TRANSACTIONS OF THE SECTIONS. l^l 



The Landfall of Columhus. By K. H. Major, F.S.A., Hon. Sec. E.O.S. 



It is surprising that after the lapse of nearly four centuries there should be any 

 doubt as to the spot in the New World which was first lighted on by Christopher 

 Columbus. In this paper the author set himself to show, not only that the name 

 which Columbus gave to that spot was for nearly two centuries applied to an 

 island to which it never belonged, but that among the advocates of various islands 

 for the honoiu' of being the true landfall the very latest had to be confuted, while 

 the one who had adduced the best arguments in fa,vom' of the correct island had 

 been gi-eatly at fault with respect to the point of anchorage. Columbus gave the 

 name of San Salvador to the island which he first discovered. Its Indian name 

 was Guanahani. In 179.3 Juan Bautista Munoz, in his 'Historia del Nuevo 

 Mundo,' declared his belief that Guanahani was WatUng's Island, in contravention 

 of the maps which from the beginning of the eighteenth century had given the name 

 of San Salvador to Cat Island. In 182o Navarrete, in his ' Coleccion de los Viages 

 y descubrimieutos que hicieron por mar los Espaiioles desde fin del siglo xv.," 

 believed it to be Turk's Island. In 1828 Washington Irving, in his ' Life of Co- 

 lumbus,' decided in favour of Cat Island, relying mainly on Captain Slidell Mac- 

 kenzie's interpretation of the 'Diary of Columbus;' and in 1837 this conclusion 

 received the weighty approval of the Baron Alexander von Humboldt in his 

 ' Examen Critique de I'llistoire de la Geographic du nouveau Continent.' In 1856 

 the claims of Watling's Island found a fresh champion in Capt. Becher, of the 

 Hydi'ographic Office, in his work entitled the ' Landfall of Colimibus ; ' but in 1864, 

 and again so late as 1869, Senhor de Vamhagen, in his ' Verdadera Guanahani de 

 Colon,' has put in a claim for the island of Mayaguana. The author of the paper 

 first examined these respective claims by the light of the ' Diary of Columbus ' him- 

 self, the real fountain-head of information upon the subject; and having shown 

 therefrom that the arguments in favour of Cat Island, Turk's Island, and Maya- 

 guana were untenable, proceeded to fix the identity of Guanahani with Watling's 

 Island by a process which reduced the chances of eiTor to a minimum. He pro- 

 duced a facsimile diagram of a map of the Bahamas published in 1601 by Herrera, 

 the official historiographer of the Indies in Spain, and laid down by him from the 

 original documents in the handwritingof Columbus and his contemporaries, which, in 

 his official position, he had under his special charge. The value of this authoritative 

 map was all the greater that it was constructed before any question was raised on 

 the point in dispute ; it was new enough to contain all the islands in their approxi- 

 mately correct position, but old enough to contain, not only the name of Guanahani, 

 but a large proportion of ancient names identical with those at present existing. 

 Side by side with this was a diagram made from the Admiralty Survey, showing 

 these islands as now known, and with their modern names. Out of twenty-four 

 islands thus brought under comparison, ten retained, in the modern map, the same 

 names as they held in the old, thus affording valuable stations for accurate com- 

 parison. Of these ten, one was Senhor de Varnhagen's Mayaguana itself, which was 

 represented, toe/ether with the island of Guanahani, on Herrera's map ; so that His 

 Excellency's claim was completely neutralized, since by no possibility could two 

 islands be made identical which were so markedly distinct as to have several other 

 islands lying between them. The comparison between the two diagrams plainly 

 showed that Guanahani was Watling's Island. But while thus demonstrating the 

 coiTectness of the conclusions of Munoz and Capt. Becher on this head, the 

 author entirely disagxeed with the latter as to the point where the Admiral first 

 anchored off that island, and also as to his movements while there. Capt. Becher 

 makes Columbus anchor a little to the south of the N.E. point of the island ; and 

 when he tripped his anchor, makes him sail round the northern end of the island. 

 He also makes Columbus's ship follow the boats in their reconnaissance. Not one 

 of these statements or conclusions is in accordance with the ' Diary,' nor would such 

 a movement lead to the topogTaphical discoveries recorded. The ' Diary' says that 

 Columbus took the ship's boat and the caravel's barges and went along the island 

 in a N.N. E. direction to see the other part of the island to the eastward ; and as the 

 trending of the .southern part of the east side of the island is itself N.N.E., it is 

 clear that such a movement necessitates starting from a point on the S.E. of the 



