The journal of Antonio Pigafetta is an important piece of evidence for the claims of Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture. According to Tim Pigafetta wrote that the Lequios visited Cebu for trade meaning they are from Luzon.
 |
| Solomon's Treasure, pg. 162 |
We reviewed early in this chapter, Barbosa identified an affluent people called the Lequios and Magellan scratched out this name and identified them as Ophir and Tarshish equating these peoples. Antonio Pigafetta identifies their origin as Luzon Island Philippines not Taiwan, Japan nor Malaysia. In fact, Japan is recorded as having “no junks” and are not Lequios according to Tome Pires and the Lequios are identified by their junk ships by Pigafetta, Pinto, Barbosa and others. However, Antonio Pigafetta tells us where the Lequios originated.
[From Visayas] “Towards the North-west is the island of Lozon, which is at two days’ distance; a large island, to which come to trade every year six or eight junks of the people called Lequii.” “...One of these junks carries as much cargo as our ships.” – Antonio Pigafetta, 1521
This clearly reads that the Lequios, who originate in Luzon, journey to Cebu regularly to trade in their six or more, large junk ships just as Pinto describes.
Solomon's Treasure, pgs. 162-163
I have discussed this claim many times demonstrating how it is not true. That sentence in Pigafetta's journal means the Lequois visited Luzon to trade indicating they are not from Luzon but elsewhere rather than they lived in Luzon and sailed to Cebu to trade.
Towards the North-west is the island of Lozon, which is at two days' distance; a large island, to which come to trade every year six or eight junks of the people called Lequii.
How can we clear this up? Let's run it through ChatGPT. I copy/pasted Pigafetta's words into ChatGPT and asked for an anlysis. Then I copy/pasted Tim's paragraph into ChatGPT and asked for an analysis. Once again the results were not very pretty. However, ChatGPT wrote something that needed correction.
There is no known primary source confirming that Magellan personally “scratched out” the name Lequios and substituted Ophir and Tarshish. Schwab provides no citation or manuscript evidence to support this claim.
Charles Nowell is the source for Magellan scratching out Lequios and inserting Ophir and Tarshish. So, I uploaded that paragraph from Nowell.
The Duarte Barbosa who wrote this book has been identified by some with the Portuguese of the same name who became Magellan's cousin by marriage and accompanied him on his great voyage. Medina has shown that this was probably not the same man, but it makes little difference.” The Barbosa book was finished by 1516 and was available in manuscript to Magellan as he studied to complete his plan in Portugal before transferring allegiance to Spain. Magellan digested Barbosa's work and with his own hand rewrote one passage, which consisted of a list of places between the Cape of Good Hope and the Lequios that were known but not yet occupied by the Portuguese. Magellan's version substitutes for Barbosa's “Lequios” the words “Tarsis” and “Ofir.””
https://philippinefails.blogspot.com/2020/02/the-god-culture-dishonestly-edited.html
With this correction the results were even more damning.
The full chat is below and the conversation can be accessed here. The prompts are "analyze this sentence from Antonio Pigafetta's journal," "analyze this section from The Search For King Solomon's Treasure by Timothy Jay Schwab," and then the paragraph from Nowell.
ChatGPT said:
This sentence from Antonio Pigafetta's journal gives us valuable information about early 16th-century maritime trade in Southeast Asia. Let's break it down for analysis:
Sentence:
"Towards the North-west is the island of Lozon, which is at two days' distance; a large island, to which come to trade every year six or eight junks of the people called Lequii."
Key Elements of the Sentence:
1. "Towards the North-west is the island of Lozon"
Directionally placed: The island of "Lozon" (Luzon, in the Philippines) is situated northwest of Pigafetta's current location when writing this.
This implies he was likely somewhere in the central or southern Philippines at the time (possibly Cebu or nearby).
2. "which is at two days' distance"
This suggests approximate sailing time, reflecting 16th-century navigational estimates.
The "two days' distance" is consistent with Luzon's position relative to the Visayas or Mindoro.
3. "a large island"
This is an observation about Luzon's size—it's the largest island in the Philippines, and Pigafetta clearly recognized its significance.
4. "to which come to trade every year six or eight junks of the people called Lequii"
"Junks" refer to large Chinese-style ships commonly used by East and Southeast Asian traders.
"Lequii" (or Lequios, Lequii, Lequeos) likely refers to the Ryukyuans, the people of the Ryukyu Islands(modern-day Okinawa, Japan).
Pigafetta and other Europeans of his time often used "Lequii" to describe the Ryukyu Kingdom, which was an active trading polity with both China and Southeast Asia.
The mention of annual trade voyages shows regular maritime contact between Luzon and the Ryukyu Islands. This supports the broader idea that pre-colonial Philippine societies were part of extensive international trade networks before the Spanish arrival.
Historical and Cultural Insights:
Luzon as a trade hub: The fact that foreign merchants, particularly from the Ryukyu Kingdom, visited Luzon annually points to the island’s commercial importance.
Early global connections: Luzon’s role in regional trade predates the Manila Galleon and Spanish colonial systems, challenging narratives that portray the Philippines as isolated before European contact.
Maritime Southeast Asia: Pigafetta's account is among the earliest European written records of Southeast Asia’s complex trading networks involving Chinese, Japanese, Ryukyuan, Malay, and other groups.
Conclusion:
This brief sentence reveals Luzon's geographical importance, its role in international trade networks, and its connection to other Asian maritime cultures—especially the Ryukyu Kingdom. Pigafetta gives us a glimpse into a pre-colonial Philippines that was far from isolated: it was integrated into the broader web of Asian trade and diplomacy long before the Spanish fully established control.
You said:
Analyze this section from The Search for King Solomon's Treasure by Timothy Jay Schwab: We reviewed early in this chapter, Barbosa identified an affluent people called the Lequios and Magellan scratched out this name and identified them as Ophir and Tarshish equating these peoples. Antonio Pigafetta identifies their origin as Luzon Island Philippines not Taiwan, Japan nor Malaysia. In fact, Japan is recorded as having “no junks” and are not Lequios according to Tome Pires and the Lequios are identified by their junk ships by Pigafetta, Pinto, Barbosa and others. However, Antonio Pigafetta tells us where the Lequios originated. [From Visayas] “Towards the North-west is the island of Lozon, which is at two days’ distance; a large island, to which come to trade every year six or eight junks of the people called Lequii.” “...One of these junks carries as much cargo as our ships.” – Antonio Pigafetta, 1521 This clearly reads that the Lequios, who originate in Luzon, journey to Cebu regularly to trade in their six or more, large junk ships just as Pinto describes. Solomon's Treasure, pgs. 162-163
ChatGPT said:
This passage from The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure by Timothy Jay Schwab demonstrates several interpretive and factual problems. Let’s analyze it step-by-step with an eye for historical accuracy, textual fidelity, and logic.
🔍 1. Misreading of Pigafetta
Claim:
“Antonio Pigafetta identifies their origin as Luzon Island Philippines…”
Actual Text:
“Towards the North-west is the island of Lozon … to which come to trade every year six or eight junks of the people called Lequii.”
Analysis:
Pigafetta does not say the Lequii originate from Luzon. He clearly states that they come to Luzon annually to trade. The grammar of the sentence places Luzon as the destination, not the origin.
This is a fundamental misreading.
If Schwab had read the passage correctly, he would have seen that:
Luzon is the location being described.
The Lequii are outsiders who arrive with junks to trade.
Therefore, Luzon is not their homeland.
📚 2. Misrepresentation of Barbosa and Magellan
Claim:
“Barbosa identified an affluent people called the Lequios and Magellan scratched out this name and identified them as Ophir and Tarshish equating these peoples.”
Analysis:
There is no known primary source confirming that Magellan personally “scratched out” the name Lequios and substituted Ophir and Tarshish. Schwab provides no citation or manuscript evidence to support this claim.
This appears to be either:
A fabricated narrative, or
An extremely speculative reading without documentation.
Additionally, Barbosa identifies the Lequios as people of the Ryukyu Islands, known to be a sophisticated maritime culture. There is no link in Barbosa’s writing between the Lequios and the biblical lands of Ophir or Tarshish.
🛳️ 3. Misuse of Other Sources: Tome Pires and Fernão Mendes Pinto
Claim:
“Japan is recorded as having ‘no junks’ and are not Lequios according to Tome Pires…”
Reality:
Tome Pires, in his Suma Oriental, does describe the Lequios as distinct from mainland Japanese. He associates them with the Ryukyu Islands (modern Okinawa), not with Japan proper.
That Japan had "no junks" is an exaggeration and misunderstanding. Early 16th-century Japan had smaller vessels and relied more on coastal shipping, while large Chinese-style “junks” were more common among Ryukyuans and Chinese merchants.
Pinto and other Portuguese authors also associate the Lequios with the Ryukyu Islands, not Luzon.
🧭 4. Contradictory Geography
Claim:
“This clearly reads that the Lequios, who originate in Luzon, journey to Cebu regularly…”
Reality:
This is the opposite of what Pigafetta said.
Pigafetta was likely in the Visayas (central Philippines) when he wrote that “towards the northwest is the island of Lozon.”
He is describing Luzon as a trading hub, and the Lequii (Lequios) as foreign merchants who sail there.
Schwab reverses this completely:
He moves the origin of the Lequios from abroad to Luzon.
He moves their destination from Luzon to Cebu, even though Pigafetta never said the Lequios go to Cebu.
🧱 5. Misuse of Biblical Terms (Ophir and Tarshish)
Schwab’s project tries to equate historical peoples with biblical regions, but he relies on:
Fabricated or misread sources,
Nationalistic reinterpretations,
Overreliance on phonetic similarities without linguistic rigor,
Absence of serious historical methodology.
There is no scholarly consensus connecting the Lequios with Ophir or Tarshish, and Pigafetta never implies this.
✅ Conclusion:
This passage contains multiple misinterpretations and false claims:
Schwab's Claim Reality Pigafetta says the Lequios originate in Luzon Pigafetta says they come to Luzon from elsewhere Barbosa and Magellan equated Lequios with Ophir and Tarshish No source confirms this Japan has “no junks” and Lequios aren’t Japanese Lequios refer to Ryukyuans, often seen as distinct from Japan The Lequios travel from Luzon to Cebu Pigafetta says they sail to Luzon, not from it In short, Schwab’s entire interpretation of this Pigafetta quote is inverted and incorrect. The historical record points to the Lequios being foreign traders from the Ryukyu Islands who sailed to Luzon to trade—not native Luzon inhabitants.
Let me know if you want a detailed side-by-side with source citations!
You said:
In the introduction to Magellan's Voyage Around The World: Three Contemporary Accounts Charles Nowell wrote: The Duarte Barbosa who wrote this book has been identified by some with the Portuguese of the same name who became Magellan's cousin by marriage and accompanied him on his great voyage. Medina has shown that this was probably not the same man, but it makes little difference.” The Barbosa book was finished by 1516 and was available in manuscript to Magellan as he studied to complete his plan in Portugal before transferring allegiance to Spain. Magellan digested Barbosa's work and with his own hand rewrote one passage, which consisted of a list of places between the Cape of Good Hope and the Lequios that were known but not yet occupied by the Portuguese. Magellan's version substitutes for Barbosa's “Lequios” the words “Tarsis” and “Ofir.””
ChatGPT said:
Thanks! This is a very helpful clarification, and it directly contradicts Timothy Jay Schwab’s spin in The Search for King Solomon’s Treasure. Let’s break it down clearly.
🧾 Source Context:
From the introduction to Magellan's Voyage Around the World: Three Contemporary Accounts, edited by Charles Nowell:
“The Duarte Barbosa who wrote this book has been identified by some with the Portuguese of the same name who became Magellan's cousin by marriage and accompanied him on his great voyage. Medina has shown that this was probably not the same man, but it makes little difference.”
“The Barbosa book was finished by 1516 and was available in manuscript to Magellan as he studied to complete his plan in Portugal before transferring allegiance to Spain. Magellan digested Barbosa's work and with his own hand rewrote one passage, which consisted of a list of places between the Cape of Good Hope and the Lequios that were known but not yet occupied by the Portuguese. Magellan's version substitutes for Barbosa's ‘Lequios’ the words ‘Tarsis’ and ‘Ofir.’”
🔍 Analysis and Clarification
✅ What Magellan Actually Did:
Barbosa's manuscript (finished by 1516) included a geographical list of regions between the Cape of Good Hope and the Lequios.
Magellan, while studying routes and preparing his circumnavigation, personally edited a version of that list.
In Magellan’s version, he substituted Barbosa’s term “Lequios” with “Tarsis” and “Ofir” (Tarshish and Ophir).
This is not a statement about the ethnic identity or origin of the Lequios. It is a speculative or symbolic association made by Magellan for the purposes of his plan.
🧠 Why That Matters:
This was not Pigafetta’s conclusion. This was not Barbosa’s conclusion. This was not based on actual ethnography.
It was:
A private interpretive substitution made by Magellan himself.
In the context of exploration planning, not biblical scholarship.
Likely motivated by biblical geography and imperial ambition, not historical accuracy.
❌ Where Schwab Goes Wrong:
Schwab’s Interpretation Historical Reality Magellan “scratched out” Lequios from Barbosa’s work and identified them as the people of Ophir and Tarshish. Magellan replaced a geographical place-name (Lequios) with biblical place-names (Ophir and Tarshish) in a route list, not identifying the people themselves. Therefore, Lequios = Ophir and Tarshish. No. This was Magellan’s guesswork, not an established identification. It does not mean the Lequios were equated with Ophirites or Tarshishites ethnically or historically. Pigafetta confirms the Lequios are from Luzon. Pigafetta says the Lequios sailed to Luzon to trade, not that they came from Luzon. 🧭 Conclusion:
Nowell’s introduction confirms that Magellan made a speculative substitution, likely in an attempt to frame his voyage in biblical terms and win backing. This is very different from asserting, as Schwab does, that Pigafetta and Barbosa identified the Lequios with the people of Ophir and Tarshish.
It’s critical to distinguish:
Geographical speculation (what Magellan did),
From ethnographic identification (what Pigafetta did not do),
And from historical fantasy (what Schwab is doing).
Let me know if you'd like the historical background on how “Ophir” and “Tarshish” were used symbolically in early modern exploration rhetoric—Magellan wasn’t alone in that.
No comments:
Post a Comment