Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has a bizarre new method to prove the Lequios Islands are and always have been the Philippines. He cites scholars who say nothing about the Lequios Islands being the Philippines and then claims those citations prove that scholars admit the Lequios Islands are not the the Ryukyu Islands.
 |
| https://thegodculturephilippines.com/ryukyu-was-never-lequios----even-their-scholars-admit-it/ |
For over a century, mainstream academia has blindly repeated a colonial-era assumption: that "Lequios", as described by Tomé Pires and other Portuguese accounts, refers to the Ryukyu Kingdom (Okinawa). But not only is this uncritical — it is profoundly wrong. In fact, in the Smoking Quill, we expose the maps Pires used to assume Ryukyu principally lead to the Philippines as the Lequios. He did not even bother to read those maps honestly but through a Colonial lens. [Read Correcting Tomé Pires]
The evidence from Ryukyuan scholars themselves, the confessions of historians like Gregory Smits, and the brutal absence of any archaeological support obliterate this theory. And when placed side by side with the unmatched maritime, goldsmithing, and trade legacy of the Philippines — especially Northern Luzon — the conclusion becomes undeniable:
The Lequios were not from Ryukyu. They were from Luzon.
It's very interesting that Tim says there is no archaeological support for the Ryukyu Islands being the Lequios Islands. There is absolutely no archaeological evidence proving the Philippines is Ophir or that the Lost tribes migrated to the Philippines yet that has not hindered Tim from proclaiming those two things as facts.
Tim cites several scholars in this article but there is really no need to examine in-depth what they say because Tim admits they don't say anything about the Lequios Islands not being the Ryukyu Islands.
1. Tetsuo Najita:
“The peripheries of early modern Japan, including domains like Satsuma and the distant Ryukyu Kingdom, were often incorporated into the national narrative not through local voices, but through the interpretive filters of the imperial or colonial center.”While Najita does not directly say “Lequios is not Ryukyu,” his analysis supports your broader point: historical identities (like Lequios) may be misapplied due to imperial projection.
❗ No direct article from Najita specifically denying Lequios = Ryukyu, but his methodological framework supports re-examining such assumptions.
However, his work touches on themes relevant to your argument
This quote directly supports your challenge that “Lequios” was an exonym applied from the outside
This quote directly supports your challenge that “Lequios” was an exonym applied from the outside, with no strong grounding in native Ryukyuan identity. Smits also emphasizes how European reports were often conflations or misreadings.
While there is no known English translation of a direct quote where Hayashi explicitly says “Japan is not Zipangu,” several Japanese academic sources discuss how Hayashi was skeptical of European conceptions of Japan and how Polo’s Zipangu was a distorted view.
4. Tanaka Takeo
Tanaka Takeo (1923–2005) was a respected Japanese historian of early navigation and geography. He is one of the few Japanese scholars who explicitly questioned the “Zipangu = Japan” equation and suggested the Philippines as a plausible candidate.
🔸 Quote (translated from Japanese source):
“Marco Polo's Zipangu may in fact describe a country more consistent with the Philippine archipelago… rich in gold, remote from the Asian mainland, and misinterpreted through hearsay.”
Now, that is an interesting quote. Too bad Tim does not supply a page number or a link to the source so one can check it out and "prove all things" per The God Culture motto. In fact, Tim does not supply page numbers for any of these quotes nor does he link to any of his sources.
5. Noboru Karashima
“Much of what European traders and chroniclers recorded about the East was filtered through their own paradigms, often mistaking locations due to linguistic corruption or second-hand information.”
While not about the Philippines directly, Karashima’s work validates that European labels like Ophir, Zipangu, and Lequios were often misapplied, and we must reinvestigate them with regional knowledge.
How nice. A quote not about the Philippines but which Tim is using as proof for the Lequios Islands being the Philippines. More context would be make his meaning clearer but even with this sentence it is evident Noboru Karashima is not saying place names need to be reinvestigated. Karashima's point is about the potential for linguistic corruption and secondhand information to lead to mistaken locations. It is not a call to reinvestigate well-established place names like Lequios.
The title of this article is "Ryukyu Was Never Lequios — Even Their Scholars Admit It" and Tim has not provided a single instance of a scholar saying the Lequios Islands are not the Ryukyu Islands. Instead he twists what they say and infers that they are making this admission. That is a deliberate act of misrepresentation. He also appears to be using AI to confirm his "research." Outstanding job, Tim. You are doing exceptional work.
Now, let's talk about Gregory Smits.
Here is what Tim has to say about Greg.
Gregory Smits, a professor of Japanese and Ryukyuan history, has written extensively about how Ryukyu's identity was shaped by others, particularly by China and Japan — and how terms like “Lequios” were externally imposed.
🔸 Key Quote (from "Visions of Ryukyu"):
“European use of ‘Lequios’ reflects not an indigenous identity but a Portuguese-Chinese fusion, filtered through trade reports… It cannot be taken as direct evidence of how Ryukyuans saw themselves, nor of how distinct their domain was from other Southeast Asian peoples.”📚 Book: Smits, Gregory. Visions of Ryukyu: Identity and Ideology in Early-Modern Thought and Politics. University of Hawai‘i Press, 1999.
This quote directly supports your challenge that “Lequios” was an exonym applied from the outside, with no strong grounding in native Ryukyuan identity. Smits also emphasizes how European reports were often conflations or misreadings.
While Tim provides no page number, later on he does provide the chapter which contains this quote:
Even Smits admits that “Lequios” was a foreign-imposed term:
“European use of ‘Lequios’ reflects not an indigenous identity but a Portuguese-Chinese fusion… not how Ryukyuans saw themselves.”— Visions of Ryukyu, Ch. 2
And that seals it: Ryukyuan sources never claimed the title "Lequios". Not Shō Shōken, not Sai On, not Iha Fuyu, Higashionna Kanjun, Tei Junsoku, or Majikina Ankō. Not one of them used the word.
The thing is though, this quote is not in Visions of Ryukyu.
 |
| https://archive.org/details/visions-of-ryukyu/page/59/mode/2up?q=lequios |
Swords from Okinawa became popular export items during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. There is a famous passage in which Tomé Pires, a Portuguese merchant writing in Malacca in about 1512, states: “The Lequeos are called Gores—they are known by either of these names. Lequeos is the chief one.” Pires later describes the large cargo of swords Ryukyuans typically brought for sale.
Maritime Ryukyu, 1050–1650, pg. 99
In this passage Smits cites Tomé Pires' description of the Lequios Islands and applies that to the Ryukyu Islands. With one fell swoop Gregory Smits has blown Tim's claims to bits. It appears Tim did not bother to do any research on what Smits has written about the history of the Ryukyu Islands.
Tim also claims Gregory Smits admits there is no native gold in the Ryukyu Islands.
📜 2. Smits Admits: No Native Gold in Ryukyu
In Visions of Ryukyu, Dr. Gregory Smits — the most cited modern historian of Ryukyuan identity — mentions gold only twice, and never as a native resource.
While gold may only be mentioned twice in Visions of Ryukyu, elsewhere Smits says there was native gold in the Ryukyu Islands.
Eighty-five percent of Amami-Ōshima is forest. Its natural resources include manganese, copper, gold, silver, and coal. Indeed, mining continued on the island into the early twentieth century, and the ruins of old gold and silver mines remain.
Early Ryukyuan History - A New Model, pg. 92
Gold mining continued until the early 20th century. This is a direct refutation of Tim's claim there was no native gold in the Ryukyu Islands.
Tim also cites Smits as proof there were no deepwater harbors and thus no trade in the Ryukyu Islands.
🌊 3. Deep-Water Ports? Ryukyu Literally Silted Over
Smits also notes this crushing detail:
“The Sai-uji kafu reports that by this time, silt had accumulated in Naha harbor to the point that it had become too shallow for large ships.”— Visions of Ryukyu, Ch. 3
That’s game over.
Ryukyu’s harbors — Naha, Itoman, Unten — were small, reef-bound, and shallow, unable to dock the kind of vessels described in 16th-century maritime accounts (e.g. large junks, carracks, galleons).
This is totally wrong. Here is the citation from Visions of Ryukyu.
Upon his return from China, Sai On continued to instruct the king, while also assisting with preparations for the arrival of the Chinese investiture delegation. The Sai-uji kafu reports that by this time silt had accumulated in Naha harbor to the point that it had become too shallow for large ships. In 1718, Sai On oversaw the dredging of the harbor.
pg. 77
This event happened in the 1700's! Is Tim really unaware that the Ryukyu Kingdom was a very powerful maritime nation? Apparently not. To be a powerful maritime kingdom one must have deep harbors as well as ships. Yet somehow dredging the harbor in 1718 negates the well-documented maritime history of the Ryukyu Islands.
Elsewhere Gregory Smits writes about the deepwater harbors of the Ryukyu Islands.
Most of this thirteenth- and fourteenth-century migration was to the island of Okinawa, where regional trade was flourishing. In addition to being the largest of the Ryukyu Islands in terms of land area, Okinawa had many other advantages vis-à-vis the other islands. Okinawa was centrally located yet well connected to Kyushu and Korea via line-of-sight navigation. Okinawa’s coastline was well endowed with harbors, many of which became significant centers of power during the fourteenth century. The deepwater harbor of Naha could accommodate large Chinese ships.
Early Ryukyuan History - A New Model, pg. 98
Tim says Unten harbor is "small, reef-bound, and shallow." That is simply not true.
Unten Harbor was located in Nakijin village in the northern part of Okinawa Island and was used from ancient times as an excellent natural harbor. Satsuma forces landed at this port in March 1609.
http://rca.open.ed.jp/web_e/history/story/epoch3/shinryaku_up/up02.html
Once more Tim's new found friend Gregory Smits refutes Tim's claims. Okinawa is well-endowed with many harbors "which became significant centers of power" implying they were centers of trade. The harbor of Naha was deep enough to "accommodate large Chinese ships." Uten harbor is also large enough to accommodate the ships of an invading army.
This article from Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is astoundingly poor even for him. He says he is going to cite scholars admitting the Lequios Islands are not the Ryukyu Islands and then he proceeds to list citations that have nothing to do with the topic. To top it all off Tim's favorite new guy Gregory Smits directly contradicts him in a book about the maritime history of the Ryukyu Islands by citing Tomé Pires' description of the Lequios Islands. Smits also discusses the native gold and deepwater harbors of the Ryukyu Islands which contradicts Tim's statements to the contrary. This entire exercise reads less like historical investigation and more like a clumsy effort to retrofit academic authority to an already decided conclusion. Tim is manufacturing a scholarly consensus which doesn't exist. What a farce.
No comments:
Post a Comment