Butuan of a thousand years
By Antonio Montalvan II
Inquirer News Service

ALL history is local, merged into the one we call by the misnomer "national history." A misnomer because what we currently refer to as "national history" is in fact local. "Manila local" for the most part, that is. Until we look beyond that myopia and recognize that the national struggle is a conglomeration of local discourses that, when blended together, form the national discourse of the Filipino people, then we shall remain fragmented, no more than a consortium of regional peoples that only happen to be a state.

And that is why all attempts at local historiography must be a cause for celebration. Much more so when it is the product of fine research. There is such a product, a recent book, the outcome of concerted local efforts. It should open the eyes of Manila historians to what simple pride of place can do.

"Butuan of a Thousand Years," by Butuan historian Greg Hontiveros, recently came off the Ateneo de Manila University Press. The title is a chronological catch-all and hints of what national history has been missing all along. More than a thousand years ago, Butuan already lay along the route of the trade winds that reached a peak in Southeast Asia around 900 to 1100 A.D.

The balanghai or Butuan Boat in the National Museum of the Filipino People at the Luneta is just a tiny speck in the vast historical galaxy with which Butuan has enriched Philippine history. The abundance of artifacts excavated in Butuan over the last few years should move back our historical chronology -- to about 200 years earlier.

Hontiveros' description of Butuan's trade connections at once gives an indication of what little we actually know: "So extensive was Butuan's trading links with her Asian neighbors that a quantitative survey of the ceramics discovered would reveal the following: Chinese (10th-15th centuries A.D.), Khmer/Cambodian (9th-10th centuries A.D., Thai (14th-15th centuries A.D.), pre-Thai Satingpra (900-1100 A.D.), Haripunjaya (800-900 A.D.), pre-trade Vietnamese (11th-13th centuries A.D.), and Persian (9th-10th centuries A.D.)."

Chinese annals show that as early as October 1003, the Butuan king was already sending trade missions to the Chinese emperor who, at one time, received a gift of native Butuan products and red parrots. In February of 1004, the emperor had the Butuan envoys fetched for the Chinese New Year Festival. In 1007, the Butuan king again sent another mission to China, bringing tortoise shells, camphor, cloves, mother-of-cloves and other native products.

Today, we are either amused at or peeved with the news that, in her state visit to China, President Macapagal-Arroyo brought along her daughters-in-law and grandchildren and their nursemaids. At least, we know that our ancestors were better ambassadors.

We make a lot of bones about European colonizers coming to our shores in search of spices. But it has become clear from belated accounts that Butuan was in the middle of the "spice emporium" long before the Europeans heard of it. Proud Butuan residents have been heard to claim: "Long before there was Philippines, there already was Butuan." Now we know this is true.

The other absorbing part of the Hontiveros book-which sadly even the National Historical Institute has not resolved credibly to this day-is the continuing debate on the site of the first Christian Mass in the Philippines: Was it in Limasawa or Butuan? To answer this question, Hontiveros uses a wealthy array of primary historical sources, mostly acquired from reputable European archives and libraries.

For the first Mass could neither have been in Limasawa nor Butuan. Pigafetta's "Mazzaua" island was placed at latitude 9° 1/3' N or 9° 20' N. There is no island at that latitude between Limasawa and Butuan Bay. Limasawa Island, in fact, is further up north at 9° 55 00' N.

A team of Filipino geologists and archaeologists conducted a geomorphological study of the Butuan area in 2000 and 2001. The study came up with an astonishing finding, to say the least. The experts determined that in a temporal perspective of 45,000 years of land formation in Butuan, an island once existed in the area roughly corresponding to the Pigafetta latitudes of the so-called Mazzaua (where the first Mass was celebrated on that Easter morning of March 31, 1521). However, centuries of gradual siltation after Magellan's visit fused the island with the mainland.

Those who are in rabid pursuit to resolve the first Mass controversy, and those who so far tend to rely on the "Limasawa arguments," may not have to agree with Hontiveros' data. But, as in a court of law where a previously resolved case can be reopened in the event of new testimony, the burden may now be on the NHI to review the case in the interest of historical truth. Unfortunately, none among our history experts may be able to resolve the impasse. What the NHI can do, however, is to call for Magellan scholars and navigation historians for this is, first and foremost, a navigational issue.

A Manila television host once sneered at this controversy, saying that we shouldn't be bothered about where the first Mass was held, anyway she herself was not in the habit of going to Mass. There are many ways that Manila certainly does not speak for the rest of us in the provinces. There also are many ways by which Manila must listen to us. Reading "Butuan of a Thousand Years" could be one of them.

Comments to monta@sni.ph