The Solomon Islands and Their Natives Part 30

THE ACCOUNTS OF GALLEGO AND FIGUEROA COMPARED.--On carefully comparing these two accounts, I have no doubt that Figueroa derived almost all his information from the journal of Gallego. He, to a great extent, employs his own phraseology; but in the descriptions of the islands and of the natives, the words and expressions employed are often identical, and the mode and order of description are evidently supplied by the journal of Gallego. An indirect proof of the source, whence Figueroa drew his materials, is to be found in the circ.u.mstance that, after the two vessels were separated during the voyage back to Peru, he confines his account to the experiences of the "Capitana," which was Gallego's vessel; and here his account is substantially a condensed form of Gallego's journal which is occasionally quoted literally. Figueroa, however, does not inform us of the source of his information; and he has evidently, in some measure, endeavoured to infuse his own method of expression into the account. There are not wanting proofs, however, that he was a.s.sisted from other sources, but only in a small degree. For instance, he occasionally intercalates a circ.u.mstance to which Gallego does not allude; and he varies in the accounts of the conflicts with the natives: thus he refers to some of the Spaniards having died at Estrella Harbour, to there being a foot and a half of water in the hold of one of the ships during the return voyage, to the ships being heaved-down at St. Christoval, and to a few other similar occurrences unrecorded by Gallego. The account of Figueroa differs in the date of the year of the voyage. It contains only a bare reference to the cruise of the brigantine to St. Christoval and its adjacent islands, whilst the vessels lay at the Puerto de la Cruz on the coast of Guadalcanar. It is from this cause that the names of all the islands visited and named during this cruise of the brigantine are not given in Figueroa's account. Herrera, however, in his short description of these islands, gives a full list of the names of the islands, and, in this respect, his description is superior to that of Figueroa.

NOTE II.

DISCREPANCIES IN THE DATES OF THE YEARS.--There is a strange discrepancy in the dates of the years during which this expedition was away from Peru. The year 1566, is given on the t.i.tle-page of the British Museum copy of Gallego's Journal; and the author expressly states that the expedition left Callao on November 19th, 1566; he carries this year on, naming the following year, 1567; but in August he gives the year as 1568, and makes the return to Peru to be in 1569. It is evident from the narrative that the ships were absent from Peru about nineteen months, from November of one year to June of the second ensuing year; and it is highly probable that the year of their departure was 1566, and that of their return 1568... .

Figueroa differs strangely in the dates he gives.[393] In the first line of his account he says that the ships were dispatched in 1567; and in the succeeding paragraph he gives January 10, 1568, as the date of their departure from Callao, thus being quite at variance with Gallego, both as regards the day, the month, and the year. The ships reached the coast of Mexico on their return voyage in January 1568, according to Figueroa. From this inconsistency it may be inferred, that 1567 was intended as the date of the departure from Peru... . Herrera,[394] in his description of these islands, states that they were discovered in 1567, which accords with the narrative of Gallego... . Arias[395] in a memorial addressed to Philip III. of Spain, says that Mendana discovered San Christoval in 1565; but his account is both short and confused, and was evidently not derived from original sources... . Notwithstanding the conflicting character of the dates, the probable dates would appear to be as follows.--The ships left Peru on November 19th, 1566, discovered the Isles of Salomon on February 7th, 1567, and arrived at Peru on June 19th, 1568.

[393] "Hechos de Don Garcia H. de Mendoza," por el Doctor Christoval S. de Figueroa. Madrid, 1613.

[394] "Descripcion de las Indias Occidentales." (Madrid, about 1601.)

[395] "Early Voyages to Terra Australis," by R. H. Major (p. 1).

Hakluyt Society, 1859.

NOTE III. (Page 199.)

THE ISLE OF JESUS.--Burney[396] estimated the longitude of this island to be 172 30' East of Greenwich; Krusenstern,[397] on surer grounds, fixed it at 171 30': but both estimates were based on an erroneous longitude of the Candelaria Shoals... . I have shown in note iv. that these shoals are probably identical, not with the Roncador Reef as is implied in the present charts, but with the islands of Ontong Java, to the northward; however, this correction affects but little the question of longitude. Taking the longitude of the centre of Ontong Java at about 159 30' E. (in lat. 5 25'

S.), the longitude of the Isle of Jesus, 167 Spanish leagues to the eastward (in lat. 6 45' S.), would be about 169 E. The only island shown on the present charts in the vicinity of this position is Kennedy Island, also called Motuiti, the existence of which is stated to be doubtful. Its position, as determined by the "Nautilus"

in 1801, was 8 36' S. 167 50' E.[398] However, in 1883, the German war-vessel "Carola" failed to find it in this position in the chart, and the initials _E. D._ are there attached to the name. The difficulty may, I think, be explained by the existence in this region of some atoll of no great size, the position of which has been never correctly determined. It would appear that a similar view is held by Captain Wharton, the present Hydrographer, since in the Sailing Directions for these seas issued in 1885, the island is still given prominent mention.[399] Not improbably the missing island will be found between the 6th and 7th parallels, and near the position a.s.signed to the Isle of Jesus.

[396] "Chronological History of Vovages and Discoveries in the South Sea." Vol. I. p. 289. London, 1803.

[397] "Recueil de Memoires Hydrographiques." St. Petersburg, 1824.

[398] Findlay's "Directory of the Pacific Ocean." Part II 999.

(London, 1851.)

[399] "Pacific Islands." Vol. I. p. 50. (Western Groups.) 1885.

Herrera gives the name of another island, "El Nombre de Dios," which is said by him to lie in 7 S. lat., and to be 50 leagues distant from Santa Anna; Gallego does not refer to any island with this name; and since Herrera makes no reference to the Isle of Jesus, it is possible that this isle may be here alluded to, as its lat.i.tude corresponds somewhat with that of "El Nombre de Dios." M.

Fleurieu[400] identifies this island, however, not with the Isle of Jesus, but with an island off the north end of Malaita which was named Gower I. by Captain Carteret in 1767, and Inattendue I. by M.

Surville, in 1769.

[400] "Discoveries of the French, 1768-1769, to the S. E. of New Guinea," p. 181. (London, 1791).

NOTE IV. (Page 199.)

THE CANDELARIA SHOALS.--The shoals were identified by Fleurieu with the Roncador Reef discovered by Maurelle in 1781; and Krusenstern subsequently confirmed this opinion. Gallego, however, describes shoals trending N.E. and S.W. for more than fifteen leagues, which cannot possibly be the Roncador Reef of the present chart, which is not more than six miles across. These Candelaria Shoals, on the other hand, correspond in their size with the large atoll of Ontong Java lying about 35 miles to the north of the Roncador Reef, and being about 50 miles in width. The apparent difference in lat.i.tude between Ontong Java, which lies in about 5 25' S., and the Candelaria Shoals of Gallego, which were placed by him in 6 15' S., may be explained by the circ.u.mstance that the majority of Gallego's observations of lat.i.tude in the Solomon Group were about two-thirds of a degree in excess of the true lat.i.tude.[401] By making this correction, the lat.i.tude of Ontong Java and of the Candelaria Shoals will be found to closely approximate. The bearing and distance of the Candelaria Shoals from the west end of Malaita (as given by Gallego on p. 205) and from Estrella Harbour (as given on p. 202) go to support my view that the Candelaria Shoals of Gallego and the Ontong Java of Tasman are one and the same.

[401] _Vide_ Note V. of Geographical Appendix.

NOTE V.

THE LAt.i.tUDES OF GALLEGO IN THE SOLOMON GROUP.--On making fourteen comparisons of the lat.i.tudes obtained by Gallego with the lat.i.tudes of the same places in the most recent Admiralty charts, places about which there can be no doubt as to their ident.i.ty, I find that all but two are in excess of the true lat.i.tude. The excess varies between 11' and 1 7' (about); and since seven of the twelve lat.i.tudes vary between 38' and 46' in excess, we may take 40' _plus_ as about the probable and average prevailing error of Gallego's observations of lat.i.tude in this group. A constant error points to some constant defect of observation; whether it may be instrumental or otherwise, I must leave to the judgment of my nautical readers.

... . It may be inferred from his journal that Gallego did not endeavour to make his lat.i.tudes by observation accord with his bearings, as they are so often at variance. This circ.u.mstance should be borne in mind in order to explain the discrepancies that occur.

NOTE VI. (Page 206.)

THE ISLE OF RAMOS AND THE ISLAND OF MALAITA.--On referring to the account of Figueroa in the original Spanish, I find that, like Gallego, he applies the name of Ramos to Malaita. Pingre, who published a translation of Figueroa's account in 1767 at Paris,[402]

a.s.sociates the two names together. Dalrymple[403] in his translation, published in 1770, laid the ground for future misconception, by so pointing the sentence that the name of Ramos might be taken as intended for one of the "two islets" in the middle of the pa.s.sage between Malaita and Isabel. Fleurieu,[404] in his translation of Figueroa published in Paris in 1790, applies the name of Ramos to Malaita. Burney,[405] in his version (1803), apparently applies this name to one of the islets above referred to. The authority of Dalrymple and Burney would appear to supply an explanation of the circ.u.mstance that in the present Admiralty charts this name of Ramos is applied to an islet between Malaita and Isabel; but Dalrymple's version is susceptible of two meanings, and may be urged with equal justice on either side. Gallego and Figueroa both apply the two names to the same island; so that circ.u.mstance alone is sufficient to justify the restoration to Malaita of the Spanish name of "The Isle of Ramos." The original cause of the mistake is to be attributed to the first discoverers, who gave their own name and were not content with the native name. Herrera[406] has fallen into the opposite error, since, in distinguishing between Malaita and Ramos, he gives the latter a circuit of 200 leagues.

[402] "Memoire sur le choix et l'etat des lieux ou le pa.s.sage de Venus du 3 Juin, 1769." (Paris, 1767.)

[403] "Hist. Coll. of Voy. and Discov.," London, 1770.

[404] "Discoveries of the French in 1768 and 1769."

[405] "Chronol. Hist. Voy and Discov.," vol. i.

[406] "Descripcion de las Indias Occidentales."

NOTE VII. (Pages 207-209.)

THE ISLANDS BETWEEN CAPE PRIETO AND GUADALCANAR.--These islands which occupied the attention of Fleurieu and Burney, and excited the curiosity of Dentrecasteaux, and which D'Urville had intended to have completely explored, have long baffled the efforts of geographical writers, who have endeavoured to identify them with the islands mentioned by Figueroa in his brief account of Mendana's discoveries in this region. His description is evidently derived from that of Gallego, of which it is but an imperfect and erroneous extract: and I will therefore disregard it. The island of Galera is apparently a small island, not named in the present chart, which lies close to the north-west coast of Buena Vista. The neighbouring large island, a league distant, to which Gallego only applies the native name of Pela,[407] is, as I apprehend, the Buena Vista of the present chart: the Buena Vista of the Spaniards is apparently an island, not named in the chart, which lies west of the present Sandfly Pa.s.sage. The remaining four of the five islands may be in the future identified with the incompletely surveyed intersected ma.s.s of land to which the general name of Florida is applied in the present chart. The island of Sesarga is without doubt the volcanic island of Savo: but I must refer the reader elsewhere for further information on this subject of Sesarga.[408]

[407] At the present day the whole of the Florida sub-group is known to the natives as Gela. (Codrington's "Melanesian Languages," p.

522.)

[408] The evidence is given in my volume of Geological Observations.

NOTE VIII. (Page 220.)

THE EXCESSIVE DIMENSIONS OF GUADALCANAR.--How could such misconceptions have arisen? They are totally inconsistent with the rest of the journal; and to such statements must be attributed the exaggerated reports which long prevailed with reference to the size of this island. The lengths of the islands of Isabel, Malaita, and St. Christoval, as given by Gallego, are greatly overstated; in the case of the two former islands they are at least double the true dimensions, and they completely disagree with the lat.i.tudes and bearing, which are noted in the journal.

NOTE IX. (Page 233.)

THE CONSULTATION AS TO THE FUTURE COURSE OF THE EXPEDITION.--The ignorance in which Mendana seems to have kept his officers with regard to the character of his instructions considerably hampered the captains and pilots in their consultation. We learn subsequently (page 237) that it was originally intended to prosecute the voyage westward in order to explore the extensive lands that lay in that direction. However, the protest made by the crews seems to have caused a change of plans. They were to steer northward for the Isle of Jesus, where Gallego apparently expected to find more land, as they provided themselves with natives as interpreters (page 233) before quitting the group. This northerly course found favour, when Gallego pointed out that it was on the track of their return voyage.

NOTE X. (Page 234.)

ISLANDS IN THE SOLOMON GROUP WHICH DO NOT AT PRESENT BEAR THE NAMES GIVEN TO THEM BY THE SPANIARDS:--

Present name. Spanish name.

Ugi San Juan Three Sisters Las Tres Marias Ulaua (Contrariete) La Treguada Malaita Ramos (Isle of) Savo Sesarga Ontong Java Candelaria Shoals Choiseul San Marcos New Georgia (?) { San Nicolas { Arracises (Reefs).

NOTE XI. (Page 237.)

INIGO ORTEZ DE RETES AND BERNARDO DE LA TORRE.--We learn from Galvano's "Discoveries of the World,"[409] that in 1545 Captain Inigo Ortez de Rotha was dispatched from Tidore to New Spain. He sailed to the coast of Papua, and not knowing that Saavedra had discovered it in 1528, he a.s.sumed the honour of the discovery. Mr.

Coutts Trotter in a recent article[410] refers to him as Ortiz de Retez or Roda, and he informs us elsewhere[411] that Antonio de Abreu was probably the first discoverer of New Guinea in 1511.