lost for 375 years until being discovered and published in 1920 in a
Madrid archive. It mentioned that the Magellan fleet anchored in Mazaua at “a good harbor on its
western side, and is inhabited.”

According to De Jesus, a map created by Antonio Pigafetta, chronicler of the Magellan expedition,
backs up De Mafra's allegation. A crucifix is believed to be visible on the map of the Nancy-Libri-
Beinecke-Yale codex in one of two hills facing the sea southwest of the island.
The cross on the highest slope near the sea is seen on the Pigafetta map in the Beinecke
manuscript. The cross symbol is missing from the lower hill, which is drawn in the centre of the land
mass at the bottom of the map.

In the popular James Robertson version of the Pigafetta story, a single statement could place the
First Mass event in western Limasawa. "In the afternoon, we went in the ships [and anchored] near
the king's residence," it continued.

This required the ships to sail from their first anchoring off the southeastern shore, around the island
to the south, and into the acantilado (deep) seas of the western cove fronting Barangay Triana,
Limasawa's oldest village and current town proper.

The movement of Magellan's ships may have been unnoticed, which would support De Mafra's
story.

According to the news story, the current violence is between the communities of Limasawa island,
not between Limasawa and Masao. Still, I know that the Butuanons will never accept what the
National Historical Institute has said, and will continue to push for Masao, not Limasawa, to be
recognized as the site of the First Mass.

Further research into the event, I believe, will be the only way to answer the question. The issue, I
believe, would be a lack of archaeological evidence, as the First Mass did not produce any form of
village or fort that the Spaniards later utilised. Instead they were just alleged to have left only a
wooden cross.

It would take quite some time before this debate would be settled but I think it will be if the National
Historical Institute involves both contending parties in actual field studies, so that they themselves
can see if the place they root for, or those of their contender, fits Pigafetta’s and de Mafra’s
descriptions more or not. 

Thank you for providing an excellent example of the NHI’s sometimes questionable decision-making.
Unfortunately, they more often than not decide based on political, not necessarily scholarship,
criteria.

For what it’s worth, the Father Joaquin Zuniga in his “An Historical View of the Philippine Islands”
published in 1803 wrote:

Uninterrupted in the pursuit of his object, he discovered on the Sunday of Saint Lazarus a great
number of islands, which he named the Archipelago of Saint Lazarus; and on Easter Day he arrived
at the island of Mindanao, where he ordered the first Mass which was said in the Philippines. This
took place in the town of Butuan, in the province of Caraga, where he set up the cross and took
possession of these islands in the name of the King of Spain.

From Butuan, Magellan proceeded to Zebu and, in passing the island of Limasaua, he formed an
alliance with its chief, who accompanied him to Zebu.

I personally tend to go with not Limasawa; possibly Butuan.

If you go by the dates/timeline it becomes very difficult to support Limasawa as the site of the first
Mass. Magellan’s group did not arrive in Limasawa until March 28. Which means that they were in
the Islands for at least 11 days prior, and they arrived in the archipelago on Easter Day. I have a
hard time believing that they did not say Mass on Easter Day.