When the maps match, the lands match, and the treasures match, but the dates and coordinates waver — the scholar trusts the soil, not the sailor’s pen.

THE SMOKING QUILL | MAY 4, 2025

Testing Pinto’s Accuracy: A Further Geographic Reassessment of Lequios, Lucones, and Latitude Drift

Testing Pinto’s Accuracy: A Further Geographic Reassessment of Lequios, Lucones, and Latitude Drift

Follow Up to: 🔍 Did Pinto land in the Philippines as the Islands of Lequios? Understanding Pinto’s Coordinates: “nine and twenty degrees”

Introduction

In the spirit of scholarly rigor and transparency, we undertake a further testing of Fernão Mendes Pinto's account regarding the "Lequios" Islands, prompted by recent critiques. Through this reassessment, we aim not only to clarify a factual correction regarding the identities of Peter Fidalgo and Pinto, but also to reinforce the broader historical-geographical case that Pinto’s descriptions overwhelmingly align with Luzon and the northern Philippine islands, not with the Ryukyu Islands. Far from weakening the position, this deeper analysis only strengthens it.

Clarifying Peter Fidalgo vs. Pinto

Upon careful review, it is acknowledged that Peter Fidalgo and Fernão Mendes Pinto appear to have been distinct individuals. Galvão’s account references Peter Fidalgo being blown northward to the "Isle of the Lucones" (Luzon) around 1545. Given the extremely close dates and geographic proximity, both accounts clearly refer to the same broader region. Meanwhile, Pinto records his own shipwreck experience and subsequent captivity in the "Lequios" Islands. 

Galvão’s maritime flow definitively places the Lequios Islands adjacent to Luzon — not near the Ryukyus. Pinto, known for coordinate inaccuracies, either misstated his latitude (a well-documented issue even according to Rebecca Catz, the very scholar ironically cited against us), was affected by the navigational drift common to 16th-century voyages, or intended to describe the region between 9° and 20° North — exactly as cited accurately in our book from a valid historical source.

The blogger’s demand for perfect coordinates while simultaneously relying on a scholar who explicitly warns against Pinto’s coordinate reliability exposes a glaring double standard — a tactic typical of anonymous critics engaging not in serious scholarship, but in malicious malediction.

Though it is difficult to extract meaningful points from a critic so infected with viral venom and demonic, unacademic rigor, it is fair to acknowledge that even flawed adversaries occasionally stumble upon a technical correction. Yet he utterly fails to realize that his observation — even if granted — has no bearing on the final conclusion.

Worse still, he neglects the very foundation of his own argument: the scholar he quotes, Rebecca Catz, explicitly doubted Pinto’s coordinate reliability across multiple accounts. Thus, his attack collapses under the weight of his own evidence. Furthermore, critics demanding perfect year-matching from Pinto commit academic fraud against the historical record. Scholars explicitly warned that Pinto’s voyage timelines, dates, and navigational details are often imprecise or dramatized. His broader descriptions — not precise days or coordinates — are the evidential core.

While these are separate individuals and journeys, they occur in similar timeframes and overlapping maritime corridors. Importantly, both Fidalgo’s and Pinto’s accounts independently validate the existence of significant, fertile islands rich in gold, lying south and southeast of China—aligning consistently with the Philippine archipelago, not Ryukyu.

Testing Pinto’s Geographic Accuracy

Scholars such as Rebecca Catz and Donald Lach have long noted that Pinto’s Travels contains numerous geographical imprecisions:

• Catz notes directly that Pinto’s narrative "has confused places and times" and "conflated events" in many cases.

• She states that Pinto's voyage timelines do not always match realistic sailing durations, meaning Pinto sometimes compressed or stretched timelines inaccurately.

• She warns that Pinto sometimes confused river systems and coastal shapes, making his geographic coordinates unreliable.

• She emphasizes that some of the places Pinto describes seem to be conflations—two different places blended into one narrative.

• Voyage timelines do not always align with realistic sailing durations causing one to question dates in Pinto's account.

• Some accounts appear to blend separate events or locales into single narratives. 

These well-known characteristics of Pinto’s writing caution against rigid literalism, especially regarding geographic coordinates. This is why a straightforward reading of Pinto’s account — as reflected by Cheock’s view that the voyage covered between 9° and 20° North — remains a valid interpretation within the historical context.

The quotation was accurately reflected and properly sourced with the original context in our Sourcebook. Most importantly, the overall conclusion — that the Lequios correspond to the Philippine archipelago — remains fully intact and reaffirmed by the broader weight of historical evidence.

Critically, Pinto’s 29°N latitude claim likely reflects one or more of the following factors:

• A navigational error typical of the period, worsened by the aftermath of a catastrophic storm.

• Survival-driven dead reckoning without accurate instruments.

• Post-facto narrative compression, blending multiple geographic impressions into a single storyline.

• An intention to describe the region between 9° and 20° North, matching the latitude corridor of Luzon and the northern Philippines.

To insist otherwise would render Pinto incorrect in his geographic placement — a known and recurring limitation acknowledged even by the scholars critics themselves cite. Yet even if his numbers drift, Pinto could never move the Land of Gold — the Lequios — long equated with King Solomon’s Ophir.

Thus, minor latitude discrepancies are neither unexpected nor disqualifying, and must be weighed against the totality of descriptive evidence. We maintain that interpreting Pinto’s voyage as spanning between 9° and 20° North remains more accurate, consistent with his broader pattern of approximate geographic reporting. Otherwise, his entire account falls apart as he clearly indicated Lequios in the Philippines just as maps of his era did. 

For one to deny the overwhelming evidence and hyperfocus on a perceived "gotcha" — which collapses under even minimal scrutiny — only proves their intent is not scholarly inquiry, but deliberate deception.

Comparing Galvão and Pinto

Galvão’s Account:

• Describes an island extending from 9°N to 22°N, precisely matching the Philippine latitude corridor (Mindanao to Batanes).

• Attributes this to the "Isle of the Lucones" (Luzon), while defining the Lequios as neighboring the Lucones.

Pinto’s Account:

• References an island at 29°N, if read literally (possibly drifted or estimated). Alternatively, it may reflect a range between 9°–20°N, consistent with Pinto's known pattern of approximations.

• Describes an island fertile, gold-rich, populated with horsemen, and vast (200 leagues in circuit) — unmistakably matching Luzon and its northern regions.

Analysis:

• Pinto may have reached the northernmost edge of the Luzon landmass (such as the Batanes or Babuyan islands) during his storm-driven displacement.

• Navigational drift easily accounts for minor latitude discrepancies. Moreover, if the account is read as spanning 9°–20°N, as sourced properly, no discrepancy remains at all.

• Reconciling slight navigational errors is far more reasonable than dismissing the overwhelming agreement between Spanish Government documents, official maps, and independent explorer accounts — to do otherwise is not a scholarly position, but willful denial.

• The shared geographic and economic features between Galvão’s and Pinto’s accounts (size, wealth, fertility, strategic location) reinforce that both narratives describe the Philippine archipelago — viewed through slightly different but complementary lenses.

✅ Conclusion:
Rather than weakening the case, the comparison between Galvão and Pinto overwhelmingly strengthens the conclusion:
Lequios was the Philippines — not the Ryukyus.

🔥 Crushing the Ryukyu Misidentification

Pinto’s observations consistently defy the geography and culture of Ryukyu:

• Horses:
  Ryukyu had no significant horseman culture in the 16th century. Luzon, however, had a known tradition of horsemanship, bolstered through Chinese and Japanese trade influence. (Mackie, Philippine Horses, Bureau of Agriculture, Manila)

• Island Size:
  The Ryukyu islands collectively measure far too small (~100 leagues in total) to match Pinto’s description. In contrast, Luzon’s coastal circumference approaches 200 leagues, aligning perfectly.

• Trade Riches:
  Luzon was a major silver-for-gold hub with thriving regional trade networks. Ryukyu was a relatively minor tributary polity with limited wealth and minimal impact.  🔥"No mines. No gold rush. No Ophir.") 🔥

• Volcanoes:
  The Babuyan Islands — historically known as the "Burning Isles" — north of Luzon offer a far better match for the "Island of Fire" than Tokara’s Suwanosejima.

Imagine attempting to pass off an island covering just 27.66 km² (with a modern population of only 48 people) as the grand 200-league island bustling with horsemen and treasures Pinto described. Such a claim strains not only geography but credulity itself. Notably, the Tokara Islands show no historical record of significant gold mining, suggesting that any deposits — if present at all — were either economically insignificant or remained undiscovered.

✅ Conclusion:
The Ryukyu identification collapses completely under geographic, archaeological, and cultural scrutiny. The only location matching Pinto’s description — in size, wealth, population, resources, and trade — is the Philippine archipelago, centered on Luzon and its northern regions.

Timeline Summary & Map-Based Corrections

Refer to: THE SMOKING QUILL | MAY 3, 2025 — "Correcting Tomé Pires in His Own Words: Lequios Located in the Philippines, Not Ryukyu"

From the 1512 Jorge Reinel/Rodriguez Chart to the Original 1554 Lopo Homem Planisphere, all, especially official, early cartographic evidence places "Lequios" in or around Luzon and Northern Philippines. The article walks through:

• Specific latitude matches (17-20°N), far south of Okinawa.

• Identification of "Canal of Lequios" flowing into the West Philippine Sea.

• Luzon/Batanes/Babuyan fitting every descriptor given by Tomé Pires, Galvão, and Pinto better than Ryukyu.

• Lequios is fully defined in Spanish Government Documents and Official Maps as the Philippines and not Ryukyu during this period. 

The post includes a detailed checklist of cultural, geographic, economic, and linguistic features — all matching the Philippines with near-100% accuracy, while Ryukyu consistently fails.

Also, check out our other articles on the identification and location of the Lequios which never fit Ryukyu:

🔍 Did Pinto land in the Philippines as the Islands of Lequios? Understanding Pinto’s Coordinates: “nine and twenty degrees”

Case Study: Luquios = Philippines
Primary Source Evidence from the Spanish Crown's Official Cartographer

Galvão’s Maritime Flow: The True Geography of Ophir, Lequios, and Japonês: Pinto Shipwrecked in the Lequios Islands Philippines

The Silence of Mafra—Magellan’s Inner Circle and the Missing Lequios

Forgotten No More: Barbosa, Magellan, and the Gold Route of the Lequios to the Philippines

The Lequios Illusion — A Colonial Cartographic Misdirection

From Seville With Gold — Barbosa, Magellan, and the Suppressed Identification of Ophir. 1915 French Journal Reveals the Untold History

Correcting Tomé Pires in his Own Words: Lequios Located in the Philippines, Not Ryukyu

Conclusion

This reassessment acknowledges the need for precision: Peter Fidalgo and Fernão Mendes Pinto appear to be distinct figures perhaps. Yet this only enhances the credibility of the broader argument: Pinto’s "Lequios" fits the Philippines—especially Luzon and its northern satellites—in every critical geographic, economic, and cultural aspect.

Pinto’s known navigational inaccuracies along with the possibility he meant between 9-20N, the latitude match of Galvão’s account, the material evidence of horse culture in Luzon, and the volcanic and trade dynamics all converge to reaffirm the Philippine identity of the "Lequios" Islands which maps and history have always affirmed.

The road of true scholarship is one of refinement, not rigidity. In that spirit, this correction and reinforcement offers an even stronger historical foundation for the case that the Philippines—not Ryukyu—were the rich lands sought and described by Pinto, Fidalgo, Galvão, and so many others.

Timelines can be bent by memory, coordinates lost to storms — but the land speaks for itself. And the land says Lequios was the Ophir Philippines.

Yah Bless

The God Culture Team

🔍 Who Is “The God Culture Team”?

The God Culture is not a one-man operation. While Timothy Jay Schwab serves as lead researcher and public voice, the work represents the collaboration of a larger team — including, but not limited to:

• Multiple book contributors and co-authors (some named, some anonymous by necessity)

• Translators for Tagalog, Ilokano, Spanish, and other languages

• Researchers who remain anonymous because of the likes of demon-possessed bloggers

• Editors and peer reviewers

• Video narrators and production team members

• Advisory board

• Multiple event hosts and coordinators

• Numerous volunteers who assist on projects such as studio recording, editing, event fulfillment, book distribution, tract distribution, linguistics support, etc. 

• Viewers and readers by the thousands who have contributing a great deal over the past 8 years. 

Due to ongoing targeted attacks and defamation by an anonymous blogger, several team members have chosen not to be named publicly for their safety and peace of mind. However, their contributions are real, essential, and part of the ongoing record — evident in book credits, voice variation across videos, and multiple writing styles across our work.

The idea that The God Culture is “only Tim” is not only factually false — it’s part of a deliberate attempt to diminish a movement that has involved the work, scholarship, and sacrifice of many. Also, it gives him one person to target with demon-possessed, criminal defamation that will be dealt with soon. 

Editorial Integrity Statement

The God Culture has transparently left the previous Pinto and Galvão blogs intact, adding only a clarifying note. Genuine scholars update and refine without erasing prior discussion—standard academic practice seen across newspapers, journals, and research institutions.

In contrast, an anonymous blogger has accused us of "dishonesty" for doing exactly what responsible researchers are supposed to do. He even rehashes a four-year-old video on the so-called "Greek armor"—a claim we publicly distanced from years ago after responsibly investigating it.

Claims that we "edited" YouTube videos are factually false. YouTube does not allow post-upload editing; all updates were re-uploads with new URLs and proper clarification notes. This is standard practice—not deception.

Our deeper reassessment of Pinto's voyage demonstrates genuine scholarship: when Pinto’s coordinates don't align perfectly, it is because (as even the blogger’s own cited scholar admits) Pinto’s distances, dates, and navigation were often unreliable. Reconciling these issues is part of real research, not "cover-up."

We stand by our research and methods. The anonymous critic—hiding behind no real name, no real site, and no credentials—only exposes his own lack of academic rigor.

Addendum: Platform Abuse, AI Manipulation & Escalating Action

It is important to note that the same anonymous blogger responsible for these daily defamatory attacks has blocked The God Culture and associated accounts from commenting on his blog, effectively preventing public rebuttal to his accusations. This deliberate censorship reveals an intent to control narrative and deceive readers by omission.

We were recently contacted by a concerned individual with experience in AI systems who exposed how the blogger weaponized AI using heavily slanted prompts—resulting in manipulated responses with distortion rates between 75% and 95%, as confirmed by our testing across multiple posts. This is not only academically dishonest, but may also violate platform terms of service regarding misuse of AI-generated content.

These activities have been formally reported to the NBI Cybercrime Division, FBI Cybercrime, OpenAI, Google Blogger, and relevant watchdog groups. Amazon has already removed his defamatory reviews and revoked his reviewing privileges under two fraudulent accounts—demonstrating that corporate oversight is taking these violations seriously. We and these platforms continue to monitor for further infractions.

While enforcement may take time, the magnitude and frequency of these abuses ensure that consequences will follow. We will continue documenting and reporting each infraction, daily if necessary, until this coordinated digital harassment campaign is held to account.

🔔 Editor's Note (April 30, 2025):

Upon deeper scholarly review, we transparently clarified that Peter Fidalgo and Fernão Mendes Pinto were distinct individuals in historical accounts. As always, our goal is to maintain academic rigor and integrity.

While a few critics attempted to characterize our good-faith correction as "damage control" or "dishonesty," such attacks only reveal their unfamiliarity with standard editorial and scholarly practice.

Corrections, clarifications, and deeper research are the marks of serious researchers—not deception. In fact, this refinement further strengthens the overwhelming body of evidence that Lequios refers to the Philippines and not the Ryukyus. We continue moving forward in truth, guided by facts, scholarship, and integrity—not by insults from anonymous, agenda-driven blogs.

History—and readers of good conscience—will discern the difference.

🗯️ Fails to read the sources he quotes. Fails to mention the scholar he cites rebukes Pinto’s coordinates, dates, and distances. Fails to read official maps. Fails to present truth. Fails to represent words accurately. Fails to run a real blog with real readers. Fails to get 20 views across 5 YouTube videos in 3 weeks (an actual miracle!). And once again… fails to land a blow. Bravo.

Here We Go Again... 7 False Assertions from an April 30 Anonymous Attack Blog: Setting the Record Straight on Pinto, Fidalgo, and the Lequios Islands

Introduction: In the spirit of transparency and scholarly responsibility, we respond to the April 30 attack blog which accuses us of dishonesty, fabrication, and misrepresentation. While it is regrettable that this critic continues to engage in personal attacks rather than genuine scholarship, we are compelled to clarify the record. What follows is a point-by-point rebuttal of the most glaring inaccuracies, distortions, and baseless allegations presented in his latest article.

1. Claim: "You Never Cited Pinto’s Journal"

False. We have referenced both the original Portuguese text and the Rebecca Catz translation of Pinto's Peregrinação throughout our Sourcebook, blog series, and video documentation. The Sourcebook includes full citation and quotation from both Catz and Portuguese excerpts, including the segment containing the "nine and twenty" reference, geographic features, and descriptions of the island Pinto encountered.

✅ Clarification: Citing a translator and a published journal simultaneously is standard academic practice. Accusations of suppression are unfounded.

2. Claim: "Correcting the Fidalgo-Pinto Identity Is Dishonest"

False. The moment we encountered evidence from Galvão suggesting Pinto and Peter Fidalgo were distinct individuals, we transparently issued a correction. This was based on primary source review, which we explicitly noted in our update.

✅ Clarification: This is called responsible revision. In academia, updating an interpretation in light of new data is a mark of integrity, not deception. Our critic attempts to punish us for acting honorably.

3. Claim: "You're Cherry-Picking Pinto's Details While Dismissing Coordinates"

False. We have never dismissed Pinto's coordinates. Rather, we contextualized them by citing Rebecca Catz, Maurice Collis, and others who note Pinto's tendency to conflate events, misstate distances, and compress timelines.

✅ Clarification: Latitude errors in early modern navigation are well-documented. The full description Pinto offers — a 200-league island with horses, mines, volcanoes, and a seafaring culture — simply does not match any island in the Ryukyus. It aligns best with Luzon.

4. Claim: “Catz Never Said Pinto’s Coordinates Are Unreliable”

❌ False. Catz clearly cautions against overreliance on Pinto’s geographic and chronological data:

• She writes that “the chronology of the Travels is glaringly and daringly inaccurate” (p. xli) and “dates and names were confused” (p. xxviii).

• She notes the manuscript required “immense work and careful revision,” that “curious place-names were hard to read,” and that some sections “might require cutting or modification” (p. xxviii).

• Pinto, she notes, “gained a wide reputation as a liar” (p. xxx).

• Others observed Pinto’s “manifest errors,” including “changing the chronology or omitting dates” (p. xlii).

✅ Clarification: Our paraphrasing of Catz’s broader critique is academically valid. It is a willful misrepresentation to claim that unless her exact phrase — “Pinto’s coordinates are unreliable” — appears, the point is fabricated. That is not how scholarship or paraphrase works.

The critic cherry-picks a single paragraph from Catz’s introduction and wrongly assumes it overrides pages of scholarly context, including her repeated framing of Pinto’s narrative as compressed, sometimes inaccurate, and in need of editorial revision. This is not “refutation,” it is willful neglect of the full data.

Our argument has never been to dismiss Pinto but to engage his full narrative in context. A single coordinate — 29°N — cannot be held above the rest of the data when it contradicts Pinto’s own geographic, cultural, and trade descriptions. If the coordinate is correct, the rest of Pinto’s observations must be discarded — yet they align too well with Luzon to do so. Thus, the coordinate must be re-evaluated as misrecorded or misread — a reasonable conclusion based on Catz’s and others’ framing.

🚫 To falsely call such a conclusion “dishonest” or “a lie” is defamatory, not scholarly. It reveals an intent to slander, not to seek truth.

5. Claim: "Cheock Never Said 9N20 Meant a Latitude Range" (Section 5 Revised April 30 after reviewing Cheock's video again where she further explains what is written in her book and why)

False and Ignorantly Misleading.  J.G. Cheock’s phrase “nine ‘n twenty” is best understood as shorthand for “nine and twenty” — a phrasing consistent with early modern navigation and also common in Southeast Asian English, where “’n” is a colloquial abbreviation for “and.” This does not indicate a fixed coordinate such as 9°20′ N, but rather a latitude range between 9° and 20° North. In fact in her video explaining her view on Pinto, which TGC watched years ago and understood, Cheock contextualizes this range geographically — stretching from North Mindanao through Luzon — which aligns precisely with the Philippine archipelago between nine and twenty degrees as must be the case, as 29 is contrary to the rest of the account as we have proven.

✅ Clarification: Our interpretation was clear, marked, and labeled as such. This was not fabrication but contextual analysis of her ambiguous phrasing. Cheock’s prose leaves room for range-based interpretation. Our assessment proves accurate.

Her expression matches both local linguistic habits and Renaissance-era navigational styles, reinforcing the interpretation that Pinto referred to a broad region, not a pinpoint coordinate. If the blogger would have watched her video which breaks this down in an entire section on Pinto, he would have known there is nothing strange about the shorthand, as she reads it "nine and twenty" as Pinto did. Since he hates Filipinos and only desires to spew defamation and racism it appears seeking an excuse to do so, no wonder this would not matter to this blogger. Once again, the ignorance is bad enough, but using such ignorance to commit cyber libel is criminal, and this criminal will be dealt with. 

6. Claim: "Pinto Clearly Identified Ryukyu as the Location"

False. Pinto identified "Lequios" and described features inconsistent with Ryukyu. He described horses, volcanoes, vast landmass (~200 leagues), gold, trade, and deep infrastructure — none of which match Suwanosejima or any Tokara island. Moreover, the name "Ilha de Fogo" is Portuguese, and Pinto would not have used that for a Japanese-labeled island. Playing stupid does not vindicate this blogger.

✅ Clarification: The landmark sequence Pinto describes matches Luzon geography. His landing "offshore" and recognition of nearby landforms aligns with modern Luzon-Babuyan topology.

7. Claim: "Pinto Contradicts Himself and Cannot Be Used for Anything"

False and stupid. Pinto's descriptive details are consistent and detailed, even if some dates or coordinates are flawed. Scholars including Lach, Boxer, and Catz acknowledge his value while recognizing imperfections, which is what is identified in the quote the blogger used from Catz, (if he could read). Our approach weighs multiple factors, not single sentences, or really 3 words.

✅ Clarification: If 29° is the only anchor the critic can cling to while ignoring Pinto’s 3 pages of descriptive evidence, then his argument is one-dimensional. Academic rigor considers the full context, not cherry-picked numerals. This blogger has no credentials nor experience in publishing nor academia that he has ever produced and his lack of scholarly rigor is grotesque, as are his hundreds of accusations. 

Conclusion: This blogger cannot simultaneously reject Pinto’s entire journal while using it to support an alternative claim. He wants it both ways, a typical double standard from a serial hypocrite. We remain committed to refining our findings in a transparent and intellectually honest manner. The true deceit lies not in the revision of a claim, but in the persistent misrepresentation of facts, selective quoting, and cyber-defamation perpetrated under a veil of anonymity leaving this blogger unqualified to even make a statement.

The record has been clarified. The facts remain. And the geography continues to speak for itself.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The blogger misleadingly cites the 1614 printed edition of Fernão Mendes Pinto’s Peregrinação in Portuguese as if it were the author's unaltered original manuscript. This is categorically false. Pinto’s actual manuscript was never published during his lifetime and did not survive in its entirety. The 1614 edition, edited posthumously—most likely by Francisco de Andrade—has long been known among scholars to contain substantial editorial interventions, including altered chronology, confused geography, and potential narrative blending. Even respected translator and scholar Rebecca Catz warned that the printed text suffers from “glaring and daring” chronological inaccuracies, with Pinto’s latitudes, distances, and sequencing often shaped by retrospective memory or publisher alterations. Citing this flawed edition as if it represents Pinto’s precise and intended meaning, without accounting for its compromised editorial history, is not only academically irresponsible—it’s deceptive. The claim that this constitutes Pinto’s “original Portuguese” is disingenuous and collapses under even basic scholarly scrutiny.

🪶 Smoking Quill Fact File: Adlay Wheat—The Native “Wheat” of the Philippines [Updated May 1, 2025]

“Where’s the wheat?” they asked.
Here it is. And it’s been here all along.

📍 Adlay (Coix lacryma-jobi L.), also known as Job’s tears, is:

• A gluten-free grain native to the Philippines.

• Cultivated for centuries by indigenous peoples such as the Kalinga, Manobo, and Ivatan [Batanes where Pinto was shipwrecked... Oops!].

• A tall, grain-bearing plant from the Poaceae family—the same biological family as wheat, corn, and rice.

• Used to make bread, porridge, noodles, and even beer in ancient contexts.

• Recognized today by the Department of Agriculture as a high-resilience, high-nutrition grain ideal for upland and typhoon-prone regions.

• Grown abundantly in Luzon, Mindanao, and Batanes, especially in areas like Kalinga—a region the critic claimed was “not fertile.”

🌾 Adlay is not just a substitute for wheat. It is wheat—Filipino wheat, adapted by climate and culture, now being hailed as a solution to food insecurity.

🔥 “You can’t dismiss a people’s agriculture just because you don’t recognize its name.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

🪶 Smoking Quill Rebuttal: “Where Are the Fertile Fields?” he asked... [Updated May 1, 2025]

"Where are the lush, fertile fields in the interior of Luzon growing wheat and rice?"

📍 Answer:

• Kalinga, part of central Luzon, is called the “rice bowl of the Cordilleras”, with vast fertile flatlands and highland terraces.

• Batanes, where Pinto was shipwrecked, is a deeply agrarian society. Farmers grow adlai (native wheat), root crops, yams, sweet potatoes, bananas, and more—even some wheat and rice.

• As documented by FairPlanet.org, farming is one of Batanes’ primary livelihoods despite typhoons.

• Photos show verdant valleys, well-irrigated plots, and farmers at work in rich volcanic soil.

🌾 Oh, and let’s not forget: Adlai is wheat. It’s ancient. It’s resilient. And it’s everywhere.

🔥 “If this is what the critic calls ‘not fertile,’ he may need to step outside more—or at least read past the first sentence.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

🪶 Smoking Quill Footnote: “Bintor” Isn’t Fiction—But His Criticism Is [Updated May 1, 2025]

A blogger scoffed at the name Bintor, assuming it was nonsense. He fails to address there is no Bintor, Ryukyu.

But once again, he failed to do the simplest test: compare it to Ryukyuan language (which offers nothing) versus the Tagalog and Filipino dialects, which provide multiple relevant meanings.

📜 “Bintor” echoes several actual Tagalog words:

Word Meaning & Possible Relevance

Bintáw: A front-yard picket fence or palisade

Suggests a fortified area or port

Bintól: A small net for catching crabs or crustaceans

Evokes coastal or maritime use

Bintóg: Swelling or bulging fullness

May refer to topography or bounty especially from the lush, fertile soil that is Batanes

Bintî: Leg or calf

Possibly descriptive of terrain shape

Bintáng: Allegation or accusation

Pinto was arrested and put on trial here [Oops!]

Bintáy: Estimating weight by hand

Suggests a trading or market setting

🤔 Compare that to Ryukyu... which has no such root or cultural equivalent. [Updated May 1, 2025]

Once again, the critic stumbles over his own assumptions, dismissing something as fictional that is, in fact, rooted in living Filipino language and context.

🔥 “You don’t refute a culture by ignoring its language. You just expose your own illiteracy.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

🪶 Smoking Quill Footnote: “Where Is Sipautor?” He Asked…

A blogger recently mocked the reference to “Sipautor, Batanes” as if it were an invented or laughable name. He fails to address there is no Sipautor, Ryukyu.

But had he paused to ask—or read with understanding—he might have discovered:

• “Sipa” is the national foot game of the Philippines, and is specifically played in Batanes by children in open fields.

• “Utor” is a Tagalog word meaning the burning of fields—a traditional slash-and-burn agricultural practice.

Put them together, and “Sipautor” is likely a local place-name describing an area in Batanes where children played Sipa in cleared (burnt) farmland—a culturally accurate, even beautiful, etymology.

🔥 The only thing fictional here is the blogger’s grasp of Filipino linguistics and agrarian tradition.

Textual Clues Confirm It:

• 🖋️Tomé Pires (1518): Describes islands far from India (Philippines route, not Japan), rich in gold, 200 leagues from China — fits Batanes/Luzon.

• 💎Gold Mines: Philippines had abundant gold — Ryukyu did not.

• 👤People Description: "White like Germans" — fits lighter-skinned Batanes/Ivatan people, not Okinawans.

• 🖋️Great Craftsmen and Armorers: Luzon’s tradition of fine metallurgy matches perfectly.

• 💡Gores and Igorots [Gorot]: Pires mentions "Gores," in relation to a tribe of the Lequios, but never supports that as leading to Ryukyu, because it does not. He even Suggests Mongolia in illiteracy as that is not an island group East of China.

• Ghūr in Arab Records and Tagalog Roots:
  Arab manuscripts from 1462 and 1489 mention an island called "Ghūr," linked by later Europeans to Lequios. However, in ancient Tagalog, "guro" means "teacher," and "guros" could mean a group of teachers or elders. This linguistic echo suggests a Philippine, not Ryukyuan, origin — aligning with Northern Luzon's strong oral traditions of leadership, wisdom, and craftsmanship.

⚡ The Colonial Shift

Early maps and explorer accounts consistently align Lequios with the Philippines — not Ryukyu — before colonial narrative rewrites emerged.

Early Evidence: Lequios clearly in the Philippines                               

Later Distortion: Ryukyu retrofitted by colonial narratives

Early Evidence: Maps align with Luzon                                                  

Later Distortion Luzon deliberately ignored

Early Evidence: Routes and geography point to SE Asia                     

Later Distortion History rewritten for a Japan-centered model

Early Evidence: Etymology points to Igorots                                         

Later Distortion Etymology distorted or ignored

🔍 Luzon vs. Ryukyu Criteria Match

Criteria                                                              

Latitude                                                             

Luzon/Northern Philippines: ✔️ Matches 17°-20°N                                                           

Ryukyu (Okinawa): ❌ 26°-27°N, far north

Abundant Gold                                                 

Luzon/Northern Philippines: ✔️ Extensively documented                                               

Ryukyu (Okinawa):  ❌ No significant gold resources

Light-Skinned Population                               

Luzon/Northern Philippines: ✔️ Ivatan/Batanes described as lighter-skinned.           

Ryukyu (Okinawa): ❌ Typical East Asian complexion

Great Craftsmanship (Weapons, Jewelry)    

Luzon/Northern Philippines: ✔️ Documented by early Spanish                                      

Ryukyu (Okinawa): ❌ Minimal compared to Luzon traditions

Direct Trade with China & Malacca               

Luzon/Northern Philippines: ✔️ Well-established networks                                            

Ryukyu (Okinawa): ✔️ (but minor compared to Luzon)

Etymology (Gores/Igorot/Guros)                  

Luzon/Northern Philippines: ✔️ Strong linguistic connection                                          

Ryukyu (Okinawa): ❌ No linguistic tie to Ryukyu

Geographical Proximity to India Route.      

Luzon/Northern Philippines: ✔️ Natural path from Malacca eastward                           

Ryukyu (Okinawa): ❌ Requires deviation from direct route

🔢 PHILIPPINES Lequios SCORE: 100%                           

🔢 RYUKYU Lequios SCORE: 14% EPIC FAIL!

🔫 The Smoking Quill Verdict:

🔢Lequios = Northern Philippines (Luzon, Batanes, Babuyan).
🔴Not Ryukyu (Okinawa).

Even Tomé Pires' own descriptions undermine the Ryukyu narrative. His words consistently point to Luzon, Batanes, Babuyan, and the Igorot people, a proud highland group with rich gold traditions, lighter complexions, and direct trade with China and Malacca. Ultimately, this entire area was populated even in that age by a people group called "Iloconos". They were likely called Lequios originally and altered by the Spanish to conceal the record. 

The colonial remapping is exposed for what it is: a post-facto invention ignoring overwhelming primary evidence.

Another pillar of colonial bias crumbles. The Philippines' ancient role as a major hub in global trade is once again restored to the light.

💬 Stay tuned for more revelations as The Smoking Quill exposes the truth hidden for centuries.

Yah Bless.

The God Culture Team

#SmokingQuill #Ophir #PhilippinesHistory #Lequios #ColonialBias #BiblicalGeography #HistoricalCorrection #Igorots #MapHistory

📜 Call-to-Action:

🔥 If this revelation challenged everything you thought you knew, you're not alone. Join us as The Smoking Quill continues uncovering the hidden truths erased by centuries of colonial bias.➔ Explore more exposés, maps, and historic corrections at The God Culture Philippines Biblical History Library.
➔ Subscribe to stay updated when new Smoking Quill articles drop.
➔ Share this article to help reclaim our true history — one map, one document, one truth at a time.

🔥 We've only begun to unearth the forgotten maps and erased testimonies. If the real Lequios was hidden this long... what else have they buried?

➔ Follow The Smoking Quill as we light the trail back to truth — one revelation at a time.
➔ Stay tuned. The next discovery may change everything you thought you knew.