A seachart from 15th century is an artifact in itself and when known to have
been passed by Toscannelli to Fernam Martins enclosed and discussed in a
letter written 1474, a letter which also have been found attached to a book
Columbus owned, following is more than a probable conclusion and the line
above more than a plausible assumption.

Columbus must have known that America was a continent of its own. Not only
because the Basques who helped the Norse with the Cod fishing and Whale
hunting lived close to Portugal's northern border, but also because there
was a map that Toscannelli had enclosed in a letter to Fernam Martins
written 25th June 1474. Toscannelli discussed the west and the east as well
as land and longitude lines on the map. He, Toscannelli, knew that:

'..... of contrary winds or some accident should drive mariners to some
other coast than the one intended. I wanted to enable them to show the
aborigines that we are not
without possessing some knowledge of their country/countries [not
clear]......
Only merchants, as we are informed, settled in those islands....'

The letter described above is at least the letter that with or without a
map(actually a sea chart) Columbus is presumed to have owned a copy of since
it's found attached to Columbus'
own copy of Enea silvio Piccolimini's Historia rerum ubique gestarum.

Thus we can draw two conclusions from the fact that the letter was attached
to Columbus' copy of Enea silvio Piccolimini's Historia rerum ubique
gestarum:

* The letter was written short before the joint sailing between the
Portugesean and the Danish Kings to Greenland on which at least Columbus own
brother and Corte-Real participated. The later had been on the first sailing
under command of Porthurst and Pinning in 1472 as well.(not 1).

This in itself gives two reasons for Columbus possible participating in the
second voyage or at least as is written in his son's book visiting Island:
to learn more about the land he heard of between 1474 and his official own
sailing westward. He could also want to find out if there still existed the
from earlier Danish-Norwegian mentioned passage westward up north. The later
alternative is of course a non proven assumption. We do however know that
Columbus own spelling of his name Colon do exist both in its own and as a
foreign name which the Danes translated to 'Bonde' in the documents still
existing from the second voyage of Pothurst and Pinning 1477/78. The voyage
where the ships had to stay the winter on the North American continent.

* According to the letter of Toscannelli we also learn that there were
European Merchandisers who had settled on the 'islands' outside North
America. Please bear in mind that we also have that from a Norwegian Diploma
and from that learn that the New found land was settled in 13th century....

So the cod's bones isn't the only thing that will give evidence of the old
trade. There are much more to look for in the Old World and Asia.

Inger E

You said, "Columbus must have known that America was a continent
of its own".

But the evidence you brought forward, if it meant anything about
his knowledge, did not mean that he would have known that there
was a *continent* between Europe and Asia.

If he *had* known, why did he not attempt to land on the
continent? Why did he just dick around some islands in the Caribbean?

Toscanelli's letter talks about sailing west to reach the Spice
Islands (i.e. East Asia). There is nothing about America in it.

Map at http://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/LMwebpages/252.html

On Apr 15, 10:32 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:

Toscanelli's letter talks about sailing west to reach the Spice
Islands (i.e. East Asia). There is nothing about America in it.

Map athttp://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/LMwebpages/252.html

Columbus must have known that America was a continent of its own.

Inger E. J wrote:

snip

Columbus must have known that America was a continent of its own.

If that is so, why did Chris just dick around a bunch of islands, never
venturing to this continent of which you speak?

snip

On Apr 15, 12:26 pm, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:

On Apr 15, 10:32 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:

Toscanelli's letter talks about sailing west to reach the Spice
Islands (i.e. East Asia). There is nothing about America in it.

Map athttp://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/LMwebpages/252.html

Cool projection! But watch out, next we'll have Inger (or Seppo)
telling us that big blob on the left labelled "Cathay" is really North
America...;-)

I expect it to get Eric'd

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:oAQMj.221$cq5.32@newsfe07.lga...
Inger E. J wrote:

snip

Columbus must have known that America was a continent of its own.
If that is so, why did Chris just dick around a bunch of islands, never
venturing to this continent of which you speak?

Tom, would you please explain your thoughts a bit more. I guess you remember
that the Vikings, at least according to the Islandic Sagas, said that there
were an open sea between Greenland and Vinland. Now the passage from
Greenland to where it's thought that Pothurst and Pinning's second voyage
were winddriven in NA aren't so long distance that the passage described by
the Viking necessarily could be applied on it, (correct?)
if so, wouldn't it have been natural had Columbus participated or not that
he who at least must have heard from Corte-Real and his own brother and
himself sailed the long way to Iceland, would have thought that the passage
westward must have been somewhere northwest of Portugal but southwest of
Iceland? Your thoughts are as much worth as mine for solving your question.

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:oAQMj.221$cq5.32@newsfe07.lga...
Inger E. J wrote:

snip

Columbus must have known that America was a continent of its own.
If that is so, why did Chris just dick around a bunch of islands, never
venturing to this continent of which you speak?

Tom, would you please explain your thoughts a bit more.

benli...@ihug.co.nz> skrev i meddelandetnews:def7d33d-8ade-4bbc-b42c-075104f9e288@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...



On Apr 15, 9:51 am, "Inger E. J" <inger_e.johans...@telia.com> wrote:
A seachart from 15th century is an artifact in itself and when known to
have
been passed by Toscannelli to Fernam Martins enclosed and discussed in a
letter written 1474, a letter which also have been found attached to a
book
Columbus owned, following is more than a probable conclusion and the line
above more than a plausible assumption.

Columbus must have known that America was a continent of its own. Not
only
because the Basques who helped the Norse with the Cod fishing and Whale
hunting lived close to Portugal's northern border, but also because there
was a map that Toscannelli had enclosed in a letter to Fernam Martins
written 25th June 1474. Toscannelli discussed the west and the east as
well
as land and longitude lines on the map. He, Toscannelli, knew that:

'..... of contrary winds or some accident should drive mariners to some
other coast than the one intended. I wanted to enable them to show the
aborigines that we are not
without possessing some knowledge of their country/countries [not
clear]......
Only merchants, as we are informed, settled in those islands....'

The letter described above is at least the letter that with or without a
map(actually a sea chart) Columbus is presumed to have owned a copy of
since
it's found attached to Columbus'
own copy of Enea silvio Piccolimini's Historia rerum ubique gestarum.

Thus we can draw two conclusions from the fact that the letter was
attached
to Columbus' copy of Enea silvio Piccolimini's Historia rerum ubique
gestarum:

* The letter was written short before the joint sailing between the
Portugesean and the Danish Kings to Greenland on which at least Columbus
own
brother and Corte-Real participated. The later had been on the first
sailing
under command of Porthurst and Pinning in 1472 as well.(not 1).

This in itself gives two reasons for Columbus possible participating in
the
second voyage or at least as is written in his son's book visiting
Island:
to learn more about the land he heard of between 1474 and his official
own
sailing westward. He could also want to find out if there still existed
the
from earlier Danish-Norwegian mentioned passage westward up north. The
later
alternative is of course a non proven assumption. We do however know that
Columbus own spelling of his name Colon do exist both in its own and as a
foreign name which the Danes translated to 'Bonde' in the documents still
existing from the second voyage of Pothurst and Pinning 1477/78. The
voyage
where the ships had to stay the winter on the North American continent.

* According to the letter of Toscannelli we also learn that there were
European Merchandisers who had settled on the 'islands' outside North
America. Please bear in mind that we also have that from a Norwegian
Diploma
and from that learn that the New found land was settled in 13th
century....

So the cod's bones isn't the only thing that will give evidence of the
old
trade. There are much more to look for in the Old World and Asia.

Inger E

Toscanelli's letter talks about sailing west to reach the Spice
Islands (i.e. East Asia). There is nothing about America in it.

Ross Clark

He speaks of sailing westward to the islands I mentioned.

beware that there are two circumstances which definitely make your
assumption critical as an interpretation. First of all America wasn't
mentioned anywhere as name, that we all can agree on. An alike name does
exist before Amerigo Vespucci but that's not the question here.

known far more than been assumed today was Vinland existed and that Brazil
which was the place from where some wood was exported. Brazil-wood is
mentioned traded within the Baltic Sea btw.

As established in among other the documents Columbus' is that Columbus at
least visited Iceland, and that he more probably than not had knowledge of
NA either from his brother and Corte-Real or from own experience. We can't
have a grounded opinion of if Columbus had had early knowledge of SA.
Possible since there were an other group of brothers who are said to have
sailed south-west from Portugal reaching large land. But still, that's not
proven facts thus we don't know how much Columbus and others had knowledge
of Brazil's location.

Now there are some other circumstances known in those days. There were, some
here might remember discussed in group before, species which probably
origined either in the islands south of NA or in Mexico which at least was
known in Lund, Skane belonged to Denmark in those days. Due to the close
Royal contacts, intermarriages existed, a lot of what was to be found on
Royal tables in Denmark must have been known in Portugal. Not necessarily
Spain, but Portugal. If that was the case, which is more than probable, then
the idea of sailing to the Spice Islands westward as the Norse had done for
long, please observe that Norway belonged to Denmark in those days, must
have been an interesting oportunity. Sailing south of Africa wasn't a very
pleasant voyage in those days and later....

But we also have an older document which tells that it was possible to sail
westward from Greenland all the way to Barmaland. Barmaland was known by
Scandinavians to be able to be a very large cold land from today's Murmansk
eastward to Asia. I hope you are aware of the trying in those days to reach
Asia by sailing north of Russia. A Swedish King had also plans to occupy the
areas of Russia up north btw.

It's possible but not plausible that the knowledge of SA might have pointed
to SA belonging to the far East Asia. That we don't know. But we do know
that there aren't any documents indicating a knowledge in Europe that it was
possible to walk from north eastern NA down to Brazil and other parts of SA.
Thus it's more than likely that Columbus might have believed that no land
should be reached south of NA north of Brazil before Asia was reached. That
is of course pure speculations, but from Columbus and others writings in
15th century that might very well be a correct interpretation.

Inger E

On Apr 15, 11:36 am, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2...@charter.net> wrote:

You said, "Columbus must have known that America was a continent
of its own".

But the evidence you brought forward, if it meant anything about
his knowledge, did not mean that he would have known that there
was a *continent* between Europe and Asia.

If he *had* known, why did he not attempt to land on the
continent? Why did he just dick around some islands in the Caribbean?

According to his own writings all he wanted to do was find a new way
to the Spice Islands.
It's another Ingerism I'm afraid.

On Apr 15, 9:51 am, "Inger E. J" <inger_e.johans...@telia.com> wrote:
A seachart from 15th century is an artifact in itself and when known to
have
been passed by Toscannelli to Fernam Martins enclosed and discussed in a
letter written 1474, a letter which also have been found attached to a
book
Columbus owned, following is more than a probable conclusion and the line
above more than a plausible assumption.

Columbus must have known that America was a continent of its own. Not
only
because the Basques who helped the Norse with the Cod fishing and Whale
hunting lived close to Portugal's northern border, but also because there
was a map that Toscannelli had enclosed in a letter to Fernam Martins
written 25th June 1474. Toscannelli discussed the west and the east as
well
as land and longitude lines on the map. He, Toscannelli, knew that:

'..... of contrary winds or some accident should drive mariners to some
other coast than the one intended. I wanted to enable them to show the
aborigines that we are not
without possessing some knowledge of their country/countries [not
clear]......
Only merchants, as we are informed, settled in those islands....'

The letter described above is at least the letter that with or without a
map(actually a sea chart) Columbus is presumed to have owned a copy of
since
it's found attached to Columbus'
own copy of Enea silvio Piccolimini's Historia rerum ubique gestarum.

Thus we can draw two conclusions from the fact that the letter was
attached
to Columbus' copy of Enea silvio Piccolimini's Historia rerum ubique
gestarum:

* The letter was written short before the joint sailing between the
Portugesean and the Danish Kings to Greenland on which at least Columbus
own
brother and Corte-Real participated. The later had been on the first
sailing
under command of Porthurst and Pinning in 1472 as well.(not 1).

This in itself gives two reasons for Columbus possible participating in
the
second voyage or at least as is written in his son's book visiting
Island:
to learn more about the land he heard of between 1474 and his official
own
sailing westward. He could also want to find out if there still existed
the
from earlier Danish-Norwegian mentioned passage westward up north. The
later
alternative is of course a non proven assumption. We do however know that
Columbus own spelling of his name Colon do exist both in its own and as a
foreign name which the Danes translated to 'Bonde' in the documents still
existing from the second voyage of Pothurst and Pinning 1477/78. The
voyage
where the ships had to stay the winter on the North American continent.

* According to the letter of Toscannelli we also learn that there were
European Merchandisers who had settled on the 'islands' outside North
America. Please bear in mind that we also have that from a Norwegian
Diploma
and from that learn that the New found land was settled in 13th
century....

So the cod's bones isn't the only thing that will give evidence of the
old
trade. There are much more to look for in the Old World and Asia.

Inger E

Toscanelli's letter talks about sailing west to reach the Spice
Islands (i.e. East Asia). There is nothing about America in it.

Ross Clark

Alan Crozier wrote: on, 15/04/2008 09:37:
"Inger E. J" <inger_e.johans...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:skXMj.6083$R_4.4832@newsb.telia.net...
benli...@ihug.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet

news:def7d33d-8ade-4bbc-b42c-075104f9e288@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Toscanelli's letter talks about sailing west to reach the Spice
Islands (i.e. East Asia). There is nothing about America in it.

Ross Clark
He speaks of sailing westward to the islands I mentioned. BUT you
better
beware that there are two circumstances which definitely make your
assumption critical as an interpretation. First of all America wasn't
mentioned anywhere as name, that we all can agree on. An alike name
does
exist before Amerigo Vespucci but that's not the question here. What
was
known far more than been assumed today was Vinland existed and that
Brazil
which was the place from where some wood was exported. Brazil-wood is
mentioned traded within the Baltic Sea btw.
Hi Inger,

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I can say it again. Brazil
wood is not called after Brazil. It's the other way around.

The word 'brazil' was first given to a tree from the East Indies known
as Sappan. That goes back at least a hundred years before Columbus. When
a similar tree was later discovered in South America, the country got
its name from the tree.

Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesalpinia_echinata

Likewise, Argentina and the Rio de la Plata were both called after the
silver there, but this doesn't mean that all silver comes from
Argentina. There was silver in Europe even before Argentina was
discovered, just as there was brazil wood before Brazil was discovered.

Is there any evidence that Sappanwood (or another dywood)
was called 'Brazilwood' before the discovery (and naming)
of Brazil?
I am unable to find it. Everything is of (much) later date.
An I wonder why it would be called 'Brazil', because it
had a common name (Sappan)

see eghttp://www.bibliomania.com/2/3/260/1286/20210/1/frameset.html

"SAPPAN-WOOD, s. The wood of Caesalpina
sappan; the bakkam of the Arabs, and the Brazil-
wood of medieval commerce. Bishop Caldwell at one
time thought the Tamil name, from which this was
taken, to have been given because the wood was
supposed to come from Japan. Rumphius says that
Siam and Champa are the original countries of the
Sappan, and quotes from Rheede that in Malabar it
was called Tsajampangan, suggestive apparently of
a possible derivation from Champa. The mere fact
that it does not come from Japan would not disprove
this derivation any more than the fact that turkeys
and maize did not originally come from Turkey would
disprove the fact of he birds and the grain (gran
turco) having got names from such a belief. But the
tree appears to be indigenous in Malabar, the
Deccan, and the Malay Peninsula; whilst the
Malayal. shappannam, and the Tamil shappu, both
signifying 'red (wood),' are apparently derivatives
from shawa, 'to be red,' and suggest another origin
as most probable. [The Mad. Gloss. gives Mal.
chappannam, from chappu, 'leaf,' Skt. anga, 'body';
Tam. shappangam.] The Malay word is also sapang,
which Crawfurd supposes to have originated the
trade-name. If, however, the etymology just
suggested be correct, the word must have passed
from Continental India to the Archipelago."

According to Kaempfer (1727)* and Balfour (1862)**
it was called Fa-ang and Tsiampan in Japan, wich
seem to me the same name.

* Engelbert Kaempfer (1727): The History of Japan
** Edward Balfour (1862): The timber trees, timber
and fancy woods, as also, the forests, of India and
of eastern and southern Asia.

--
p.a.

Inger E. J wrote:
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:oAQMj.221$cq5.32@newsfe07.lga...
Inger E. J wrote:

snip

Columbus must have known that America was a continent of its own.
If that is so, why did Chris just dick around a bunch of islands, never
venturing to this continent of which you speak?

Tom, would you please explain your thoughts a bit more. I guess you
remember that the Vikings, at least according to the Islandic Sagas, said
that there were an open sea between Greenland and Vinland. Now the
passage from Greenland to where it's thought that Pothurst and Pinning's
second voyage were winddriven in NA aren't so long distance that the
passage described by the Viking necessarily could be applied on it,
(correct?)
if so, wouldn't it have been natural had Columbus participated or not
that he who at least must have heard from Corte-Real and his own brother
and himself sailed the long way to Iceland, would have thought that the
passage westward must have been somewhere northwest of Portugal but
southwest of Iceland? Your thoughts are as much worth as mine for solving
your question.

You said, "Columbus must have known that America was a continent of its
own".

But the evidence you brought forward, if it meant anything about his
knowledge, did not mean that he would have known that there was a
*continent* between Europe and Asia.

If he *had* known, why did he not attempt to land on the continent? Why
did he just dick around some islands in the Caribbean?