Jump to content

Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

PLEASE STOP LYING

In the article it is written "Early in 1486, Pedro Diaz de Toledo, king's John II judge, referred to Columbus twice as being "El Genoese"." This is a bald face lie like many of the other things written in support of the GENOESE Columbus. What Pedro Diaz de Toledo wrote was that he was PORTUGUESE and not Genoese. The document clearly says "portogues" don't keep twisting the facts and writing lies. And Pedro Diaz de Toledo was not King John II's judge what he was, in fact, was Queen Isabel's Bookkeeper who made a note of 1 year's salary paid to Columbus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.240.96 (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing that so many people consider themselves "experts" on the life of Columbus but have never seen any of the documents nor tried to answer any of the relevant issues that historians face in deciphering his life, yet try to falsify history by denying what the documents say. António Rumeu de Armas wrote about this document in El "Portugues" Cristobal Colon en Castilla, Ediciones Cultura Hispanica, 1982.

The document says PORTUGUESE and not Genoese. If you don't believe me take a look at this author's website for the image of the document in question. Please stick to the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.240.96 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

One more FALSE document

Ever wonder why no books on Columbus ever show an image of the documents? I wondered and I went to look at the documents. Once anybody with a brain looks at the documents they can ask questions and arrive at their own answers and those answers contradict all that we have been taught. - I have proven that the Last Will of 1498 was falsified after 1573. Now I have been able to prove that the Memorial or relation of people to pay attached to the Codicil that we have been forced to accept for so long was written on May 20th 1506 by Columbus on his deathbed was NOT written while Columbus was still alive.

This is VERY IMPORTANT because this is the relation of payments that mentions the Genoese merchants and has been used to prove a solid connection between Columbus and Genoa. The Codicil of May 20th 1506 does not include the relation of these Genoese merchants. The relation of the merchants states that it was written after the Admiral died and has NO WITNESESS names on it. It is an addendum written God-Knows-When and attached to the Codicil of 1506 at a later date. Soon this Genoese woolweaver story will unravel like an old wool sweater. Colombo.bz 02:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)



More Lies - the True Arms of Colón

Slowly the truth is coming to light. The Genoese wool weaver is washed up and shrinking into oblivion. The history of a genoese woolweaver was never proven and based on false testimony, lively imagination and pig-headed stuborness of historians. First Manuel Rosa proved the Testament was falsified to say "being I born in Genoa" [1]. Then he proved that Morison was an inventor showing how the facts never existed to support the assumptions in Admiral of the Ocean Sea. Next he proved that Filipa Moniz was a "dona Comendadeira" member of the Portuguese Military Order of Santiago and not being able to marry without permission from the Master who was at the time King John II of Portugal. Now, are you ready fot this?... it is now proven that the arms long assumed to have been those of the Admiral are wrong. Manuel Rosa had called it already last year and he was again proven right by the documents. The Royal Grant of Arms signed by the Catholic Kings proves all historians up to now were wrong about the true arms. Therefore the arms were never stolen from the genoese woolweaver's guild as Morison invented. For the real true arms see Revista de la Federación Española de Genealogia y Heráldica, Cuadernos de Ayala 26 - Abril 2006. "El escudo de armas de Cristóbal Colón. Estudio de un acrecentamiento heráldico", p.9-25. by Dr. D. Félix MARTÍNEZ LLORENTE. [2] One by one the book O Mistério Colombo Revelado has hit the bull's eye and proven the history of a genoese Colombo was false. 02:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Carlos Mateus

Ligur is not Genoese

"..... addressed to Giovanni Borromeo, he referred to Colonus as Ligurian [vir Ligur]." vir Ligur means "a ligurian man"


Adolf Schulten (1870-1960). Arqueologist, German historian considered the father of modern investigation wrote:

«the Lígures constitute the oldest population in the Península Ibérica, historically proven».

Therefore Angliera writing that Colonus, a ligur, can just as well mean an Iberian as a Genoese.

[[User]

However, it is almost certain that Angliera meant the Region of Liguria, where Genoa is located. User: Italus, 30 May 2007
However it is most certain that if Colon was from Genoa that Angliera would have NO PROBLEM writing Genoese.. why did he choose to write Ligur instead????

Lies, Lies and More Lies

It is amazing that for 500 years people have been confused about the real nationality of Columbus but it is worse when we find lies and misinformation passed off as truth.

For instance in the article we read: A reference, dated 1492 by a court scribe Galindez, referred to Columbus as Cristóbal Colón, genovés.

This reference was NOT written in 1492 but in 1516 and the text has a big error. The date of the agreement between Columbus and the Kings was 1492 not 1491 as Galindez wrote.

«Ano de xcj [1491] [...] y este ano tomaron sus altezas assiento con Xptobal Colon, ginoues, natural de Saona, sobre el descubrimiento de las Indias»

If he could not even get the date correct how could he have gotten any nationality? Remember that Columbus hid is true nationality and anyone who writes a nationality is suspicous nevermind someone who did not even know the exact date of the agreement. 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)history buff

The Mystery of Columbus Revealed

This whole history of Columbus is a sham we have already seen the truth in Lisbon. Columbus always knew he was not in India he lied on propose to fool the Castillians becasue he was helping the King of Portugal. It is all revealed in a new book O Misterio Colombo Revelado but unfortunately of the English crowd it is not available in English.

The historian Manuel Rosa has proven beyond a doubt that the Will of 1498 was falsified after 1573. Eliot Morison wrote a fantasy history based on lies and invented facts. Hopefully the rest of the world will get the truth one day. The book O Misterio Colombo Revelado was reviewed and discussed by the Portuguese scientific community at the Conference on Columbus on February 26th 2007 at the Sociedade de Geograofia de Lisboa, Secção de História (Geographic Society of Lisbon, History Section) and acknowledged as a solid piece of investigation and praise for the new evidence it brings to this story. For these reasons the article should highly consider rewriting the article to inlcude the points its author had made here in the past.

False Last Will

This Last Will and Testament of 1498, which resides in the archives of Seville, is a copy of an original whose whereabouts is unknown. According to the book O Misterio Colombo Revelado it contains many inconsistencies, such as being signed El Almirante, whereas in the notarized copy of the codicil of 1506, the public notary stated clearly that the will that he had inspected was signed Christo Ferens furthermore this Testament of 1498 has now been proven to be false in all aspects thus making the only document that connected the Admiral Colon to the wool weaver Colombo inadmissible as evidence. [3] [1]

Furthermore DNA tests of 477 Colombos and Coloms in Italy and Spain have proven that the navigator Colon was not from those lineages. The current history of a Genoese wool weaver is a false history. [2]

Manuel Rosa on Eliot Morison

It seems Morison was not such a "superb historian" according to the book O Misterio Colombo Revelado, here are some things severely wrong with Morison's story translated by me into English since since Rosa's book is only available in Portuguese:

  • Eliot Morrison: There is no mystery about the birth, family or race of Christopher Columbus. He was born in the ancient city of Genoa sometime between August 25 and the end of October 1451, the son and grandson of woolen weavers, (page 5).
  • Manuel Rosa: Not true. Colon’s true origin has always been a mystery. His own son, Hernando Colon, did not know (or would not tell us) where his father was born. Simply by saying there is no mystery Morison alludes to the actual mystery that there is. (page 152).
  • EM: Nobody in the Admiral’s lifetime, or for three centuries after, had any doubt about his birthplace, (page 6).
  • MR: Again Morison completely ignores the facts. There has always been doubt about Colon’s birthplace, and Isabel’s accountant calls him Portuguese in 1486. (page 152).
  • EM: The youngest brother, Giacomo (age 16) . . . there is record of his apprenticeship to a clothweaver in 1484, (page 9).
  • MR: Assumes the clothweaver apprentice Giacomo is the same as the noble brother Don Diego Colon. Does not explain how Giacomo, weaver apprentice in 1484, became Governor of Hispaniola in 1494, nor does it explain his noble title of Don or his ability to read and write. (page 152).
  • EM: Probably displayed the arms (blue bend on a gold field with red chief) which the Admiral afterwards quartered with the arms of Castile; members of trade gilds [spelling?] in the Italian cities often used just such a simple coat as this, (page 9).
  • MR: Assumes this was the coat of arms of the guild of weavers in Genoa with no proof. Assumes a person could claim as his coat of arms the coat of arms of a guild. Assumes Queen Isabel allowed him into the exclusive “Nobility Class” without an investigation. Worst of all assumes that Colon modified his own coat of arms, usurping a right that belonged to the kings. (page 152). [even wrongly implies a simple coat of arms is worth less than an elaborate one]
  • EM: The old man, through with weaving, and living on remittances from his sons in Portugal . . . So “Domenico Colombo son of Giovanni, citizen of Genoa, formerly clothweaver,” leased the garden and most of the house to a shoemaker in 1483 . . . years later, Domenico’s creditors put pressure on him to sell the house, (page 11).
  • MR: Wrongly assumes Domenico Colombo was getting money from the noble Colon brothers in Portugal, a statement without any factual basis. Also, Giacomo was yet one year away from starting his apprenticeship (see quote above) but the father was all done with weaving and leased the house even though we have to assume the son, age 15, was still living with him! (page 152).
  • EM: A poor boy of Genoa would not have known Italian, unless he had learned it at school. Christopher undoubtedly left home almost if not completely illiterate, and when he finally learned to read and write used the Castilian language, page 13. Christopher’s Latin, which shows that it was learned after Spanish, (page 12).
  • MR: Assumes he learned to read and write Castilian and Latin instead of Portuguese while married and living in Portugal. Assumes a completely illiterate and penniless 26 year-old Colombo washed ashore would put his efforts into learning Latin and Castilian, languages used by Portuguese avant-garde nobles, and not needed to thrive in Portugal as a sailor as if he knew that in eight years he would be moving to Spain. (page 152).
  • EM: The one impossible circumstance is Columbus’s claim to have been the Captain. No young fellow of about twenty who had been carding and weaving wool most of his life would so quickly have risen to command, (page 18).
  • MR: True, no wool weaver could suddenly be a captain thus Morison dismisses Colon’s statement that he Captained a ship for King Rene d’Anjou. He incorrectly assumes the post was earned by the age of the person as opposed to his class status. Fernando of Aragon, thirteen years of age, was placed by his father at the head of an army that gained a victory over Pedro Constable of Portugal. (page 153).
  • EM: We may assume that Christopher and Felipa were married in the latter part of 1479, after he returned from Madeira and Genoa, and in the chapel where they first met, (page 34).
  • MR: Obviously Morison admits this is his assumption, but he further assumes that a marriage between a completely illiterate and penniless peasant and a foreigner to boot with a noble and educated woman could happen in those medieval times in any of the kingdoms of Europe. (page 153).
    Historian Manuel Rosa appears to be much more impartial than Morison and makes one think what is true doesn't it?Colombo-o-novo 00:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

    Morison on Alternate Theories

    The superb American historian Samuel Eliot Morison, who had no reason other than to be completely objective, wrote the following in Chapter II of his book Admiral of the Ocean Sea, pp.7-8.


    Catalan Theory

    I have finally written something about the Catalan Theory. This theory is much more comprehensive than the Columbus person, but I have restricted it to this point.

    I have not modified anything in other places. I was tempted, however. There is a place were it is said that Columbus afirmed he was from Genoa. Not true; no authentic or fake document says that. Please check the document and read what it actually says.

    Maybe what I haev written is too long and maybe the format doesn't fit the rest of the page too much. Feel free to correct the layout, but I believe that the most important points of the theory should remain: Two different kingdoms with the king favoring Castille since the catalan civil war that attempted to overthrown him. Censorship in place. Genoese theory does not make any sense. Palos cannot be the origin of first trip while Pals is consistent with everything in the voyage log. Catalonia had all the necessary means for the discovery and the power to use it later, that is: had a reason to do it. Reasonable things make sense, not extraordinary things.

    Most important, while I have not stressed it: The expedition log is a translation from catalan language. I give some examples using animal names. Italian names are descriptions written later by Columbus son.

    One fish is described as similar to "Pijota". Name exist in spanish but is not similar at all. "Pixota" exist in catalan and is a very similar fish to the described one: "lachie" in italian. Italian Pampani is named in spanish Pámpano. This name does not exist in spanish at all. In catalan it is Pampol. Spanish corresponding animal would be "piloto". A bird is named "rabo de junco". Does not exist in spanish. It is translation from catalan "Cua de jonc". One spanish corresponding animal would be "pato rabudo", that would match the description.

    In Montserrat island there is a bird called "Oriol". Local people say the name was given by Columbus himself. It is very similar to the catalan "Oriol". Spanish name for catalan Oriol is Oropendola.

    I have not added references to every afirmation. This is too big a task for now. Pointers to most references can be found at histocat.cat (site in catalan language)

    "A bird is named "rabo de junco". Does not exist in spanish. It is translation from catalan "Cua de jonc"." !!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
    . Guess what. In Portuguese we don't have to translate it. It was     Rabo de Junco in the XVth Century and it is still Rabo de Junco today. Also your Pijota is peixota in Portuguese and I would like to know where in Columbus's writings you found written the word "Oriol". Provide a document reference please.
    History Buff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.240.96 (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

    Finally the Genoese is proven False

    Apparently historians of the past including Morison were too lazy to do their own investigations so they relied on other's hearsay to write from and making a history of lies. We now have a real history to rely on with facts, documents and proof of the Italian fraud in O Misterio Colombo Revelado. The history of the Portuguese Cristóvão Colon will soon be taught in schools around the world as well as the genius of his king, King John II, who fooled the whole world until today with one spy working in Spain and another spy working in Nuremberg on a supporting globe to fool the world into believing that India was across the Atlantic Sea. Genius. The reason Colon gave Portuguese names to the New World was because he was in fact Portuguese. Colombo-o-novo 23:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


    Flimflam Article in The Independent

    An article by Elizabeth Nash was published in The Independent on 25 October 2006 and is available at: http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1927125.ece

    How is it possible that such uncritical flimflam articles are published? These Portuguese historians must be some scholars! The answers to the following questions are from Samuel Eliot Morison's Admiral of the Ocean Sea.

    "How, the two historians asked, could a man said to have come from a humble family of Genoese weavers move in courtly circles, and marry a noblewoman?" Because Filipa's mother was a poor widow and Columbus did not demand a dowry.

    Samuel Eliot Morison was an dreamer who knew nothing of our Portuguese history to say such stupid things. According to the book O Mistério Colombo Revelado, Admiral of the Ocean Sea is fairytale written by a historian who could not even translate simple Spanish into English. After reading this book I have seen the proof of the false history. Any one who knew Medieval Portugal would have known that Filipa Moniz was living in a monastery of the Order of Santiago completly free and that her mother was not a "poor widow" but a noble of royal blood. The Genoese Colombo is a fairytale that soon will have historians laughing at how fooled they were. I saw the False Testament of 1498 and I have seen all the lies that tried to make Colon a stupid sailor when he was in fact the most experienced sailor in all of Spain, yes more expereinced than the Pinzon brothers.Colombo-o-novo 23:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


    "Why did a young Genoese who left his home town at 24 express himself only in Spanish, or Portuguese, even when writing to his Genoese friends?" Columbus grew up speaking the Genoese dialect, which is not a written language. It is very likely that he never went to school and never studied Italian. He learned Portuguese and Castilian as an adult. [350 years later, when he was born in Nizza/Nice, Giuseppe Garibaldi grew up speaking the Provencal dialect. On page 6 of his autobiography (Memorie, Einaudi paperback edition, 1975), he wrote: Al terzo laico istruttore, il signor Arena, io devo il poco che so, e sempre conserverò di lui cara rimembranza, sopratutto per avermi iniziato nella lingua patria e nella storia romana. (To my third teacher, Mr. Arena, I owe the little that I know, and I will always remember him dearly, especially for having initiated me in the study of our mother tongue and of Roman history). He also learned Portuguese and Spanish, as an adult, during his 14 years in South America.]

    "Why did he name none of his discoveries in the New World after Italian places, whilst peppering the region with Portuguese place names like Veracruz, Santo Domingo - and Cuba?" Cuba is the native name of the island, which Columbus originally named Juana. Santo Domingo is named after his father Domenico (Domingo in Spanish). He named the island of Saona after the town of Savona, in Liguria.

    "Historians point to the curious fact that when Columbus returned from his first voyage of discovery he landed first in Lisbon and, armed with that letter, sought an audience with 'his' king." On the return trip, Columbus was forced to land in the Azores because of a fierce storm. The Portuguese governor, who had orders to detain him, released him on condition that he first stop in Lisbon and meet with the king. User:Italus 27-28 October 2006.

    Italus you are wrong about this Columbus was never arrested in the Azores and he certainly never made any pact to turn himself in to the King of Portugal. If he did who was the king of Portugal to arrest a Genoese? If he did arrest him it was because he was a Portuguese citizen and never a Genoese. Thanks to historian Manuel Rosa the Mystery of a falso Colombo is revealed now it will be another story. The Genoese is completly sunk and Colombus was Portuguese the proof is in O misterio Colombo Revelado, read it you will see. Colombo-o-novo 23:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

    Incoherent sentence

    In the Genoese theory section, it is stated that Hernando Colon referred to "those two illustrious Coloni", who were "not related to each other or to Christopher Columbus", as "his relatives". Is it just me, or is this utter nonsense? How could they simultaneously be his relatives and not be related to him? unless you're trying to imply that it was also a misconception that they were relatives of his..but in that case, it should be made clearer.GUi 09:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

    Fernando referred to the Coloni as his relatives, in order to enhance the pedigree of his father. In fact, the two Coloni were NOT related to him at all. User:Italus 27 October 2006.
    This is all rubbish relating to the Genoese theory. There is NO evidence at all to connect CC to Genoa and furthermore anyone including Keen and Morison who write that Fernando Colon stated that his father was from Genoa needs to go back to school in order to translate Italian or Spanish into English.... Fernando Colon NEVER EVER said where his father was a Colombo nor from Genoa from. Samuel Eliot Morison wrote a FANTASY without any research and was all taken as facts... There is NOT ONE document that proves the Genoese theory and I challenge any historian to bring forth that proof.Colombo.bz 17:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

    More Inaccurate quoting of Sources

    In the article we use the following quote from Fernando Colon's Historie "Colombo ... was really the name of his ancestors. But he changed it in order to make it conform to the language of the country in which he came to reside and raise a new estate." BUT this is parafrased and leaves out the very import parts of the statement. It is a misconception that Fernando ever said his father was a COLOMBO or from Genoa the quote should really be deleted because the truth is read this way. I added the numbers to help understand what Fernando was explaining:

    Some [people] wanted that I should endeavor to declare and say how: 1- the Admiral came from illustrious blood, although his parents, by bad fortune, had come to great necessity and poverty 2- and that I should have shown how he descended from that Colon, of whom Cornelio Tácito, in the beginning of the twelfth book of his work says that he took prisoner to Rome the king Mitridates by which, he says that to Colon were given the town, the Consular dignities and the Eagles, and the tribunal or Consular tent. 3- and they wanted that I make a big to-do of those two illustrious Colones his relatives, of whom Sabélico writes achieved a great victory against the Venetians, as in our fifth chapter we will say.But I turned away from this, believing that he was chosen by Our Lord for such a great thing as he did . . . that being his ancestors of the royal blood of Jerusalem he had it best that his parents be less known . . . And so the same way that his person was apt and endowed of all that which for such a grand thing was needed, the more so he wanted that his nation of birth and his origins be less certain and [less] known. Because of this, some [authors] who in a certain way think of obscuring his fame say 1- he was from Nervi 2- others, that he was form Cuguero 3- and others [that he was] from Buyasco all of which are small places near the city of Genoa and in its same coast and others who want to engrandeur him more say 4- that he was from Savona 5- and others that he was Genoese 6- and those who reach for the heights, make him from Plasencia in which city exists some honorable people of his family and tombs with arms and epithets of Colombo, because in effect [they say] this was already the surname or last name of his ancestors although he, conforming with the country where he went to live and to begin a new station filed [cutback] the word so that it conforms with the ancient and distinguished those descended from him from the others who were collateral, and this way he called himself Colon. Considering [all of] this, I was moved to believe that in the same way that the biggest part of his things were done by some mystery, this same way what touches upon the diversity of such a name and last name wasn't without mystery [either]. Many names could be brought as an example, that not without an occult reason were given as an indication of the effect that was going to follow. Bold text As one can see it is never explained by Fernando that his father is COlombo or a genoese it is only an ssumprion of the readers who don't understand what he was trying to deny. Colombo.bz 19:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

    I invite everybody to take very carefully what Colombo.bz writes. Apart from his being clearly tendentious, as a user he's suspected of being a quasi-ad spammer for a book he wrote about the James Bond theory about Columbus' origin. Also he never satisfactorily replied to inquiries about this problem. Bye. --Attilios 20:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    Attilios, you speak Italian, have you ever read the Historie of Fernando in Italian? I bet you haven't but I can send it to you to read and then I would like you to correct my translation above using word for word what is written in the 1571 edition. Unless you are willing to correct the translation you can't argue against what I wrote above because it is the correct version of the facts. Colombo.bz 07:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    I was not contesting what you wrote. I was simply warning you could belong to the ad-spammer or link-spammer category of Wikipedians. You are editing only pages about Columbus, strongly criticizing versions of the origins which are against your book. If you check any other respectable Encyclopedia in the world, you won't ever find mention of the "Portugues Theory"; thus please stay a bit calmer and start to think that your version should have the same weight than other more traditionally accepted ones. I strongly advice you a read of WP:Wikilove and similar pages about editing guidelines here. Ciao! --Attilios 09:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    Attilios, I spent 6 years trying to prove CC was Genoese becasue I really believed the Barreto book was wrong but I could not prove his genoese nationality. It was then that I went back and tried to see where I went wrong and suddenly I found the truth. The truth is that the story had never been written from facts. These are the facts I am bringing here. If it had been based on facts we would not be discussing it now. Regards Colombo.bz 16:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

    Genoese Theory

    Again we quote sources in a misleading and irresponsible way:

    We have used in the article ..... ANDRÉS BERNALDEZ:In History of the Catholic Kings, Andrés Bernaldez wrote: "Columbus was a man who came from the land of Genoa.

    We use Andrés Bernandez to back up CC's Genoese nationality when Bernaldez DID NOT EVEN KNOW his own Queen Isabel's own lineage. Bernadez wrote in this same book la Infanta Doña Phelipa, hermana del Rey D. Duarte, y de la Reina de Castilla segunda mujer del Rey D. Juan, madre de la Reina Doña Isabel. The Princess Dona Filipa, sister of King D. Duarte, and of the QUeen of Castile second wife of King D. Juan (II) mother of the Queen Dona Isabel (la Catolica).

    Look up your history: There was no Filipa sister of King Duarte od Portugal. and the Queen of Castile, Isabel who married King Juan II was not sister of King Duarte but niece. This is the man you want us to believe CC was genoese?

    BARTOLOMÉ DE LAS CASASA: In General and Natural History of the Indies, Bartolomé de Las Casas asserted his "Genoese nationality"

    Las Casas never ASSERTED anything he only left confusion by saying:

    Fué, pues, este varón escogido de nación genovés, de algún lugar de la provincia de Génova; cuál fuese, donde nació o que nombre tuvo el tal lugar, no consta la verdad dello. It was then this man chosen of the genoese nation, od some place in the province of Genoa. What it was or where he was born or what name had such place, we DON'T KNOW THE TRUTH OF IT.

    GONZALO OVIEDO: In a book of the same title, Gonzalo de Fernández de Oviedo wrote that Columbus was "originating from the province of Liguria."

    Oviedo did not confirm anything because he knew NOTHING he only wrote what others told him saying clearly:

    Christobal Colom, según yo he sabido de hombres de su nasción, fué natural de la provincia de Liguria, que es en Italia, en la qual cae la cibdad e señoria de Génova: unos dicen que de Saona, e otros que de un pequeño lugar o village, dicho Nervi, que es a la parte del Levante y en la costa de la mar, a dos leguas de la misma cibdad de Génova; y por más cierto se tiene que fué natural de un lugar dicho Cugureo. Cristopher Colom, from what I was able to learn from men of his nation, was born in the province of Liguria, whihc is in Italy, in which falls the city and lordship of Genoa. Some say he was from Saona, and others from a samll place called Nervi, which is on the east side on the coast, some 2 leagues from the same city of Genoa. And they have more certain that he was born in a place called Cugureo. As for references from the court: A reference, dated 1492 by a court scribe Galindez, referred to Columbus as Cristóbal Colón, genovés.

    Pedro Diaz de Toledo who was not a scribe but accountant for Queen Isabel wrote twice in 1486 that CC was PORTUGUESE.

    The facts have always been twisted to say what historians dream but it is not the truth. At least point out the doubts of Las Casas, Oviedo, Bernaldez, and Pedro de Toledo if you want to be objective.Colombo.bz 12:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

    Identity

    I read with interest all those theories. Frankly speaking, I find they are utmostly ridiculous. What does "Italian" mean? He was born in Genoa (or to a Genoese family) at 99%, despite all fantasies by people who mostly wanted to gain some money with them. So he was Genoese. He lived 90% of his life in Spain, so he was Spanish in this meaning, I can agree this. But people must remember that, if the had accepted the invitation of Charles VIII, he would be probably now reminded as a Frenchman (whew! I can't imagine what if French nationalism had been encroached in the matter!); or the same he could be a Portoguese. He spoke and wrote Spanish, but what would you do if living in a foreign country for your whole life? So he could be what one, today, could call: an Italian-Spanish, or a Genoese-Spanish. An immigrant who slowsly absorb his new nationality, until past roots and today's influences create a mix hard to decipher. What is important is that Colombo considered himself Genoese for his whole life. So we should maybe respect this will today... --Attilios 20:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

    Attilios, moving the genoese theory to the top of the article is an evidence of bias against any other theories. The portuguese theory is based on several documents, including papal bulls and handwritten letters by Columbus himself. He didn't write in plain Spanish, he mixed portuguese words and even spanish religious men who met him wrote he spoke with a portuguese accent. One should be open minded to other theories, as there are fallacies and inconsistencies in the genoese theory, which was born with the italian risorgimento. --Adriao 11:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    I will revert the Portoguese theory chapter it back until you format it accordingly to WP:Style (and also edit the article to avoid the repetitions in the following). Otherwise it clearly looks like a mess of semi-vandalistic stuff, absolutely undeserving any presence in a serious encyclopedia. The Genoese theory is listed as first because is the most (I'm not Genoese, by the way) cretied theory (For example, it is the one mantained in Encyclopaedia Britannica). By the way, I'm not Genoese, but it looks you're Portoguese... is it casual? Bye and let me know. --Attilios 14:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    Fair enough, the portuguese theory section could have been smaller. It appears to be fine now. I was just trying to add as much relevant detail as possible, from known documents and references. Indeed, I am portuguese and, if I read correcly in your user page, you are italian. Going through the english wikipedia version of the Columbus' biography, I noticed there was no section for the portuguese theory, which I believe is likely to be true. In a page that is dedicated to theories that are related to history, the portuguese theory is totally acceptable, as it is based upon several facts and upon interepretations of those facts. In the portuguese wikipedia, the same theory is described, in case you are interesting in learning a bit more about it. Cheers. Adriao 16:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    Frankly, it looks like a bit Jamesbondish. It looks as something devised mainly to appeal Portoguese nationalism. I doubt that any other serious Encylopedia than Wikipedia could ever contain it, but, of course, this is my personal opinion. I think that, if rewritten and reduced (if you give it 2,000 words, I think it overshadows the other theories, unbalancing the article), can be present here as an example of "pop" culture. Ciao!--Attilios 23:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    Bold text

    Portuguese theory

    Betacommand has moved the text of the Portuguese Theory section to Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus/Temp. In its current form, it's unsuitable for the article, however if a section in the article is desired, that is fine. I have moved the appropriate paragraph from the Other Theories into its own section; we can use that as a starting point, and build on it by adding material from the temp page once it has been rewritten, formatted and properly referenced – Gurch 14:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    I've also come across the article Theories on Columbus' Portuguese origins. Since it contains only a paragraph of actual text (the rest just seems to be a list of references), Betacommand| has turned it into a redirect to this article. The text of the article has been added to Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus/Temp; it can now be cleaned up and merged with the Portuguese-related material we already have – Gurch 14:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    it was me who created that article on the portuguese theories, and even though i really intended to make something out of it i was having a hard time coming up with a decent introduction. that's the reason why it ultimately became a list of references with a lousy incomplete paragraph. maybe someone could try to gather some consistent info concerning the different theories (since not all assume that columbus was in fact salvador fernandes zarco) and write a comprehensive section on them. i, for one, give up.GUi 23:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

    Fair enough. The paragraph that's there at least makes sense and is sources, and should suffice until someone comes up with something better – Gurch 00:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    In all fairness to the historical evidence there is no document that connects the Cristoval Colon who lived in Portugal and Spainto the Cristoforo Colombo who lived in Genoa. The evidence points to the opposite. Queen Isabel's court NEVER called him Genoese but they did call him Portuguese. In a few weeks the tables will turn and it will no longer be a case of proving how and why he could have been Portuguese but it will become a case of proving why he could not have been Portuguese Colombo.bz 22:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    This cannot explain why the Cristoval Colon-James Bond living (?) in Portugal declared for his whole life to be a Genoese. Further, the nationalistic and aggressive (In a few weeks the tables will turn and it will no longer be a case of proving how and why he could have been Portuguese but it will become a case of proving why he could not have been Portuguese) tone of Portuguese editors here is starting to annoy me... Bye. --Attilios 00:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Attilios can you quote for me ONE document where CC declared that he was a Genoese? Colombo.bz 12:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    Attilios, I can see you have a good point. None. Not one quote from CC that he was from Genoa because they don't exist. There is not one time CC said he was Genoese.Colombo.bz 00:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I can easily agree with this. I believe you. I can easily live my life even though Columbus was not Genoese. But, as long as I read here around, other theories are a bit too fanciful to convince me. It has nothing to do with the fact I'm Italian. I can easily stand that Vasco de Gama and Magellan were Portuguese; I like Portugal, I like its navigators, I like cosmopolitanism. I'm Italian, but accept that Robert De Niro and Al Pacino are no more Italians. Why you can't live with the fact that Columbus was probably simply an Italian immigrant in the Iberian peninsula? --Attilios 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    Attilios, it has nothing to do with Italian or Portuguese. I would be just as adamant if the facts showed CC was indeed Genoese, Greek, Irish... whatever. But what I have found out is that CC was never nor could have been the WoolWeaver Colombo from Italy. There is a small chance CC was a Genoese or from another Italian region but a nobleman not a woolweaver. But i have found proof absolute that the testament was falsified after 1573 to say "being I born in Genoa" falsified by Baltasar Colombo. (If you don't know who Baltasar was I suggest you look him up.) There is NO WAY a non-noble from any nation would have married Filipa Moniz Perestelo the daughter of this highly recognized nobleman in Portugal. You Know why? I don't think you do. It is because CC's wife was royalty. Yes and furthermore she was a very special daughter of a Member Knight of the Military Order of Santiago. She was so psecial she was only 1 of 12'Donas' living in the Monestary of Todos-os-Santos in Portugal. Furthermore the master of this order was the King of Portgual, King John II and he had to grant permission for the wedding. It was part of the rules of the order no one could marry man or woman without the master's granting it. Unbelievbale isn't it. It took me 15 years to get these details because the facts were censored in Portugal becasue CC was indeed helping Portugal in Spain. I have that proof also. I dug and dug because the current history made no sense..... Furthermore CC was unlce to the Condestavel (Supreme Military Leader) of the kingdom, uncle to 1 Marquis and uncle to 2 Counts plus uncle to the Lord Chamberlain of King John II and even brother-in-law to the king's body guard. NOW convince me that this woolweaver from Genoa Colombo was the same man I just wrote about here who was always called Colon. Convince me and I will begin pushing the Genoese theory with all my heart. Colombo.bz 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

    It was a good step to take the origin theories out of the "Christopher Columbus" entry; it has become a better article, thank you. What is going on in this page is not so constructive. I dread anybody pushing a theory in an encyclopaedia - it is not the place to do it and it is disrespectful of the reader. After it has been decided to have an entry on "origin theories", what I would like to see is each theory briefly exposed (say half a page) with the leading idea and the supporting facts, or what is taken for such, or what makes such a theory plausible. In the end, the reader interested enough to get to the "origin theories" entry should have the possibility to make up his or her mind or continue researching. I do not mean to say that all theories are equally valid, and I still expect the "Christopher Columbus" entry to tell me which one is the mainstream origin theory, with due reference to the authorities behind such statement. In the case of the Portuguese theory, as it seems that everything Colombo.bz has to say is already contained in his book, it could be good to obtain the cooperation of a Portuguese scholar who is NOT selling any book containing the supposedly unique truth. --Lupo Manaro 11:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

    Probable ad-spam

    (Taken from Christopher Columbus/Talk)
    JoeSmack this is not spam this is an exercise in truth. Colombo.bz 00:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    Please read WP:SPAM thanks —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    They're right, .bz -- Wikipedia is not a vehicle for flogging your commercial endeavors. Put something meaningful on your user page or delete it. --Michael K. Smith 21:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    "Greek" theory

    I'm going to radically reduce coverage of the "Greek" theory (Chios etc.), as giving "undue weight" to fringe positions and lacking "reliable sources". This is a hypothesis that was apparently brought forward by a single amateur historian and has no echo at all in mainstream scholarship for all I can see. Moreover, our sole reference (and the ultimate source for almost all other coverage of it on the web) is not her book itself, but its summary in "grecoreport", a known ultra-fringe national mysticism website that also spouts revisionist nonsense about linguistic prehistory ([3]), "pre-Deluge" Greece ([4]) and various assorted items of nationalist hatemongering ([5]). Nothing, but absolutely nothing, from grecoreport can be acceptable as a reliable source on Wikipedia. If anyone has better sources that demonstrate scholarly reception of the Durlacher-Wolper theory, bring them on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

    Again on Portuguese Theory

    The Portuguese theory is cleary pseudo-history. Now that maybe user:Colombo.bz is away, we should be able to reduce its relevance sending it into the "Other theories" section. Does anybody agree? --Attilios 15:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

    Again or against the portuguese theory?

    I'm sorry to disagree. Wikipedia as to stay as neutral as possible. I have read enought in this "combat" page to see what both sides had to say. Despite the fact member "Colombo.bz" mentions his own book (wich you obviously didn't read), he always justifies his ideas by refering to documents or history facts, true facts, he looks clearly to know much more than all of us could in this area. In the other hand you just kept bashing without adding any constitency, just read up your sayings.

    My questions are:

    Why are you picking so much on the man?

    Why would the portuguese theory be put into "the other theories" section?

    What are the elements that make you think the portuguese theory is "clearly" pseudo history?

    81.66.153.219 21:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

    The house of Christopher Columbus in Porto Santo

    Attilios, it is a fact that Christopher Columbus married a noble woman in Porto Santo and lived there for a few years. It is known that he lived in the house that you can visit as a museum about his life today. This is a fact, not a theory nor an alledged fact. Take a look at http://www.museucolombo-portosanto.com/intro.html Adriao 20:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    That does not prove he was Portuguese, though. Still, the theory should stay. It's no more pseudohistorical than the other ones. FilipeS 21:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    The website says he married "the daughter of Bartolomeu Perestrelo". This is not "known" and it is not "a fact". It's merely an assertion. You can assert anything. If you're going to play historian, you'll have to come up with some actual evidence. The only PROVABLE wife Columbus ever had was Philippa Moñiz, whom he married c.1470 in Lisbon. If you believe otherwise, you have your work cut out. --Michael K. Smith 21:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


    :: Michael K. Smith, who do you think Filipa Moniz was????? For your information Filipa Moniz was excactky the daughter of Bartolomeu Perestrelo, 1st Captain of Porto Santo and a Member of the Portuguese Order of Santiago. There is no doubt about this it is one of the very few proven facts of Columbus's history. 85.139.104.183 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

    Italy

    A couple of users have brought up the issue of the possibly inadequate use of the word "Italian", due to the fact that Italy hadn't been yet unified during Columbus' lifetime and, as such, "Genoese" and "Italian" weren't interchangeable in the same sense that they are today. Being from the Republic of Venice, for example, was very different from being from Rome. (Especially since, during part of its History, the italian soil was under dispute by the French and Spanish governments, which means that you could be geographically italian and politically spanish, and yet what "mattered" was your city-state.)

    A hyperbolic analogy would be saying that Julius Cesar was Italian and Jesus was Israeli, due to the fact that their respective birthplaces lie in the territories occupied by present-day "Italy" and "Israel". Or saying that the pilgrims landed in the USA.

    Perhaps it might be a good idea to replace the remaining instances of the use of "Italian" with "Genoese". Mip | Talk 10:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

    Vandal edits followed by an attempt to assert a fact December 31, 2006.

    Christopher Columbus got a lot of edits today. I happened to catch one of the first earlier this morning when an anonymous IP inserted something to the effect, CC had "a big Colon" thinking no one would notice it, followed by the Serb theory comments with a book that is out of print. Then another IP inserted that Columbus was from Cuba or one of the other "New World" islands he discovered followed by the Serb theory. Kind of amazing to vandalize a page and then expect someone to take your other contribution seriously (albeit one with a book out of print). One source or theory does not equate fact. Please note that this IP was about the fourth or fifh IP to insert the Serb theory. And, while this IP did not vandalize the page, it was amazing to see more than one anonymous IP try to assert the same fact. What made this IP the worst offender was the fact it was warned multiple times not to make this edit. Then the offending IP reversed edits of proven editors. Pretty heady for an IP that only appeared today and has no track record with Wikipedia. Ronbo76 07:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


    Major mistakes in portuguese theory

    The portuguese theory is far ahead of what is writen. It is based in the fact that Colombo wrote several times in latin or spanish for his italian friends and also that he wrote in portuguese in the margin of some of his books. The theory it is also very well supported in some facts, like the "impossibility" of a poor genovese to marry with a noble with royal blood, Filipa Perestrelo; the fact that the portuguese king calls him "special friend" in letters in 1488; the fact that he left Portugal without leaving a trace in 1484, a year that was marked by a conspiration against the portuguese king that was discovered and made that several nobles left the country. Finally, there are also some documents that appoint Colombo has a portuguese, in a court session that discussed his nationality, many spanish nobles that known Colombo refered his "portuguese accent".

    So, the portuguese theory is much more developed that the question of Cuba island name. It would be nice to make a great improvement in the page.DiogoMartins 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

    ==

    Headline text

    ==

    Catalan-Genoese

    I am not master in the subject, that's why I don't want to write about it. But part of the Catalan and Genoese theory could be matched. In Tortosa, which is by the river Ebro there was an island called Gènova. which is catalan for Genoa. It was occupied by Genoese people who helped Ramon Berenguer IV in the reconquist of Catalonia. So, Columbus could have been Catalan and Genoese. Besides, there are some letters he wrote that prove his Catalan nationality. When he wrote in Italian, he wasn't very good in writing it. When he wrote to the kings Isabel and Ferran he used Spanish with lots of Catalan words. But there is a letter he wrote to a friend in València in perfect Catalan. I hope someone could add this to the article. Thanks--Nauki 11:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

    Nauki, can you please point to the letter that is in perfect Catalan?.. Thanks. 85.240.21.139 22:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
    This document does not exist. It exists a reference to a letter written by CC in catalan being archived at a Spanish library. This letter has disappeared but the reference states is is written in catalan language by the hand of CC. There is also a reference of CC being heard to speak in catalan to the crew of a ship at Valencia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.141.92.14 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

    Last user, you still didn't mention any proof, that's all references wich can only be considered as "rumours". Furthermore the documents proving those rumours have disappeared, you just said it yourself. The catalan theory is clearly inconsistent.

    Sorry, but your statement is nonsense. The lack of a document makes a theory undocumented, not inconsistent. Furthermore this is not the case; the referenced note is an actual document, so is the report about CC speach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.212.29.187 (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

    Language

    "Other theories" mentions that his diary was written in greek and latin, but "language" says he wrote almost exclusively in spanish. Which is it?24.31.105.17 12:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

    On the text we can read: However, Menéndez Pidal does not accept the hypothesis of a Galician origin for Columbus by noting that where Portuguese and Galician diverged, Columbus always used the Portuguese form. Even in his latest writings, he uses quero and cualquera (instead of quiero and cualquiera) in spite of the years spent in a Spanish-speaking milieu. Menéndez Pidal thinks it is probable that Columbus spoke Portuguese, while not really distinguishing it from Castilian. I do not consider Menéndez Pidal an independent researcher. Besides, I do not think that nobody knows certainly the differences between Galician and Portuguese in the 16th century! He could well be Galician. In fact, cualquera is well used in Southern Galicia even nowadays.

    --89.216.67.251 (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    This shouldn't be a forum

    For centuries, historians have disagreed about the origins of this man, and now a small group of wikipedians think that they are going to solve the matter using a wikipedia discussion page.

    In fact, as pointed out by Samuel Eliot Morison, for the first three hundred years there was absolutely no question about the origins of Christopher Columbus. Italus 22 November 2007

    But it's not the purpose of Wikipedia to clarify controversial matters. In case of controversy, Wikipedians must just mention published arguments supporting each theory, quoting sources, and abstain from polemizing, original research and similar things.

    From my part, being a Catalan, I have a a few books around about the "Catalan theory" (although I'm not an expert at all), so I'll correct the paragraphs about it when I have some time, adding new data and sources... just for the sake of contributing to Wikipedia. The section shows clear traces of having been vandalized, with contradictory statements one after another, and it's poorly written. By the way, however nationalistic I am (nearly as nationalistic as everybody else), it wouldn't make me at all proud if that promoter of slavery and initiator of the Native American genocide was a Catalan. However, if it is ever proved he was born in Catalonia or other Catalan speaking lands, at least I'm relieved I'm not his relative (no "Colom" among my known ancestors). But history is history... if historians (of one opinion or another) ever stop manipulating it, of course. So we don't need to "identify" with all our country's people, luckily. I'm just curious.GemmaMS 22:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

    Do you also blame Columbus for the extermination of the Moors of Granada and of the Natives of the Canary Islands? Italus 22 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 02:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

    Portuguese theory redux

    Some editors keep re-inserting a totally far-fetched theory based on wildly implausible and contorted arguments and circular logic, and as far as I can tell quite non-notable. One can prove with about the same strength of logic that Columbus is from the South Moluccas, a former Portuguese(!) colony, since "Colombus" spelled backwards is "Sub Moloc" which clearly refers to the South (= Sub) Moloc(cas); moreover, Columbus has been heard speaking in an unknown language to dark-skinned sailors. This article should not become a repository of just any theories that have failed to gain a certain minimum of public attention as evidenced by being written about multiple independent published reliable sources (which do not include websites, blogs, and non-academic publications by the authors of such theories).  --Lambiam 01:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

    Only those people who know the little about Colon and his life nd who accept the improbable as probable could insist that he was Italian and try to diminish the evidence that points to a Portuguese born nobleman. Te facts of the Portuguese nobleman are so well documented in Manuel Rosa's book O Misterio Colombo Revelado. No one after reading this book will ever belive the genoese fairty tale again. 71.111.216.158 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

    Quoting a notorious author namely Manuel Luciano da Silva

    It would be interesting to know why LAMBIAM rejects without saying why a quotation made from a book written by a notorious author namely Manuel Luciano da Silva.Also some interpretations of the Monogram present in most letters written by Colon in Spain. And its resemblance to arabic caracters. Pedpau (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

    As I made explicit in my edit summary,[6] it fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NN. It is all non-notable and not based on multiple independent reliable sources. The only sources are the same people who concoct these wildly implausible theories based on imagined evidence. Do people who are actually familiar with the Arabic script recognize these squiggles as Arabic letters? What happened to the claim they are S+F+Z? Or are they at the same time S+F+Z and Arabic? In my opinion they are clearly J+F+K, which proves that Columbus was actually JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY. This much superior theory has the additional advantage that it is known that JFK was an actual historical person, unlike SALVADOR FERNANDES ZARCO, who somehow managed not to leave a single historical record.  --Lambiam 09:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    As I made very explicit in my contribution to the artikel regarding a hypothetical portuguese origin of Cristobal Colon - a historical person - I called the attention for two aspects of this specific subject. First, there is a Monogram which precedes his signature in all of the letters that he wrotte in Spain.A monogram consists of at least two letters in this very case it seems that there are three letters being S+F+Z.The decomposition of such monogram was shown with a picture.Second I mentioned that an author made a remarkable discovery i.e. that this monogram was not present in any italian document which ought to have been signed by Colon. Out of these three letters same author assumed that they are the initials of a portuguese person who may have lived in the XV Century. I have pointed out that if you extract letters of a monogram you can never be sure in which order they are suposed or intended to be. Therefore I expressed my doubts regarding the possibility of the existence of a person whose birth registers were never found.

    I also admited that these three letters instead of being initials of a name they could be the initials of a statment but not anymore in the order SFZ but FZS.And I advanced an hypothesis that this stament might be :Filius Zion sum which in short terms means I am a member of the jewish nation or rather simply I am a jew. Now, only to try to be funny, to admit that out of this monogram it is possible to extract JFK and calling this assesment not a hypothesis but a theory which in his mind is superior is a bad joke. For that he should please show in a picture how his K looks like.Besides to imply that this three letters correspond to a historical person that everybody knows lived in the XX Century is ridiculous and trying to make fools of us all. After eliminating my contribution what is the purpose of his comment ? After all he is commenting an emptiness. What is after all his purpose ?. To put in question my ability to read and interpret the Arabic language, in his words : Do people who are actually familiar with the Arabic script recognize these squiggles as Arabic letters, I assume that he certainly has no idea what he is taking about. After all it seems to me that in my contributions there were a lot of hypothetical possibilities. I never spoke of theories which could be taken as irrefutable assumptions. The unfairness goes as far as to imply that I assumed that at the same time i.e. concomitantly SFZ stood for both Salvador Fernandes Zarco and ZAHUR which is the arabic word for DISCOVER.Is there so dificult to see that my text was full of COULDS and MIGHTS.Can he understand what either ... or together with neither ... nor means ?.

    78.50.236.71 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

    The problem is not the lack of COULDS and MIGHTS in the presentation of the theory but the lack of verifiability and reliable sources coupled with non-notability.  --Lambiam 00:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    The problem here is ignorance, descrimination, lack of knowledge that the hypothesis of the portuguese nationality of Cristobal Colon was attempted and defended by several authors back in the twenties of the last century.Besides quoting Manuel Rosa and Mascarenhas Barreto but eliminating any mentions to a book of another notable author namely Manuel Luciano da Silva is rather suspicious.Actually the purpose of my contribution was to point out the weakness of the arguments of these three authors regarding the existence of a person called Salvador Fernandes Zarco. Not because of the lack of records like birth registers (if he was a spy those register could have been obviously and intentionaly destroyed)but and I repeat but due to the fact that his presumable father Prince Fernando could not possibly be his procreator because he was much too young at the time of the presumable date of birth of Colon.As I mentioned above if my contribution was destroyed, vandalism is the right word to describe such an action, or if you like a lack of intelectual honesty and sense of fairness.My concept of editing i.e. correcting, make improvements or reform is not consistent with pure destruction.

    Pedpau (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    Since my contribution has been destroyed or better said eliminated and the critics which were made cannot possible be understood due to lack of its original contents i.e. they are not anymore present, I am including here the Original Text so that everybody may see what after all we are talking about :

    Another portuguese historian Manuel Luciano da Silva in his book ("Cristovão Colombo era Português ") also defends this theory.Luciano has made a remarkable observation which no other author before him has noticed. He found out that in every spanish documents signed by Columbus (alias : Colon) besides his peculiar signature there is a Monogram which is not present in any italian documents that ought presumably have been signed by Colon (Columbus). Therefore Luciano declared all italian documents as false. Out of this monogram both authors extracted the letters S + F + Z. These 3 letters being the initials of SALVADOR FERNANDES ZARCO.Because Colon allways signed with the 3 greek letters XPO added to 6 latin letters FERENSplus /.. From XPO (CRISTO) he concluded this meaning SALVADOR (SAVIOR) and in FERENS he saw FERNANDES which means son of Fernando. Out of /. they see this meaning COLON in latin or/and Zarco in hebrew.This is rather a very speculativ interpretation of Colons signature. First the three leters SFZ do not necessarly have to be placed in this sequence.(Other possibilities could be SZF - FZS - FSZ - ZFS - ZSF). Anyway assuming these authors were right with the letters F, S, and Z being hidden in the monogram, the order of these three hidden letters being SFZ, and S meaning Salvador, F meaning Fernandes, and Z being Zarco, they went as far as to sort of invent a Person to whom they even found a father, this being Prinz Fernando brother of King Afonso V of Portugal, and a mother, namely Isabel Gonzalves Zarco, daughter of João Gonçalves Zarco the discover of the Islands of Madeira and Porto Santo. For what we know Colon was born between 1437 and 1444. Prinz Fernando was born in 1434, what makes impossible for him to procreate at the age of 3 in the worst case or even as a 10 years old. Besides, SFZ or better FZS could also mean : FILIUS ZION SUM ! in : I am a son of Sion (Zion). In his signature Colon also used the three letters XMY which could mean : CHRIST-MOHAMED-YACOB.

    In all letters written by Colon on the upper right hand side one finds a cross + which could mean his being a christian. Also on the upper left hand side one finds two hebrew letters BETH e HEI This was discovered by Simon Wiesenthal a Jew who was one of the few survivers from the extermination camps of the nazis. He became famous through a organisation which he founded to catch the war criminals which have hidden somewhere in the world most of them in south america.These two letters are a blessing and signify : BARUCH HASHEM - PRAISE THE LORD ! .In his signature where the letters .S. .S. .A. .S. XMY appear this could also mean : Shaday - Shaday - Adonai - Shaday - Yehova - Moleh - Chesed (if you read from right to left)and possibly meaning : Our Lord, Our Lord, God, Our Lord, The Eternal, Have Mercy ! With this he meant he was also a Jew.It is possible that he also had arabic blood. This possibility relies on the monogram which could be actually be a combination of arabic letters meaning ZAHUR (if you read from right to left) i.e. DISCOVER or in portuguese descobridor. For that one has only to turn the monogram 90 degrees and watch the resemblance of the result with some arabic letters. Thus he could have meant he wished to show his attachment to his arabic origin among others.Pedpau (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

    Genoese not a "written language"?

    This claim is quite simply not true. There are innumerable documents and manuscripts written in Genoese from the late 15th century. For clerical work, Genoa preferred Latin, but it's not as though they had to use interpretive dance (or whatever) to record things in their own language. Latin was merely traditional. There are in fact more Genoese documents from this time period than anyone alive today has ever read. The Bank of St. George communicated to Columbus in written Genoese, not Latin, both of which presumably Columbus understood. He communicated back to them in Castellano. --70.131.92.208 (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

    Why No Discussion of CC's brothers?

    Columbus had three brothers and a sister. His brothers sailed with him and governed over settlements in Hispanola. What documents or references do we have about his brothers and sister as to where they were born? Zorro2001 (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

    Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5
    1. ^ pages. 154-166, [7]O Mistério Colombo Revelado Lisbon, 2006
    2. ^ [8]
    3. ^ O Mistério Colombo Revelado, Ésquilo Edições, Lisbon (2006) pages. 154-166.
    • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus/Archive_1&oldid=893865317"