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 circumstance 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 assisted from other sources, but only in a small degree. For instance, he occasionally intercalates a circumstance 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 title-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.
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 assigned to the Isle of Jesus.
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 latitude 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.
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 latitude 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 circumstance that the majority of Gallego’s observations of latitude in the Solomon Group were about two-thirds of a degree in excess of the true latitude.[401] By making this correction, the latitude 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.
NOTE V.
The Latitudes of Gallego in the Solomon Group.—On making fourteen comparisons of the latitudes obtained by Gallego with the latitudes of the same places in the most recent Admiralty charts, places about which there can be no doubt as to their identity, I find that all but two are in excess of the true latitude. The excess varies between 11' and 1° 7' (about); and since seven of the twelve latitudes 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 latitude 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 latitudes by observation accord with his bearings, as they are so often at variance. This circumstance should be borne in mind in order to explain the discrepancies that occur.
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. PingrÉ, who published a translation of Figueroa’s account in 1767 at Paris,[402] associates 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 passage 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 circumstance 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 circumstance 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.
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 Passage. The remaining four of the five islands may be in the future identified with the incompletely surveyed intersected mass 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]
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 latitudes and bearing, which are noted in the journal.
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.
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 (ContrarietÉ) | La Treguada |
| Malaita | Ramos (Isle of) |
| Savo | Sesarga |
| Ontong Java | Candelaria Shoals |
| Choiseul | San Marcos |
| New Georgia (?) | - | | San Nicolas |
| Arracises (Reefs). |
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 assumed 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. According to Galvano (page 234), a Spanish officer named Bernaldo de la Torre started from the Philippines in 1543, on a voyage to New Spain.
The islands of San Bartolomeo.—The Musquillo Islands of the Marshall Group, with which I have identified this discovery of the Spaniards, were thus named by Captain Bond in 1792.[412] They form a double atoll about 38 miles in length and trending N.W. and S.E. The N.W. end is in latitude 8° 10' N., and the S.E. end is in latitude 7° 46' N. Captain Bond ranged along the coasts of above 20 small islands. At the N.W. end and isolated from the rest are two small islands about three miles apart. On comparing this description with that given by Gallego, the reader will have little doubt as to the identity of the Musquillo Islands with the Spanish discovery. It is probable that Gallego considered this discovery to be near the position of an island discovered in 1536 in 14° N lat. by Toribio Alonzo de Salazar,[413] 328 Spanish leagues from the Mariana Islands, and named by him San Bartolomeo. This discovery of Salazar is marked in Krusenstern’s General Atlas of the Pacific.
The Isle of San Francisco.—Wake’s Island, with which I have identified the Isle of San Francisco, was discovered in 1796 by the “Prince William Henry.” Commodore Wilkes, who fixed its position in 1840 (lat. 19° 10' 54 N.; long 166° 31' 30 E. of G), thus describes it. “Wake’s Island is a low coral one, of triangular form and eight feet above the surface. It has a large lagoon in the centre, which was well filled with fish of a variety of species; amongst these were some fine mullet. There is no fresh water on the island, and neither pandanus nor cocoa-nut tree. It has upon it the shrubs, which are usually found on the low Islands of the Pacific, the most abundant of which was Tournefortia. The short-tailed albatross is found here; birds quite tame though not as numerous as in other uninhabited islands. The appearance of the coral blocks and vegetation leads to this conclusion that the island is at times submerged or that at times the sea makes a complete breach over it.”[414] Wake’s Island is about the size of the island described by Gallego. Its latitude, its isolated position, and the close agreement of Wilkes’ description with that of Gallego, leave no room to doubt that Wake’s Island and the Isle of San Francisco are one and the same ... Burney refers to a small island named San Francisco which is placed in the chart of the Galleon in Anson’s voyage in lat. 191/2 north and 84° east of the Strait of San Bernardino; but he adds that it is too far to the east to be identified with the island discovered by Mendana.[415]
The List of Islands in the Vicinity of Taumaco which was obtained by Quiros in 1606 from one of the natives.—They are as follows, Chicayana, Guantopo, or Guaytopo, Taucalo, Pilen, Nupan, Pupam, Fonfono or Fonofono, Mecaraylay, Manicolo, Tucopia, Pouro. More than half of these islands can be identified with certainty, even after an interval of nearly three centuries.
Chicayana may be without a doubt identified with Sikyana or Sikai-ana, the present native name of the Stewart Isles which lie about 250 miles to the north-west of Taumaco, or as the Taumaco people reckoned, four days’ sail in their large canoes. In fact, the native from whom Quiros obtained his information was originally from Chicayana, having been carried by contrary winds to Taumaco whilst endeavouring with a number of his fellow-islanders to reach the island of Mecaraylay. The Chicayana natives were described to Quiros as being very fair with long loose red hair, some, however, being darker like mulattoes, but with hair neither curled nor quite straight. They possess much the same characters at the present day.[416]
Guaytopo or Guantopo was a larger island than those of Taumaco and Chicayana. Since it is placed three days’ sail (native reckoning) from Taumaco and two days from Chicayana, it may have been one of the eastern islands of the Solomon Group. The inhabitants were said to have skins as fair as Europeans and red or black hair. They punctured their bellies in a pattern of a circle around the navel; and painted their bodies red down to the waist. The women were very handsome and were clothed with some light material from head to foot. The natives of Guaytopo, Taumaco, and Chicayana, were on very friendly terms and spoke the same language.
The islands of Pilen and Nupan are evidently the Pileni and Nupani of the adjacent Matema or Swallow Islands, which lie to the northward of the large island of Santa Cruz. Fonofono or Fonfono, which is stated to lie near Pilen and Nupan, may perhaps be the Lomlom of the same small group. It was described to Quiros as being “many islands, small and flat,” with a good port. The inhabitants were said to be dun-coloured, and very tall.
Tucopia was subsequently visited by the Spanish navigator. In later times it has obtained a melancholy interest in connection with the fate of La PÉrouse. MÉcaraylay is apparently in the vicinity of Guaytopo, but possessing a different language, its inhabitants being noted for the use of tortoise-shell ornaments. Its name suggests that of Makira, on the south coast of St. Christoval, in the neighbouring Solomon Group. Taucalo may perhaps be the volcanic island of Tinakula lying off the north coast of Santa Cruz Island. It is stated to be near Taumaco.
The “large country” called Manicolo is to be identified with the adjacent large island, named Vanikoro in the present Admiralty charts, which lies about 100 miles to the southward of Taumaco. It is referred by Captain Cook[417] to the Mallicolo of the New Hebrides, lying 4° further south, which he visited in 1774; but this view cannot be sustained. In the first place, it is stated to lie two days’ sail from Tucopia. The following evidence, however, is sufficient of itself to settle the point. When Captain Dillon[418] was on his way to Vanikoro in 1827, to ascertain the fate of La PÉrouse, he learned from the natives of the neighbouring island of Tucopia that the island he was going to was called Malicolo: but he subsequently ascertained on visiting the island in question, that it should be more correctly called Mannicolo or Vannicolo. In his chart of the island, Captain Dillon calls it Mannicolo. The resemblance in name between these two islands in the New Hebrides, and Santa Cruz Groups has been a frequent cause of misconception in references to the narratives of the early navigators.
The Pouro of Quiros.—A native of Chicayana, whom Quiros had captured at Taumaco, told the Spanish navigator that there dwelt in Taumaco “an Indian, a great pilot,” who had brought from “a large country, named Pouro,” certain arrows, with points, in the form of a knife, which, from the native’s description, Quiros concluded were of silver. Pouro, he learned, was very populous, and its inhabitants were dun-complexioned.
When I first came upon this reference to Pouro, I at once recognised it as an allusion to the Bauro (St. Christoval) of the Solomon Group, lying rather less than 300 miles to the westward of Taumaco. Mr. Hale,[419] the philologist of the United States Exploring Expedition, under Commodore Wilkes, endeavours to identify the Pouro of the Taumaco natives with the Bouro in the Malay Archipelago, an island lying more than 2,000 miles further westward: and he refers to the circumstance of the silver arrows that were brought to Taumaco as supporting his view. Regarding Bouro as the island referred to in the traditions of the Fijians, Tongans, and Samoans, relating to the origin of their race, Mr. Hale finds in the Pouro of the Taumaco natives an allusion to this sacred island, and in the circumstance of the silver arrows he finds evidence of communication between these two regions. There can, however, be little doubt that by this Pouro the Bauro of the Solomon Group was meant. The presence of the silver arrows may be easily explained, when we remember that about forty years before, the Spaniards were exploring this island of Bauro, or Paubro as Gallego gives it (page 229).
NOTE XVI.
The Eddystone Rock and the Simboo of Lieutenant Shortland.—For a considerable time after the re-discovery of the Solomon Islands by the French and English navigators, few islands were better known in the group than Eddystone or Simbo Island. In thus naming this island, however, there has been a singular misconception; and since the name of Simbo has been omitted in the latest Admiralty chart (August, 1884) of the group, some explanatory remarks may be of interest.
In August, 1788, Lieutenant Shortland,[420] whilst sailing along the south coasts of the Solomon Group on his voyage from Port Jackson to England via Batavia, approached “a rock which had exactly the appearance of a ship under sail, with her top-gallant sails flying;” and so striking was the resemblance that a signal was made to the supposed vessel. The ships did not approach within three or four miles of this rock. It was named the Eddystone and was placed in lat. 8° 12' S., bearing S.S.W. a league from two remarkable hills which were named the Two Brothers. A point running south from these two hills was named Cape Satisfaction. Whilst the English ships were off the Eddystone, some natives came to them in their canoes, from whom Shortland learned that they had come from “Simboo,” a place which lay, as they indicated by their gestures, near Cape Satisfaction. In the chart of his discoveries, this officer assigns this name to some land lying east of the Two Brothers near the position of the island at present called Gizo, but it is evident both from his chart and from his narrative that he considered Simboo as the general name for the land to the east of Cape Satisfaction; and Fleurieu, when remarking on his discoveries, made the suggestion that the Simboo of Shortland might prove to be the Choiseul of Bougainville.[421]
In what manner, we may now inquire, have the discoveries of Shortland been identified with the islands that are laid down in the latest charts of this group? For half a century and more the name of Eddystone has been attached, not to a rock such as that to which it was originally given, but to the adjacent volcanic island about four miles in length and about 1100 feet in height; and the name of Cape Satisfaction has been given to the south end of Ronongo which lies ten miles N.N.E. of Eddystone Island. This cape is stated by Shortland to run south from the two remarkable hills which he named the Two Brothers. The island of Ronongo, however, has a long and level summit destitute of peaks; and it is evident that we must look elsewhere for the Cape Satisfaction of Shortland. In Eddystone Island, there are two singular conical hills which might very fitly have been named the Two Brothers, and it will be seen from the sequel that it must have been to the south extremity of this island that the name of Cape Satisfaction was in the first place given. I shall also point out that the original Eddystone rock is represented at the present day by a bare rock which rises out of the sea at a distance of about a third of a mile from the south-west coast of Eddystone Island, and that the Simboo, from which the natives came to visit Shortland, was a diminutive island on the opposite or south-east side of this same island.
When, in July 1792, the French expedition under Dentrecasteaux arrived in this locality, the Eddystone rock was at once recognised by the description of Shortland. ... “nous aperÇÛmes”—thus wrote LabillardiÈre[422] the naturalist of the expedition—“le rocher nommÉ Eddystone. De loin nous le prÎmes, comme Shortland, pour un vaisseau À la voile. L’illusion Étoit d’autant plus grande, qu’il a À peu prÈs la couleur des voiles d’un vaisseau; quelques arbustes en couronnoient la sommite.” In the Atlas of this voyage (carte 24), this rock is placed off the south-west end of the island at present named Eddystone Island, and exactly in the position of the bare rock above alluded to, which will be found marked in the plan of this island made by the surveying officers of H.M.S. “Lark” in 1882. Lieutenant Malan tells me that this rock at the time of the survey was quite bare of vegetation. It rises in two conical masses from the water between which a boat can pass in calm weather. Although it has a height of 30 feet, it is frequently washed over by the heavier seas. The change in the appearance of this rock, since the visit of Dentrecasteaux in 1792 when its summit was crowned with shrubs, has been probably due to a movement of subsidence which has affected the adjacent coast of Eddystone Island in recent years (vide below). To such a change must be attributed the confusion which has arisen with reference to the Eddystone rock; and cartographers, failing to identify it, have applied its name to the adjacent volcanic island on which they have also bestowed the name of Simbo. During his survey of this island in 1882, Lieutenant Oldham ascertained that this name of Simbo actually belonged to a small island bordering its south-east coast with which it was connected by coral reefs. The true native name of Eddystone Island, he found to be Narovo, and in the latest Admiralty charts it is thus designated; the name of Simbo is there attached to the small adjacent island which is, I have no doubt, the Simboo from which the natives came, who visited Shortland’s ships in 1788 as they lay off the Eddystone rock. At the present day the larger island of Narovo is but thinly populated, and its inhabitants are under the sway of a powerful chief who resides on the small island of Simbo. There he rules over a warlike and adventurous people who by their head-hunting raids have established the fame of their diminutive island throughout a large portion of the Solomon Group.
[In my volume of Geological Observations I have described the movement of subsidence, to which is due the confusion concerning the original Eddystone rock].
