The exact landfall of Christopher Columbus has long been a matter of dispute. Surprisingly enough, however, the question was apparently of little interest in that half century after 1492, for those years were devoted to the founding of new colonies on Espanola, Cuba, and the Isthmus, to mining operations, to the development of sugar plantations, and to the conquering of Mexico and Peru. A few contemporary historians did undertake to investigate that problem but achieved no success; however, some interesting evidence was passed on to future investigators.
So the matter rested until the end of the 18th Century when a Spanish cosmographer, M. B. Munoz, dusted off the old question and started a controversy which has lasted down to the present. Which island was actually Columbus’ San Salvador? There was no question but that the island was a member of the Bahama group but which Bahama was the dispute.
The principal contemporary sources on Columbus and his deeds are the writings of, first, Ferdinard Columbus (1488-1539), the discoverer’s son; secondly, the Spanish cleric Bartolome de Las Casas who was personally acquainted with many of Columbus’ contemporaries; thirdly, the Italian-born historian and diplomatist, Peter Martyr, who was probably the first to really appreciate the significance of Columbus’ deeds; and fourthly, the Spaniard Oviedo who knew Columbus and who held several important positions in the colonies. Each of these four historians rendered genuine service to the field of Columbian historiography in that they collected manuscripts, both official and private, interviewed participants, and recorded their views and findings. In addition to these four, many of Columbus’ personal letters, manuscripts, and books have been preserved.
In the 1820’s an enterprising Spaniard named Navarrete, perhaps the most learned student on the era of early exploration, undertook the publication of a series of volumes on the Spanish voyages and discoveries. Learning of the Navarrete series and perceiving a possible opportunity to utilize those volumes for an American publication venture, the American man of letters, Washington Irving, journeyed to Madrid in 1826. The result of that prolonged visit was the exceedingly popular four-volume Life of Columbus (1828) which was based mainly on the published work of Navarrete.
During the latter third of the 19th Century several distinguished authors undertook to settle the “which island” question, and among those who were convinced that they had solved the problem were: Gustavus V. Fox, who had served as Lincoln’s Assistant Secretary of the Navy; Henry Harrisse, a prominent authority on naval history; and the prolific writer and popular lecturer, John Fiske. All three were convinced that the island was Samana or Atwood Cay.
There were, however, more writers who were convinced that Watlings Island should be given the distinction. The Watlings group included the British Admiral A. B. Becher, the American naval officer J. B. Murdock (whose research was published in an 1884 number of the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings), and the distinguished President of the Hakluyt Society, Clements R. Markham. The most recent subscriber to the Watling theory is Samuel Eliot Morison who states unequivocally in his Admiral of The Ocean Sea that Watlings is the island.
Evidence of the general acceptance of Watlings is apparent on many Bahama region seacharts which carry near Watlings Island the small legend: “Landfall of Columbus 1492.”
Few indeed have been those in recent times to oppose the Watlings theory, although one British naval officer, Commander R. T. Gould, contended in a paper which he read to the Royal Geographical Society in 1927, that whereas he was uncertain as to the exact Columbian landfall, he was convinced that Watlings was not the spot. He offered “evidence” for the acceptance of Concepcion Island.
I first became interested in the question of San Salvador when I was navigating for the Holland-American Line in Caribbean and adjacent waters. Having an interest in historical problems, in the Spanish language, and in any problem pertaining to navigation, I began my research in what I deemed a logical manner. Instead of selecting any particular island in the Bahama group and then backtracking to gather “proof” (which was obviously the method most frequently employed by other students of this problem), I decided to gather the evidence, analyze my findings, and let the proof rest where it would. I, therefore, first collected in the original Spanish sources every scrap of information which could possibly be called a “sailing direction.”
The Value of Old Maps
After collecting the available evidence, there remained the problem of deciding the exact method I should use. While reading the arguments of former investigators of this problem I had been impressed by the frequency and extent to which they tried to take advantage of old maps. To me this method seemed to be basically fallacious, for I asked myself the question, “Where did those 16th and 17th Century cartographers obtain their information?” We know that during the first half century after Columbus’ first voyage there was virtually no local interest as to which of the thirty or forty Bahamas was Columbus’ San Salvador. The only interest in the Bahamas evidenced by the Spanish colonists on Espanola and Cuba was to collect slaves at random from those islands with the result that the Bahama population almost completely vanished. On those plunder trips no keen and interested eyes of navigating cartographers went along, and when one or two generations later some European map maker sought information as to just which was San Salvador, there could have been little more than guess work to guide him. The Bahamas were outside the regular traffic lanes to and from the colonies, and there was little if any interest in this archipelago.
An examination of several of the more reputable maps of the 16th and 17th centuries fails to reveal that the cartographers even recorded the names that Columbus employed for several of the Bahamas: i.e., San Salvador, Santa Maria de la Concepcion, Fernandina, and Isabela. From the first voyage the only two island names which did survive were Cuba and Espanola; the others were simply forgotten, and gradually other names, mostly of Indian origin, began to crop up.
In the 1820’s when Washington Irving located 17th century maps which credited Cat Island with being the spot, that biographer of Columbus gave full credit to the “fact” and remarked, “Do not disturb the ancient landmarks.” Markham, however, explained the origin of the Cat Island hoax. “It was,” according to Markham, “first called San Salvador on a West Indies map in Blaeu’s Dutch Atlas of 1635 for no earthly reason but the caprice of the draughtsman.” J. de Laet of Leyden, D’Anville, and other cartographers simply kept copying it, so that it represents no tradition whatsoever!
For another gross distortion we need only take a look at a reproduction of the famous map of Juan de la Coas of 1500. Cuba, Espanola, some of the lesser Antilles, and the northeast corner of South America are about the only parts one can recognize with certainty. He only showed about a dozen Bahamas, and to these he gave such queer shapes and positions with regard to each other that the only conclusion one could safely draw is that de la Coas knew there was an archipelago somewhere north of Cuba.
These facts indicate that much of the cartographic information is under suspicion, and I, therefore, am convinced that all of the old maps must be used only with the greatest caution.
The Columbian Mile
When Columbus used the word “mile” we must remember that his mile was shorter than our present “nautical mile” of 6080.2 feet, for according to several sources the Columbian mile was probably three-fourths to four-fifths that length. It is not my intention to revive here the old controversy with its conflicting evidence of what a mile is. For the construction of my “plotting map” I took one millimeter for each Columbian mile.
A recent argument has been that Columbus used two different kinds of miles—a sea mile and a shore mile—but I must state that in more than four decades of practical navigation at sea I have never heard of any navigator using, consciously or unconsciously, two different miles. His “favorite” mile may differ a few feet from the accepted nautical mile, but every navigator I ever knew uses one and only one such measure of distance. When he is told that a coast or river is so many statute miles or kilometers or something else in the lineal measure, the remark has little meaning for him, for his eyes, his bearings, and his nautical common sense comprehend only one sea-measure, one sea-mile, and, for him, one practical and understandable unit of measure.
Neither have I in reading English, French, Spanish, or Dutch sea-accounts covering a period of at least four centuries ever met an ancient mariner who used two different miles. Their mile may have been most incorrect according to our modern standards, but everyone of them always had only one mile, his mile, the only sensible unit of distance on earth for sailing the seven seas.
Yet we are asked to believe that Columbus used two different miles! If so, when did he switch over? as soon as there was land in sight? or at a distance of how many miles (which kind of miles) from the coast? or, say, one hour after leaving port? or just when? And this in the face of the frequency of Columbus’ ever constant efforts to be exact in relating his distances and courses! Also, in not one instance in the works of Ferdinand Columbus, Las Casas, Oviedo, Martyr, or any of the other reliable contemporary sources are we warned that Columbus employed two different miles.
Magnetic Variation
Despite considerable research, I have been unable to determine what the magnetic variation amounted to for the Bahama region in 1492. Thus to assume that the variation then even approximates the variation today is unwise. However, I am aware that the present isogonic line passes close to Lomas de la Mula on Cuba (Columbus’ “Cabo de Cuba”) and the Ragged Islands. While at present there is in this whole region a maximum variation of only a few degrees, I am inclined to believe that the variation in 1492 must have been more than a point, probably about 15° Easterly (more or less) because the plotting map which I made entirely from “sailing directions” obtained from Spanish sources seems to call for this correction. For the construction of my plot- ting-map I used no variation. Nevertheless any different variation would only swing the picture a few degrees right or left but not enough to distort the picture.
The Question of Currents
One of the obvious factors to be taken into consideration when plotting navigation data is the current. Fortunately for our purpose, however, there is almost never a strong current running among the Bahamas. The great current systems of this region run through the Caribbean and the Strait of Florida. Many reliable sources, however, indicate that there is a weak, constant current eastward of the West Indies and Bahamas, the so-called Antillean stream. This may be true, although after sailing for many years in that region I have never been able to detect it. Even if it does exist it runs outside the waters under consideration in this problem.*
Shortly after the passing of a hurricane, however, these waters may be affected by strong currents, but Columbus navigated here in the second half of October and in November, and we know for certain that Columbus fell in with no hurricane.
All in all I feel justified in assuming that the current question may be omitted from our problem.
Height of Eyesight
Some of the previous investigators of this problem have stated that one island or another in the Bahamas could not be seen, but before such statements are accepted one must take into consideration two factors: what was the height of eyesight aboard the Santa Maria? and what was the nature of the vegetation on the Bahamas?
We have good evidence that the height of eye on the poopdeck must have been at least thirty feet and that the top of the mast must have been at least forty feet higher.
There is also good evidence that the Bahamas were covered with a primeval forest in 1492, which, incidentally, furnished logs for Indian canoes capable of carrying eighty men. Therefore, we can safely make the assumption that the low-lying Bahamas could have been sighted at a distance almost twice as far as would be possible today from a height of, say, ten feet.
Translations
The need for accurate translations of the original sources in an investigation of this sort is obvious. But a check on some of the previous investigators’ translations reveals certain basic and costly errors. Take for example the following passage from Columbus’ journal: “Una punta de la isla le salia a Norueste seis leguas de allf, otra punta le salia al Leste 10 leguas.” The Britisher Markham, a leader among the Watlings Island group, translated the passage thus: “They doubled a point six leagues to the northwest and then another point, then east ten leagues.” a correct translation, however, would be: “A landpoint of the island was sticking out six leagues [24 miles] from there [where they just left this harbor], and another landpoint was projecting 10 leagues [40 miles] to the eastward.” Now this is an important passage in that it helps us determine the first port or Columbus’ landfall on Cuba.
Another passage from the Spanish reads: “Llego á tierra, habiendo andado aquella noche 24 millas al Leste cuarta del Sueste.” Markham translated thus: “He made for the land, having covered during the night 24 miles East by South.” An accurate translation would be: “The Admiral approached the shore, having gone over 24 miles East South East that night.” In another instance the Spanish reads: “ . . . que son por todas 18 leguas, y al Nordeste cuarta del Norte.” Markham’s passage reads: “ . . . altogether 18 leagues northeast by west,” but it should read “altogether 18 leagues northeast by north.” Again, Columbus referred to the “salido el sol” which should be “at sunrise” but which Markham says is “at sunset.”
These few mistakes (and there are many more) should suffice to warn of the danger in attempting to reach accurate results when using translations of this quality.
The Reliability of Columbus
There is no question but that Columbus told the truth in his journals, but some students of this problem doubt if Columbus’ observations were basically accurate. Markham maintained that the many islands Columbus wrote that he had observed from San Salvador were really “deceptive appearances of clouds on the horizon.” Elsewhere he stated that when Columbus wrote “leguas” he really did not mean leagues but rather, miles! Would he have us believe that a thoroughbred seafarer like Columbus would not know how to distinguish between clouds and islands? Would he have us substitute the word “cloud” for “island” so that the following passage from Columbus’ logbook for October 14-15, 1492, would read: “ . . . and I saw so many clouds that I did not know how to determine to which cloud I should go first. Therefore, I went to the largest cloud I saw, and found this cloud to be all flat, without mountains.” Markham also took bold liberties by assuming to correct supposed errors or omissions in Columbus’ works as edited by Navarrete.
I would most certainly not contend that Columbus’ or any other navigator’s log is 100% free of errors, but I know from other checks on Columbus that he was an extremely adroit seaman, observer, navigator, and record keeper, and to alter his words to prove a particular theory is a clear case of gross distortion.
The Case for Caicos Island
It is clear from all sources that on his first voyage to the New World Columbus visited four moderate-sized islands before he reached Cuba and Espanola. The Watlings theorists claim that those four islands were Watlings, Rum Cay, Long Island, and Crooked Island. I am convinced that the four islands were Caicos, Mayaguana, Acklin-Crooked Island, and Great Inagua, and I offer the following evidence.
Island I
On Friday the 12th of October, 1492, Columbus landed on an island called by the natives Guanahani’ and named San Salvador by Columbus. Las Casas related how this island was about 60 miles (15 leagues) in length, very flat, heavily forested, and had a large lagoon in the middle. The island, we are told, had the shape of an haba or beanpod and did not have a single mountain. Columbus reached this island by steering west, although he first sighted it from a northerly direction. Around San Salvador Columbus detected a circle of reefs but through this ring was a narrow passage to a harbor large enough to accommodate “all the ships in Christendom,” and the water within was as calm as in a pozo or waterwell. This harbor he observed while he was on his way to “another part of the island.” In that same area he observed a peninsular piece of land which would be suitable for the location of a fort. From San Salvador, Columbus recorded, he could see several other islands in the distance.
The size of San Salvador is a factor of primary significance. Las Casas stated that it was about 15 leguas (60 miles) in length while Columbus’ son, Fernando, estimated the distance to be closer to 25 leguas (100 miles).
Watlings Island is about thirteen miles long and seven miles wide. Concepcion Island (Gould’s suggestion) is only three miles long and two miles wide, and would have been called an isleo by Columbus who employed five different terms for islands, depending upon their sizes. Isleta was used for a very small island; isleo for a somewhat larger island; isla; isla bien grande (his first four islands were so classified); and finally isla grande mucho, the superlative reserved for Cuba and Espanola.
Watlings Island does not have the narrow form of a beanpod (haba), and nowhere adjacent to Watlings is there an immense “waterwell-calm” (pozo) inner harbor large enough for, say, 10,000 ships. And from Watlings one can see only one other island— Rum Cay; unless, of course, we are to accept the “cloud theory!”
About 10 P.M. the evening of October 11, according to Columbus, he and some of his crew sighted a mysterious light which they assumed must have some association with land. The students of this problem have offered three different explanations for this report. Markham stated that the light must have come from a native canoe or arawak whose occupants were engaged in night fishing. Another guess credited the light with being a phenomenon created by a luminous marine annelid indigenous to those waters at that particular time of the year. The American, Murdock, claimed that Columbus and his associates were simply so determined to see something from land that in their high pitch of expectation, they imagined they saw a light. To the latter explanation Professor Morison “agrees heartily.”
Let us consider these various factors with Caicos Island in mind. That island is about 60 nautical miles long, and it has the form of a beanpod (haba). Both from South Caicos and North Caicos many islands can be seen. The mysterious light of the evening of the 11th, whether caused by an arawak or annelid, fits Caicos perfectly, for, with Turks Island to the south of Columbus’ route, native fishing boats might well have ventured out that distance.
There is a great ring of reefs surrounding Caicos, and inside, where the water is as quiet as in a waterwell (pozo), there is an immense harbor. The narrow entrance Columbus described must have been Lorimer Creek in the north, although today there is more shoaling in those inside waters than Columbus reported. That change is not unusual, as the West Indies Pilot indicates, for there have been appreciable changes in the depths of various channels thereabouts.
The place where Columbus saw a peninsula suitable for the construction of a fort must have been near Lorimer Creek; in fact, in later centuries sugar planters probably chose this very spot to construct “fortified terraces” to defend themselves against pirates. These “terraces” are still there.
Island II
To carry the test still further, what about Island II, that which Columbus named Santa Maria de la Concepcion and which he stated to be about 28 miles from San Salvador. Columbus’ Santa Maria island had an east coast of about 20 miles in length running north-south and a north coast which Columbus followed for more than 40 miles in an east-west direction. At the western end of that coast was a cape where the Admiral’s small fleet anchored. Like all of the other islands in that area, Island II was flat, wooded, populated, and surrounded by a beach, but close to which there were rocky points at the surface of the water.
As a demonstration of how easy it is to twist; facts to suit theories, the Watlings group maintains that Rum Cay was this second island and that when Columbus described its dimensions as 10 leguas by 5 leguas he really meant miles thereby reducing the island’s coast length to one fourth and making Rum Cay “the obvious solution.”
How about the island known as Mayaguana which is located between 25 and 30 miles WNW from Caicos? Its coastal dimensions are 6 miles by 26 miles, somewhat less than Columbus’ 20 by 40 “miles,” but he could well have overestimated that time. Rum Cay, on the other hand, is only 11 by 6 miles.
In other details Mayaguana coincides perfectly with Columbus’ descriptions, even to the point of having a suitable anchorage in the vicinity of the northwest point of the northern coast.
Island III
On October 16 Columbus left his Santa Maria Island and continued westward for 8 or 9 leguas (32-36 miles) until he reached an island which he named Fernandina and which had an apparent length of more than 28 leguas (112 miles) or on the basis of the following day’s estimates, 20 leguas (80 miles). One of the outstanding features of Fernandina Island was a marvelous harbor, large enough for a hundred ships, with a smaller island (isleo) in the mouth. This harbor, which Columbus first believed to be the mouth of a river, was located about eight miles from the northeast corner of the island. The southwest cape of Fernandina he named Cabo Verde.
Can Island III be Long Island as the Watlings group maintains? Long Island, which is only 17 miles from Rum Cay (their Island II) and possesses no such “marvelous harbor” with an isleo in its mouth? Furthermore, where is the Cabo Verde which Columbus listed as being the southwest cape of Fernandina? Long Island’s cape which the Watlings group would call Cabo Verde is in the southeast!
Now let us examine the characteristics of Acklin Island which is 38 miles straight west from Santa Maria de la Concepcion. The whole length of the east and north coasts is about 80 miles (Columbus’ first estimate was 112 miles, later “more than 80 Columbian miles”). Exactly eight miles west from the northeast cape is the entrance to a “harbor” and in that entrance is a small island. Columbus reported that the harbor was not very deep; today it is so shallow that it may be waded across at low tide. Finally, on the southwest there is a cape which fits the description Columbus gave to his Cabo Verde.
Island IV
On the 19th of October Columbus sailed partly southeast and east and came within sight of the island which he named Isabela. This island, which the Indian guides informed him was larger than Fernandina, Columbus estimated to be about 12 leguas (48 miles) in length.
The distance between Cabo Verde and Isabela is not given by Columbus, although he does state that he sailed from daybreak until a little before noon. He arrived at Isabela near the northeast point and there discovered an isleo, just outside the northern cape, which he named Cabo del isleo. There were reefs to the north of the isleo as well as between the two islands. From Cabo del isleo the coast ran westward and was estimated to be about 12 leguas (48 miles) long. But the statement “runs West” must be altered somewhat for Columbus recorded that when he departed from the cape he steered WSW. Neither does his remark square with the courses the fleet of three ships steered after leaving Cabo Verde on Fernandina.
At the western end of the north coast Columbus found a cape which he labeled Cabo Flermoso. The coast there was reported to make a sharp angle to northeast, and outside that cape the sea was deep and free of rocks. Where the cape begins, Columbus reported, are rocks, but more inside is a sandy beach where the fleet anchored. Cabo Hermoso, Columbus believed, could possibly be a separate island, but he did not take the time to investigate. He continued on around the southwest cape, which he called Cabo de la Laguna, and then retraced his course to the vicinity of Cabo del isleo. He stated that there were large lagoons in the Cabo del isleo region and that, in general, Isabela Island appeared more beautiful and more fertile than the other islands he had sighted.
The Watlings group have selected Crooked Island as Isabela, and claim that Bird Rock is the isleo noted off Isabela’s northeast cape. But Bird Rock is at most an isleta, certainly no isleo, as in Columbus’ terminology. Furthermore Bird Rock is at the northwest cape whereas Columbus’ isleo was at a northeast cape. Where is the southwest cape with the lagoon—Cabo de la Laguna? Columbus’ description of the north coast simply does not jibe with reality.
One final point about Crooked Island: Columbus stated that Isabela Island was about 30 nautical miles from San Salvador, but Crooked Island is 67 nautical miles from Island I. To reason this away all sorts of “misprints,” “shoremiles,” and other hoaxes have been invented. One investigator even remarks: “We must, I think, take refuge in the last resort of the baffled investigator, and declare that the passage in question is corrupt.” But the passage is not corrupt, as I shall proceed to demonstrate.
I maintain that Columbus’ Island IV or Isabela is actually Great Inagua. The distance between Islands III and IV is about 85 miles. There is a small island (isleo size) off the northeast cape—Little Inagua, and there are reefs around both the isleo and the cape. The north coast of Great Inagua is about 45 nautical miles in length (Columbus estimated 48 Columbian miles), and near the northwest point (Columbus’ Cape Hermoso) the water is deep outside, has a few rocks where the cape starts, and has a sandy beach and anchorage behind them, just as the Admiral stated.
The coast there makes a sharp angle to the northeast. To the southwest—his Cabo de la Laguna—there is a cape as he described it, and the large lagoon lies inside. Columbus recorded that he did not venture around the southeast side of Isabela Island because it appeared to be treacherous, and indeed it is shallow and foul.
As for the distance between Great Inagua (Isabela Island) and Caicos (San Salvador) the distance stated by Columbus, about 30 nautical miles, is quite correct and by no means “corrupt.”
On to Cuba
From Isabela Columbus set sail for the island of Cuba which the natives had told him was very large and had gold, spices, big ships, and merchants, and which lay in a WSW direction. The island of Cuba must be Japan, reasoned Columbus. En route from midnight on the 23rd of October until the 28th, they encountered seven or eight small “Islas de Arena” which are agreed by all investigators to have been the present Ragged Islands and the Columbus Bank.
Here again is another opportunity to test the validity of the Watlings Island theory. Columbus wrote that on midnight of October 23-24, 1492, he sailed WSW from Cabo del Isleo (Island IV) to Cuba. At dusk on the 24th, he wrote, Cabo Verde (southern cape of Island III) was seven leguas (28 miles) to the northwest. If Cabo Verde is part of Long Island, as the Watlings group maintains, Columbus was still north of the Crooked Island group! How could that have been its location if he had been sailing WSW since the previous midnight and had a favorable breeze during the afternoon of the 24th?
There is one final check point: all investigators agree that among the last Cuban ports which Columbus touched were Port Tanamo (November 14-19) and Port Cayo Moa (November 24-26). His description of those ports is so accurate and obvious that there can be no mistake. On November 19, according to Columbus’ own account, he sailed northeastward in the direction of Island I. Aided by little wind, he had progressed only 7 leguas (28 miles) by sunset, and he still had a bearing on the port from whence he had departed that same day. He sailed on through the night until midmorning on the 20th when he determined that he had made a total of 72 miles (18 leguas) in a course NE by N. At that time, he recorded, he was 48 miles (12 leguas) from Isabela Island (Island IV), and could have gone there and anchored that day but decided not to, one of the reasons being that San Salvador (Island I) was only 9 leguas (32 miles) from that anchorage, and he was afraid that some of the Indians he had taken from San Salvador might sense their proximity to their home island and escape.
This mid-November sojourn of Columbus has been the source of consternation to every defender of the Watlings theory, for the Admiral sailed from a port about whose identity there is no doubt; he sailed northeastward, according to his own journal; and he was within 48 miles from Isabela Island which, he stated specifically, was 32 miles from San Salvador. Watlings Island is most assuredly NOT in that direction nor, according to the Watlings theory, is Island IV that close to Watlings.
With Caicos Island being San Salvador, however, the November sojourn makes sense, and all of Columbus’ clearly stated remarks make sense.
Why did Columbus not sail directly from Isabela Island to Cuba? He recorded that he knew about the large island and that he carried Indian guides to direct him. The simple answer is that his guides followed the traditional canoe route which lay within sight of Cabo Verde, etc.
For the historian who does not prefer to follow the theoretical and practical aspects of navigation or the construction and application of a plotting-map, I offer the following list of outstanding points which show that Caicos and not Watlings was Columbus’ San Salvador.
1. Island I (called Guanahani’ by the natives and San Salvador by Columbus) should be 60 to 100 Columbian miles over-all, or about 48 to 80 of our present nautical miles. (Las Casas, Historia de las Indias, I, Chapter XL; Fernando Columbus, Historie, Chapter XXII)
2. Island I was the shape of a beanpod (haba). (Las Casas, Apologética Historia, Chapter I)
3. Within Island I there should be an immense harbor, large enough “for all the ships in Christendom,” surrounded by an extensive belt of reefs; within this harbor the water is as quiet as in a waterwell (pozo). (Navarrete, Colección de los Viajes y Descubrimientos, I, 176)
4. Some 30 to 40 miles east of Island I there should be another island from which came a light or a canoe bearing a light on the night before Columbus’ landfall. (Navarrete 1,171-2)
5. Many other islands should be within sight of Island I. (Navarrete I, 177)
6. From Island I to Island IV should be about 32 Columbian miles or about 26 present nautical miles. (Navarrete I, 212)
7. From Island II to Island III should be an East-West distance of from 32 to 36 Columbian miles or from 26 to 29 present nautical miles. (Navarrete I, 179)
8. Island III should be at least 80 Columbian miles (72 nautical miles, more or less) over-all; it should have an isleo in a harbor entrance eight miles west of a northeastern cape; there should be a Cabo Verde in the southwest. (Navarrete I, 179-84)
9. Island IV (Isabela Island) should have an isleo near its northeastern cape; the northern coast should be about 40 miles long; there should be in the northwest a beautiful cape (Cabo Hermoso), with clear water outside and a beach and anchorage nearby; in the southwest there should be a cape with a lagoon nearby; the southern coast should be foul with rocks; the island should have a few separate hills and several lagoons. (Navarrete I, 1857)
10. If one plots out a bearing of 28 Columbian miles (22 nautical miles more or less) in a southeastward direction from the south cape of Island III (Cabo Verde of Fernandina Island) one should still be at a distance of at least 60 miles from the isleo near the northeastern cape of Island IV.
On the basis of the evidence submitted in this paper I am convinced that on October 12, 1492, Christopher Columbus, Admiral of The Ocean Sea, landed on the island known today as Caicos.
* U.S. Pilot Charts show a current of 1 knot through the Old Bahama Channel and along the northeast coast of Cuba.