152 DAHLGREN, THE DISCOVERY OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 



Philippine Islands and the coast of Mexico, and, he adds, we can see from that "all the 

 discoveries the Manila ships have at any time made in traversing that väst ocean". 1 

 Among these discoveries we find a group of four larger and some smaller islands: the 

 westernmost are called Los Mojas, evident ly a clerical error for Los Monges (TheMonks); 

 the easternmost is called La Disgraciada, or, more correctly, Desgraciada (The Unpleasing 

 or the Inhospitable); and the southernmost island is called La Mesa. At first sight, the 

 agreement with the Hawaiian Islands is very striking. More special reasons for the 

 identity have been found in the following points: — 



1. The latitude, 18° 30 r — 21° N., is almost exactly that of the eastern islands in the 

 Hawaiian Archipelago, which are situated between 18° 50' and 21° 45' N. lat. 



2. The longitude is incorrect, it is true; but it does not labour under a greater error 

 than can be explained by the general imreliability of the place-determinations of 

 navigatörs in former times. 



3. The position of the islands in their relation to one another agrees, with one 

 exception, with that of the same group. 



4. Finally, the name La Mesa is said to point unmistakably to the largest of the 

 islands, Hawaii; for the Spanish word signifies "table", and is often used to designate 

 a tableland having the appearance presented by this island when seen from the sea. 



Before I bring forward the remarks to which these assertions give occasion, I wish 

 to discuss a question which, so far as I know, no one has previously treated. Whence are 

 these islands derived, which the Anson chart locates in the place that so nearly coincides 

 with that where we now know the Hawaiian Archipelago to be situated? On this matter 

 the narratives of the voyages give us no guidance whatever. The names of the islands 

 are not mentioned by any traveller: we have not found so much as a hint of their existence 

 anywhere except in cartographical literature. A comparative study of the maps, however, 

 gives us a suggestion which, in my opinion, permits a decisive answer to the question 

 proposed. 



It may be remarked first that, if the islands in question really represent Hawaii, 

 the appearance that they present on the map cannot be derived from any of the persons 

 traces of whose visits have been believed to be found on the islands themselves. No one, 

 so far as we know, ever returned from such a visit to any country inhabited by Europeans 

 and carried there information about his experiences and observations. The shape given 

 to the islands, if it is genuine, must have taken its origin from some person who, in some 

 way or other, reached port after a voyage of which either incomplete knowledge or no 

 knowledge at all has been preserved. 



The Anson chart has been regarded as an exponent of the knowledge of the Spanish 

 pilots concerning the northern part of the Pacific Ocean. It has been assumed that the 

 chart gives the discoveries — with greater or smaller errors, it is true — but nevertheless 

 in the form in which they were conceived by the discoverers themselves. No one seems to 

 have thought that the map might be the result of a whole series of revisions and, during 

 that process, have undergone substantial alterations - - in a word, that it has behind it a 



1 Anson' s Voyage, p. 240. 



