existence of the precolumbus maps were confirmed in M. Waldseemüller
1506-7 world map, the most important map of discovery. In the superior
vignette we find two characters with their maps, one is Ptolemy but
it's the other one who interests us because he shows us an impossible
map for the time, specially because he shows America separated from
Asia so complete and perfect that in that time no one could know it.
..... The mentioned character never traveled
neither discover Central America and the Isthmus of Panama, also the
of the Waldseemüller map 1506, Americo Vespusio with his map
perfectly represented in the map wasn't possible in that date because
it hadn't been navigated and traveled in its extension, not even by
the own Americo Vespuccio that didn't pass the 25º south in Brazil
and he is the other character in question. Americo, Amálrricus,
Amérigo, Alberico, Américus, polemic character whom little
or anything is known about his seafaring arts knowledge, no more than
what he transmits without any modesty about himself, through doubtful
writings, and in spite of his position no documents are conserved of
those that he should surely have written for the Recruiting House. Only
copies of his letters are known.
..... Several investigators as Vicente D.
Sierra, had demonstrated that Vespuccio with Hojeda among 1497y 1499,
are nonexistent, and the one carried out in 1501-2 as Vespuccio says
in his story calculating the distances he describes, he doesn't even
pass approximately 25º south the coast of South America (in Brazil)
an then declares, he goes into in the Atlantic with direction south
east, possibly 50º, then he goes back to Portugal without returning
to the South American coasts. He contradicted himself with his letters
where he says he arrived at the 32º (real 25º) south of the
coast, he also contradicted himself again in his letters where in an
acquaintance as Mundus Novus he doesn't recognize to have sighted land
in his sailing on the south Atlantic and in another acquaintance as
Lettera he lies and says to have followed for 20 leagues a brave coast,
which he doesn't mention again and never returns to sum up in his discovery.
..... We know he was very loquacious on
describing the coasts of Brazil but it's not the same with the south
coasts on which he stays very hermetic in the letters he sent to his
friends in Florence, having nothing to say of places he didn't travel.
..... Some tried to justify this hermetic
attitude of Vespuccio, saying that he made it to maintain secretly his
trip outside the jurisdiction of Portugal, but if in April 1502 he decides
his return to Portugal, how was it possible he had facilitated the data
so quickly so that they became public in the maps, that same year, simply
because there wasn't secret to keep.
..... It's not a simple supposition to say
that Vespuccio lies, it's demonstrated with the precolumbus maps of
1440, 1448 and 1470 where the landslide carried out in the maps, they
locate the Australian continent island, the then called Trivalla Island,
in the Atlantic west of Africa, where it didn't really exist.
..... If it wasn't because of these maps,
it would surely be because of some similar one that was in Florentines
possession, map that gave him the certainty of the existence of those
Trivall lands in the south Atlantic. Lands that to the 25º south,
of the South American coast, leaves to southeast direction until the
50º south in the Atlantic and although he doesn't find them, in
his "Lettera" he denounces it's discovery, saying he had traveled
during 20 leagues a brave bench mark, although he could never have seen
..... If we observe the maps of 1440, 1448
and 1470 we'll see that the Triballa island (Australia) is to the southeast
of America and the west of Africa, such as Vespuccio describes in the
course of his trips, but the destination's irony literally "played
him a bad game ", those lands didn't exist in that place, he only
trusted the map and anticipated a discovery that wasn't possible to
him and nobody else to carry out, ¡Fraud!
It is suggestive that he supposedly carried out baptisms and maps of
the Patagonian coasts and he didn't make baptisms neither maps, he didn't
even left a position of that brave coast that he said have discovered,
to legitimate the discovery.
..... The mentioned lands don't appear in
the vignette of the Waldseemüller map where Vespuccio is with his
map; neither they appear in Pedro Apiano 1521 map with the title that
were made with Ptolemy and Vespuccio's maps.
Apiano's maps title 1521
With regard to these Florentine pseudo-discoveries I should clarify
that I differ, with those that say that Cananea-Cananor was moved towards
south but that the authentic one is at 25º in the coasts of Brazil,
opposed to this I can say that it was moved towards the north putting
it within reach of Vespuccio, locating it at 25º south at the southern
point of the Vespuccio's trip, at the South American coast, before going
in southeast direction in the Atlantic, but as we'll see, the historians
didn't suspect that they would discover the proofs that the true Cananea
was more to the south in Chubut, approximately to 43º south as
it appears in maps of 1502, with a toponymy that accompanies it, also
the existence of stones carved with writings presumably of cananian
origin would complete the environment to be able to affirm that the
true River and Port of Cananea is in Chubut approximately 43º south
and not at 25º south, place where some geographers continued locating
it in their maps, creating a well-known duality, two Cananeas.
..... Others accepted the true location
of Cananea at 43º south and they opted to extend the Florentine
trips in the South American coast putting it at their free will. I find
not very convincing the extensive defense developed by R. Leviller,
and E. De Gandía to demonstrate the Florentine trips in the Patagonia,
and to make him responsible of a false baptism, of places he hadn't
navigated, to justify a toponymy so far south in that time, thrusting
him the discovery and baptism of the Jordan River (Rio de la Plata)
at 35º south, and Cananea to the already mentioned 43º south
in the Patagonian coast.
..... To me and other authors we find it
incredible that Vespuccio has baptized places with Chinese names in
the Caribbean and others with Semitic names in the south, in Patagonia,
in times of full inquisition, when the Jews in Spain were condemned
to conversion or death, and De Gandía asks defiant, believing
that there wasn't another option, if these names weren't put by the
Florentine; who did?.
..... R. Leviller and De Gandía attribute
Vespuccio of the baptism of Pariah and Lariab (Lamriab) in 1497 in Mexico
and recognize that these names belong to Chinese cities; we know that
the Chinese or Asian origin toponymy in Meso-America is more extensive,
and it's not related with Vespuccio.
It can be deduced and confirmed that those names were in the precolumbus
maps, of which Vespuccio had surely one in his possession. The discovery
of all America in the maps of 1440, 1448 and 1470 confirm this hypothesis.
..... The history we know tells us that
the Rio de la Plata was discovered by Juan Dias Solís in 1516
and baptized with the name of Mar Dulce, and later rebaptized as Rio
de la Plata, but these toponymycs aren't found in the old maps. Although
it appears practically in all the old maps drawn by the main geographers
from Europe during more than thirty years from 1502, as Jordan River,
1502 Kunstmann ll.
1506 Waldseemüller Martín
1508 Ruysch Juan
1513 Waldseemüller Martin
1516 Waldseemüller Martin
1516 J. D. de Solís supposed discovery
1531 Oroncio Fineo
1533 Schöner J
1534 Rivero D. y Ramusio B.
1535 Globo dorado de París
other ones could be added to this list. Looking through the old maps
deeply, in any way I believe it is enough to demonstrate that those
names are previous to their supposed discovery and continued calling
them this way later.
..... Except for some punctual cases they
appeared with another name, for example the case of Diego García
with Aos River, with which was sought the origin of the Jordan or in
other cases as Solis River or San Cristóbal and some other names
that weren't transcendental.
..... The demonstration of this hypothesis
against Vespuccio is that the names of the rivers of the basin of Plata,
where we know he didn't go it is accompanied in its precolumbus meaning
by the "Jordan River" that is to say it was already baptized
and that those names were accepted by the conquest and not named by
.....The Paraná River was denominated
in indigenous language "Rio Pity" that means pine in
Greek and Phoenician, in allusion to the Parana's pine or Brazilian
pine which is abundant in it, (see Pityusa Island in the Mediterranean
that is Pines Island); the "Rio Teuco" or rather "Teucho"
(Greek term for Volume-book) as the natives call, in allusion to the
Pentateuco, the five books of the Sacred Texts of the Old Testament
or Torá; "Bermejo River", allusion to the Red
Sea, origin of the sailings; "Pilcomayo River" would
in fact be Philco-Mayum, Philco in reference to the Phoenicians weavers
and tinters (according to B. Graiver), Mayum water that runs, river
in Arameo; "Apa River" of Apu, Abu Patriarch. In the
region other names exists that accompany this toponymy. In Corrientes
Province there is a place called in indigenous language "Lito
Cará" (Square Stone) but it's evident that Lito is stone
in Greek, others as "Overá" in Misiones Province,
"Avería" repeatedly in the Northwest or Palmira and
Carmelo in the Uruguayan coast that are cananeos names of the Middle
East or Carios (Guarani) Indian.
..... Concerning to Chubut River or "River
of the Cananea" or wrongly named "Cananor", it is
accompanied by the interior of the region's toponymy, where evidently
Vespuccio hadn't been neither he had baptized. Hill "Calfú
Kir" walled establishment of Calfú; Cacique Caffarenna,
"Pampas of Marrauf"; "Sierra of Garraf" names
of Arabic origin: "Pampas of Sacanan" house of Canaan;
"Sierra of Jalalaubat" this toponymyc is found about
fifteen times in Iran, Syria, Pakistan, India and Afghanistan; "Cerro
de la Cicuta" poison used by Socrates; "Yanquetruz";
"Yankenao Hill" already explained in Red Jews; "Cacique
Malikeo" means King; "Apas Mountains" means
patriarch etc. etc. is evident that these toponymycs aren't of American
..... It's also possible that in the map
that Alberico Vespuccio facilitated M. Waldssemüller it was written
"Americ or Amerique" that, according to Ricardo Palma in "Peruvian
Traditions" Ed. Espasa-Calpe 1951, pages 28 to 30, they would be
some mounts denominated this way from where gold was extracted in precolumbus
times in the Chontales Province in Nicaragua, it would mean mountains
or place where the wind blows.
..... According to Alfredo Cardona Peña
in "Conversaciones y semblanzas" Editorial Universidad
a Distancia, from Costa Rica 1988, Amérika is a Tolteca voice
that means Country with mountains in its center. Name that could confuse
Waldssemüller in the first edition of his maps of 1506, carrying
out a second edition immediately where this name is suppressed. Being
this way possible that the name of the continent is of indigenous origin.
..... On the etymology of the name of America
we have in 1837 the opinion of Alexander V. Humboldt that says: "The
Vespuccio's contemporaries, translated erroneously the Italian name
Amerigo to the latin Alberico. The correct translation should be Amalrricus.
The proof can be seen in a Latin edition of Jehan Lamberts trip in 1501
and in the Itinerarium Portugallensium published in 1508"
..... "... This was far from having
anything to do with a name since in that time, the name Americo or America
for man or woman in Europe didn't exist...,"
..... This way Humboldt demonstrates
that "Amerigo Vespuccio" was known in this time like "Alberico
Vespuccio" and that his name was changed to "Americo"
after Waldseemüller names America and not Albérica in his
map of 1506.
..... It's unavoidable to reproduce
a paragraph of Fray de Espinosa in his book of 1623 "Summarize
and description of the western Indies" Chapter V-24:
".... As the significant D. Juan of
Solórzano says, a most worthy judge of the Council of Indies,
of Indiarum iure, fol. 38 and 39, lib. 1, ca. 4, everything must be
called Colon's Colony, and not America, and I don't know with what arguments
it has been usurped from Americo Vespuccio, a seafaring poor person
that neither passed nearby those parts, neither made a remarkable thing
to make his name eternal with the glory of such discovery, because he
wasn't the one who made it."
Nobody could know what wasn't discovered.
.....This proves us that Vespuccio was
one happily possessor of a precolumbus map that was facilitated by Waldseemüller,
and he copied it with the name of America (Americ or Amerique) that
was a toponymyc of the map, although he carries out a second edition
of the same map suppressing the name America, but in spite of this the
name was everlasting. After such incredible discovery Vespuccio doesn't
publish his map but rather he facilitates it to others so they draw
theirs. See also the titles of the P. Apiano map in 1520.
..... It is possible that in contacts with
the School of Florence, A. Vespuccio got maps of America from some German
monks that worked there. It's a possibility, but there are no proofs
..... It seems that in spite of having put
in his vignette, Vespuccio in his map, and having put the toponymycs
that were in them, including America, Waldseemüller seems not to
trust Don Americo totally, and below, in the map North America is drawn
separated from South America, already conserving the tendency of the
maps published in 1502 by Cantino and Caneiro. These last ones shows
South America separated from North America with a nurtured toponymy
from what would be the south of Brazil 42º south, Cananea River
(Chubut River), impossible in 1502, since nobody had navigated in those
As "the Learned Juan de Solórzano" says I don't believe
it would be worthwhile to extend more about Americo Vespuccio.