Jump to content

Talk:Origin theories of Christopher Columbus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2.33.180.85 (talk) at 10:13, 10 November 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Columbus As Byzantine Nobel

The line in the article, "Columbus's Greek background is not accepted by non-Greek historians" should be removed. This is cited as from the book 'Greek Americans: Struggle and Success' (Second Edition) by Charles C. Moskos. I own this book. This is from the introduction of the book, and was written in 1980. Further, nowhere in the book is there any reference whatsoever to back up this claim that only Greek historians have given credence to the theory. If Columbus was a Medieval Greek or not is not the point. The sentence mentioned above defames the theory unfairly and out of proportion with the other theories presented. A simple Google search of the theory will reveal numerous considerations of it from non-Greek and non-Cypriot sources. Not to mention the fact that not all Greek historians agree with the theory; the sentence in question is taken word-for-word from the book and is taken somewhat out of context. It's citation in the article would make it seem all "Greek historians" are ethnocentric flakes. Again, it's tone is defamatory and decidedly non encyclopedic - and certainty nonacademic, as it frames the theory as being politically motivated before it can even be carefully considered.

It's my opinion that it's one of the strongest theories; very logical. --Nikoz78 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've change the sentence in question, if for no other reason than it read as if the idea has become mainstream among Greek historians, which as you say is unsupported by the citation. ClovisPt (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davide41

It appears that editor Davide41 is only interested in repeating what authors have written since the 1500s until today. Repetition, in my opinion, is not necessary. I have edited the beginning of the article to what I feel is a cleaner introduction.CuriousColonal (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition, in my opinion [Sources series not opinions], is not necessary - CuriousColonal

Source:

  • Samuel Eliot Morison, professor of history at Harvard University and, subsequently, professor of American history to the University of Oxford and, without doubt, one of the greatest connoisseurs of life of Christopher Columbus.
  • Paolo Emilio Taviani, the greatest scholar of Christopher Columbus ( 2.500 volumes and 1.000 scholarly essays ).


You ? Columbus 100% Portuguese by Manuel Rosa ? Who is he?

There are at least twenty such publications in the 16th century and nine in the 17th century. In addition, there were sixty-two by Italian writers. Of this last group, only fourteen are by Ligurians, the other authors being Lombards, Venetians, Tuscans, Neapolitans, Sicilians and one Maltese. Regional rivalries were still alive in the 16th century, so that the forty-eight confirmations of Columbus' Genoese origin, by non Ligurian writers, take on virtually the same significance as those of the twenty-nine non-Italians. These are historically verified facts. --Davide41 (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We got bored of Portuguese "scholars" putting forward such absurd stories! No serious scholar in the world believes in such fables. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CuriousColonal - NO

Many writers wrote after 1493 that he was a Genoese, however at the same time others wrote that he was from Milan, some that he was not from the Province of Genoa but from the Province of Piacenza, showing that there was confusion right from the beginning as to where the discoverer truly came from. His son Fernando Colon when writing his now famous Historie... is very confused as to where his father is truly and wrote that Columbus "wanted that his homeland and origins be less certain and known". That uncertainty and controversy continues even today. CuriousColonal

  • Paolo Emilio Taviani [ the greatest scholar of Columbus ] :

Not until the 18th and 19th centuries, did anyone begin disputing Columbus Genoese origins. At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, Genoese, a foreigner in Spain. Historians and geographers from many nations all speak of the Genoese Columbus, who discovered the Americas.

[ Taviani, Paolo Emilio. Christopher Columbus: the grand design. Orbis, 1985, pages 573. Retrieved 2010-11-17. ]

  • Samuel Eliot Morison [ the greatest of contemporary American biographers ] :

Every contemporary Spaniard or Portuguese who wrote about Columbus and his discoveries calls him Genoese. Three contemporary Genoese chroniclers, claim him as a compatriot.

[ Morison, Samuel Eliot. Christopher Columbus, Admiral of the Ocean Sea. United States, 1942, pages 680. Retrieved 2010-11-16. ]

  • There are at least twenty such publications in the 16th century and nine in the 17th century. In addition, there were sixty-two by Italian writers.
  • Scholars from all over the world agree that Columbus was Genoese. The fact was fully accepted by Harrisse, the illustrious late 19th-century American historian. Even Vignaud a relentless detractor of Columbus does not question his Genoese birth. The position of Caddeo, supporter of Columbus Italian and Genoese origins, is adopted by the Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari, who wrote a succinct and impressive biography in the 1930s. The greatest of all Spanish historians, that same Ballesteros as was mentioned previously, Professor of the University of Madrid and director of the monumental series of publications on the Historia de America y de los pueblos americanos, devotes eighty pages to the question of Columbus native land, and concludes that "no one can cast the least shadow of doubt" on his being from Genoa. --Davide41 (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Davide41, I am done arguing with you. You can keep holding on to your fantasy that there is NO controversy, but sooner or later someone will add the latest information that Mr. Rosa has published as it is necessary to maintain a fair article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/8166041/Christopher-Columbus-was-son-of-Polish-king.html "Our whole understanding of Christopher Columbus has for 500 years been based on misinformation. We couldn't solve the mystery because we were looking for the wrong man, following lies that were spread intentionally to hide his true identity," Mr Rosa told The Daily Telegraph. Mr Rosa claims to have proved that a last will dated 1498 in which Columbus wrote "being I born in Genoa" was forged 80 years after his death by Italians with the name Columbo who wanted to lay claim to his inheritance. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/8166041/Christopher-Columbus-was-son-of-Polish-king.html CuriousColonal (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the news articles of the last few weeks relative to Mr. Rosa's research, I agree with CuriousColonal that it is now very relevant to this article. I have put his edits back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.255.137 (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is understandable that certain Spanish historians would seek to bestow full credit for the great discovery on Spain by arguing that Columbus was a Spanish citizen. It is equally understandable that the Castilians and Catalonians - two populations that have been linguistically and culturally divided for centuries - have fought over which of the two had the honor of being the birthplace of Christopher Columbus. But what wild imaginings could have generated a Greek Columbus, an English Columbus, three French Columbuses, and, as if that were not enough, a Corsican Columbus, a Swiss Columbus, and three Portuguese Columbuses? For an explanation, we can look only to the immeasurable greatness of Columbus's achievement and to its profound consequences on the course of human history; only to the mythic figure of the Navigator, the first man to unveil the mystery of the New World to the inhabitants of the Old World, only to the amazing story of his life and his voyages. The glorious myth of Columbus has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves. --Davide41 (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the Norwegian Columbus! I swear I read even this! Ahahahahahahahaha! Seriously, De Rosa's analysis is substantially science fiction; I think it deserves to be spoken about in a "In popular culture" section. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 13:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attilios: "Rosa's analysis is substantially science fiction". No Sir! Fantasy has been the Italian wool-weaver passing for a nobleman. Fantasy has been trying to convince the world that a peasant could have married a noble. Unfortunatly the Portuguese historians have let this farse stand for centuries. It Stands no more after today. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"No serious historian, after reading the documents original (Portuguese, Spanish and Italian) of this century and having done a proper study of the heraldic shield of Columbus can be indifferent to truth, nor to confirm what other before him have said so outright. Manuel Rosa made excellent research of high methodological quality and documentary, "says Prof. José Carlos Calazans, University Lusophone Lisbon.
"In a well researched book full of footnotes, genealogies and reproductions of important letters and manuscripts, Rosa leads us through this difficult path and shows that Columbus was not a Genoese weaver, but a nobleman and was a Portuguese spy." Efe | Madrid.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this argument about? Is it about the article? If so, can someone please be specific? We have included IT analyst (at Duke University Medical School) Rosa's suggestion in the article, although I think it is self-published (that's what I deduce from looking at the publisher's website). Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa's books are not self-published. The publisher is a well-known publishing house in Portugal and Spain. www.esquilo.com . "There exists a letter by a Franciscan monk dated back to 1472, in which the monk writes to the Grand Master of Teutonic Knight that he saw Ladislaus of Varna in Madeira disguised as a monk." http://www.poland.pl/news/article,Columbus_was_the_Son_of_Varna,id,449858.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.158 (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's this statement that has me confused:
The Aeschylus is a project conceived by a group of professionals with extensive experience in the field of graphic arts and publishing industry. This project arose with the need to harmonize the experience in the field of graphic creativity and content with the emergence of new information technologies.
Since February 1998, the founding date of Aeschylus, we have produced all kinds of graphics work for our clients and built web sites. It was from our own and produce multimedia CD-Rom "Discoveries." We released about three dozen books and numerous calendars. We held the draft NetPortugal dedicated extensively to the Portuguese culture and disseminate important information on new emerging technologies and management.
Our service is always personalized, we respond quickly to all questions and take special care in order to meet the deadlines previously established.
Nothing there reassures me that this isn't a pay to publish service. However, I can see that they publish books by at least one well known American writer who doesn't need to self-publish, so I think I'm wrong.
But I still don't know what y0u are arguing about. Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No argument, just providing information that is in the news and very relevant to the controversy of Columbus's origins and thus relevant to the article that intends to be about theories of origins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.249 (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious about something that Davide wrote: namely that the first theories that the first questions about CC's origins come in the 18 and 19 cents. I have before me De jure maritimo et navali by Charles Molloy dated in this edition to 1682 (is there also an earlier one?) where Molloy claims that CC was British (unnumbered preface)! Personally I would bet my house on CC being from Genoa but it would be interesting to have a better idea of the historiography of the debate over his origins: and that is surely valid for an encyclopeda. I would put something up myself but being a relative newbie to wikipedia and (frankly) after having read this page I'm terrified to do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Florencecapital (talk • contribs) 06:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Florencecapital (talk) 07:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Apologies I forgot to sign myself in: as I said a newbie[reply]

Reminder on logging in

This is a reminder to all editors here: if you have an account, please log in when you edit. Not logging in as a way to avoid scrutiny or to get around the reverting policy is unacceptable and may result in either you being blocked from editing, or this page being temporarily semi-protected. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese hypothesis

I recently made a series of edits to the "Portuguese hypothesis" section. This was mostly because the section was a mess; my editing shouldn't be taken as a sign that I endorse the inclusion of particular works in the section. Actually, it seems as if none of the three "pro-Portuguese" authors or their books is shown to meet our standards of notability. As the section still has problems I may make some more cleaning-type edits. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job.

The claim for a Portuguese Columbus emerges every now and then from that country's dilettante historians, however, no document, no historical data, authorize or even partially justify the tales spun around the birth of Columbus. All of the serious scholars, some of whom are deservedly well known and widely quoted abroad, use unequivocal documents. Regards. --Davide41 (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa explains Columbus’ Polish roots. Author and scholar Dr. Manuel Rosa believes the man known as Christopher Columbus was indeed the son of a Polish King Vladislav III and a Portuguese noble lady. http://ampoleagle.com/rosa-explains-columbus-polish-roots-p4356-1.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.202.252 (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PORTOGUES

I would like to request that we enter into the Portuguese section the first and only reference ever made to Columbus's nationality at Isabella's court. Prof. Antonio Rumeu de Armas presented a document from the court of Queen Isabella dated October 18, 1487 where Columbus is paid 30 Gold Coins and is called Portuguese twice. (Antonio Rumeu de Armas, El «Portugués» Cristóbal Colon en Castilla. Ediciones Cultura Hispánica del Instituto De Cooperación Iberoamericana, Madrid 1982, p. 29.) I would also like to ask that Columbus's own words be entered into the article taken from his letter to Isabella and Fernando, written March 4, 1493, Columbus writes "remember Your Highnesses that I left wife, children and came from my homeland to serve you". This letter can be seen in the book Congreso de Historia del Descubrimiento (1492-1556), Real Academia de la Historia (Spain) 1992. Pg. 99. I am simply asking to include something that is a factual source just like it is done in other theories.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<STOP - Origin theories of Christopher Columbus>

"15:43, 17 December 2010 Davide41 (talk | contribs) (47,774 bytes) (En un hombre como Cristóbal Colón, con tres patrias. Por el nacimiento era de Génova; por primera adopción, de Portugal (sin reconocimiento oficial), " el Portuguese ". pp. 50-55 = Bad Faith. End.)" - Apparently to you it is irrelevant that there is a controversy over Cristóbal Colón's birthplace. It is also irrelevant whether or not anyone ever affirmed that he was not from Genoa. This is obvious. However, I must ask. Why do we need a page on "Origin theories of Christopher Columbus" if we are NOT allowed to add information relative to those origin theories? Is the page called "GENOESE Origin theories of Christopher Columbus"? it is not. Then why do you insist that only sources that say "Columbus + Genoa" are relevant???I will yield to your request to "STOP" making changes on this origins page once you show me ONE (1) document from the discoverer saying he was from Genoa. Not documents from third parties who wrote hearsay. Not references from 1000 historians who repeated that hearsay. But 1 single time when Columbus wrote that he was Genoese, i will stop. Until then I will continue to edit and add the sources that are important to this article. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Paragraph

The opening paragraph contains this statement: "Much of this evidence derives from data concerning Columbus' immediate family connections in Genoa and opinions voiced by contemporaries concerning his Genoese origins, which but few really dispute." ---This of course is not correct. An indisputable Genoese connection has never been made. It has been "accepted" as the most likely, however from the beginning there has always been a controversy over his nationality. Even during the court case of 1526 witnesses were questioned about the nationality. His son Fernando would later write that there was uncertainty about where he was from. And in 1601 Herrera writes: «qual sea la mas cierta descendencia [de Colón] en el Consejo supremo de las Indias, adonde se litiga se determinará» (what is the most certain descent [of Colón] in the Supreme Council of the Indies, where he litigates is determined). There has always been a controversy from 1484 until today. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" This of course is not correct " - Colon-el-Nuevo

Source ? An Information Technology analyst at the help desk of the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, North Carolina (Sic)

Historians

In addition to Ballesteros Beretta and Manzano, the following historians have recognized that Columbus was Genoese: the Spanish Navarrete, Munoz, Duro, Asensio, Serrano y Sanz, Altolaguirre, Perez de Tudela, Morales Padron, Manuel Alvar, Ciroanescu, Rumeu de Armas, Muro Orejon, Martinez Hidalgo, Emiliano Jos, Demetrio Ramos, Consuelo Varela, Juan Gil, Ballesteros Gaibrois, and Milhou; the French D'Avezac, Roselly de Lorgues, Vignaud, Sumien, Charcot, Houben, de la Ronciere, Mahn Lot, Heers, Mollat, and Braudel; the English Robertson, Johnson, Markham, Brebner, and Bradford; the Belgians Pirenne and Verlinden; the Germans Humboldt, Peschel, Ruge, Streicher, Leithaus, and Breuer; the Swiss Burckhardt; the Russian Magidovic; the Rumanian Goldemberg; the North Americans Irving, Harrisee, Winsor, Dickey, Thacher, Nunn, Morison, Parry, and Boorstin; the Cubans Alvarez Pedroso, Ramirez Corria, Carpentier, and Nunez Jimenez; the Puerto Ricans Aurelio Tio and Alegria; the Colombians Arciniegas and Obregon; the Argentinians Molinari, Levillier,a nd de Gandia; the Uruguayans Laguarda Trias and Marta Sanguinetti; and the Japanese Aynashiya among others. Outside of specialized studies, many authoritative figures in science and in letters have had the occasion to express their convictions regarding a Genoese Columbus: Leibniz, Voltaire, Nietzsche, Paul Claudel, Churchill.

Milton Meltzer, Paolo Emilio Taviani [ the authority on studies about Columbus ], Esmond Wright, Edward Everett Hale, Martin Dugard, David Boyle, José-Juan López-Portillo, Valerie I.J. Flint, Etc. Etc.

Sacred Monsters

  • Samuel Eliot Morison, professor of history at Harvard University and, subsequently, professor of American history to the University of Oxford and, without doubt, one of the greatest connoisseurs of life of Christopher Columbus.
  • Paolo Emilio Taviani, the greatest scholar of Christopher Columbus ( 2.500 volumes and 1.000 scholarly essays ).
  • The greatest of all Spanish historians, that same Ballesteros, Professor of the University of Madrid and director of the monumental series of publications on the Historia de America y de los pueblos americanos, devotes eighty pages to the question of Columbus' native land, and concludes that "no one can cast the least shadow of doubt" on his being from Genoa. --Davide41 (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, Genoese, a foreigner in Spain. Judging from contemporary writings, nobody even thought it was worth discussing the subject.

Historians and geographers from many nations Spain, Portugal, Germany, England, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France and Turkey all speak of the Genoese Columbus, who discovered the Americas. Nor did their books and atlases gather dust in libraries. Some went through several editions. The reports contained and repeated in them were never denied. These are historically verified facts. --Davide41 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Genoese birth and cultural background of Christopher Columbus, is guaranteed by many documents, by testimony, and by positive and indisputable proof, examples of which are reported below. The letter from Columbus to the patrons of the Banco de San Giorgio in Genoa, the text of two letters addressed to Nicolo Oderico, ambassador of the Republic of Genoa to the Court of Spain. Even more important and definitive are the public and notarial acts - original copies of which are conserved in the archives of Genoa and Savona - regarding Columbus's father, Columbus himself, his grandfather, and his relatives. There are many such documents - more than a hundred -. Many contemporary European writers: 106; the testament in Seville of Ferdinand Columbus; in his The Life of the Admiral Christopher Columbus, in chapter five, writes: "And because it was not far from Lisbon," says Ferdinand, "where he knew there were many Genoese, his countrymen, he went away thither as fast as he could". Dr. Aldo Agosto has collected, one hundred and ten notarial documents. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in eye, but considerest not the beam ? 100\1 or 1\100 ?! One word: bad faith. Signed: 35 years of teaching. --Davide41 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any doubt that consensus among historians is for the genoese origins. The article should clearly state that this is the most commonly accepted theory and that the others do not have general acceptance.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Davide41, you are out of control. Why could Columbus not be from another nation? The letters written to Italy (if they are not forgeries) prove the guy could not write a word in Italian!! Have you ever heard of an Italian writing home to his Italian friends but in Spanish? How illogical is that? Rosa's argument that the Colombo peasant could never have married a noble is correct with social practices in place at the time. That's 2 strikes against Genoa and in favor of Rosa: (1) an Italian who cannot write Italian. and (2) a peasant marrying a noble. Then, if the mayorazgo is a forgery, as Rosa claims to have proved, one big pillar of the accepted history falls. It is irrelevant of Rosa is an IT or a Rocket Scientist, irrelevant. There have been many worldwide accepted "truths" that were proven t be myths: flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, weapons of mass destruction,.. to name a few. There are thousands of articles on zRosa's theory, even Russian TV and Saturday Night Live spoke of it. If Rosa is proven to be right, what then? What changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.10.158.74 (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rosa is not a historian; works for the Information Technology support help desk at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center. I'm a historian
  • Two unquestionably authentic documents are the basis for assuming that his birth-date is between 25 August and 31 October 1451. In one dated 31 October 1470, Columbus declares himself "major annis decemnovem" ("nineteen years old"); in the other, dated 25 August 1479, he says he is "annorum vigintiseptem vel circa" ("about twenty-seven"). Between 25 August and 31 October 1451, Domenico Colombo, Christopher's father, was warder of the Porta dell'Olivella, Genoa's eastern gate, and therefore lived near the gate itself. So it was there that Christopher would have been born. It is historically certain that Columbus was of Ligurian stock.

Bla, Bla, Bla. Dilettantes (rather dilettante) is probably the same person. --Davide41 (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davide41, YOU are a historian? Are you really? Or are you a parrot repeating what your history teacher taught you? Are you one of those to blame for the carrying on of the fantasy history of Columbus? Maybe you can help me understand where what is wrong with the Portuguese theory. Tell me please the answer to the following two questions: 1- What makes the "mayorzago of 1498" authentic? 2- Who was the Portuguese Pedro Nunes arrested in 1488 and why was he arrested? --- Tell us Mr. Historian Davide41, lets see if you are truly up to the job of argumenting the history of Columbus or if you are just another blind follower.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he has done a pretty good job of showing that a majority of historians consider the genoese origins of Columbus to be a no-brainer. This is what is important - not our own personal theories. Wikipedia is a blind follower of the majority opinion - that is the job of an encyclopedia. If you have doubts about this read the article about WP:TRUTH and about what wikipedia is WP:NOT.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maunus, I read "Wikipedia:The Truth" for the first time today and for the first time I realize what I am up against in this site. It is now obvious to me that it is futile for me to continue trying to bring any sources here that support a contrary argument. It seems to me that the only "smart" conclusion I can come to is that I must "stand down." Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds about right. Wikipedia is here to informa readers about the current state of scholarly knowledge - not to tell the truth or promote new theories. If that is what you feel is more important then this project is not right for you, there are many other places on the internet where you can argue in favor of Rosa's theories.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deserves an answer ? No. The facts speak. Dilettante; rather an Information Technology analyst at the help desk of the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center, North Carolina. Write an alternate history book, but please stop to harass that article with such meaningless theories. --Davide41 (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davide41, You can add all the links you want to "historians" like YOU who "agree" that Cristóbal Colón was a Columbus/Colombo from Italy based on HEARSAY from century to century. I have numbers also. I have 477 witnesses that Cristóbal Colón was NOT a Colombo. 477 DNA tests of Italian Colombo families and NOT ONE, not 1, matched Cristóbal Colón's DNA. So if the debate is between consecrated "historians" peddling HEARSAY or dilettantes who resort to 21st century SCIENCE. I will stick with the forensic science before I believe the likes of you who has done nothing more than parrot what others said. 477 DNA tests to prove that Cristóbal Colón was a Cristoforo Colombo. Not ONE match!!! The Genoese Theory Failed.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DNA tests of Columbus? Published where? Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
477 Colombo/Colon/Colom families tested for DNA matches. Not 1 Match. Exactly where you would expect to find a match. Not one was found. DNA proves The End of the Colombo wool-waever story. Now lets find the real nobleman who married in Portugal.
In 1 test they match 3 individuals by their DNA (Father, Son and Brother). One test they get a match to say conclusively that Colón is buried in Seville. In 47 tests they FAIL to match one COLOMBO from Liguria, in 477 tests they FAIL to match one Colombo/Colon/Colom from Italy, France or Spain. Colombo/Columbus the "Tall Tale" of the wool-weaver from Quinto FAILS the test of science, only HEARSAY supported by mindless repetition for 500 years. It was Not the Truth. The Untold Story is out!Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, analyst. Go ! End. --Davide41 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the old story that failed to reach a conclusion. "needs new techniques to reach a definite conclusion. The director of the Genetic Identification Laboratory at the University of Granada, Jose Antonio Lorente, who is leading the research project, said that results obtained to date "do not allow us to distinguish, at this stage of the process, the admiral's place of origin.".The study says they couldn't make a match because of inadequate techniques, not because there were no matches. ". "Right now, we haven't developed sufficient markers that can be applied to DNA that comes from bones," says Lorente. "We're working on improving it every day, but we can't say when we'll have results." They were unable to say yes or no. You clearly don't understand the research or if you do, you are mis-representing it. Dougweller (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dougweller, I think it is you who is misunderstanding the research. 1 test of DNA with Fernando Colón (son), Diego Colón (brother) and Cristóbal Colón (discoverer) came up with a DNA match. Got it so far. 1 test proved they were all related to the point of Dr. Lorente claiming that "the bones of Columbus are in Seville" was this result "because of inadequate techniques"??? Really? No, it was a match, therefore they had no doubt that the three persons were one family. Then in 477 tests NOT ONE match showed up. If they had found a match, then there would be an answer today. There was NO MATCH because there was no match. It is very simple... not the same family. No matter how "fragmented" the DNA is, in those fragments you would find a match had they been the same family. Got it? Same family same DNA therefore you would have seen matches in every fragment. What prof. Lorente said was that he CANNOT tell the "admiral's place of origin." Another words the DNA can not yet be matched to a "place" or region he said nothing about matching "to a family". The family DNA of the Colombo family was not a match. Therefore other families are needed to find a match. The 477 Colombo test failed. the 1 Colón test succeeded. The reason one succeeded and 477 failed is very simple NOT the SAME DNA. And now the place of origin is unclear. unfounded and unresolved not because of the Colón's DNA was fragmented but because in those fragments nothing matched to the Colombos. Had they been the same family you would have found a match and this discussion we are having, would not be taking place. The Colombo DNA failed to match and that is the first scientific nail in the Colombo wool-weaver's coffin. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(...) " The glorious myth of Columbus has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves. " --Davide41 (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Davide41, You have never written any truer words than these "The glorious myth of Columbus"! Myth yes, Columbus/Colombo/Pigeon are all part of the glorious myth of a peasant illiterate Italian wool-weaver marrying a noble Portuguese lady and becoming a noble scholar in a "flash of a historians magic pen". The "glorious myth of Columbus" wool-weaver is over. The guy who discovered America was a nobleman with a coat of arms, with connection in Portugal and very trusted by the King of Portugal who married him to one of the members of his Military Order of Santiago. This man named COLÓN and NEVER Colombo/Columbus was a scholar and a high courtesan and was NOT the mythical wool-weaver you keep peddling. Stop peddling myths, we've had enough of the wool being pulled over our eyes, 500 years is enough. End.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" A hopeless case ". End. --Davide41 (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa explains Columbus’ Polish roots

AE: Is there anything else you'd like to add? story link ROSA: “This research brings many new facts to light. After reading this book you will no longer accept, among other things, that Columbus was a peasant, that he did not know how to navigate, that his true name was Christopher Columbus, that he discovered America, that he was lost, or that he was illiterate until age 25 then taught himself how to read and write, among many other things we have been taught by our teacher that are simply not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.202.252 (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa is seen as a leading expert on the subject of Columbus’s relations with the Portuguese crown. He is the only investigator to present new Portuguese documentation related to Columbus in 500 years. http://argentina.world-countries.net/archives/306 Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Rosa is seen as a leading expert " (Sic)
  • Manuli Rosa an expert on Columbus (Sic)
  • Rosa is not a historian; works for the Information Technology support help desk at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Clearly you believe that a person can only be one thing in their life and don't understand that because someone chooses to work at one profession to pay their bills does not mean they are not able to hold other professions. Maybe in Italy where you think you are a "historian" it is like that but in the USA we are free to live up to our potential independently of our daily jobs. Mr. Rosa is a scholar and maybe you maybe you should ask him how he became fluent in Portuguese, Spanish, English, Italian, French and Russian if he is a simple IT support employee. Do you think he is just a computer tinkerer?

Paolo Emilio Taviani

  • He has written a dozen books on Columbus
  • A library of 2500 books [ Columbus ]
  • 1.000 scholarly essays

" Paolo Taviani, not only Europe's leading authority on Columbus [...] " ( The log of Christopher Columbus - Robert Henderson Fusion )

" Europe's renowned Columbus expert, Paolo Emilio Taviani " [...] " ( Rapport: Volume 16,Edizioni 3-17 ) --Davide41 (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is historically certain that Columbus was of Ligurian stock. Not until the 18th and 19th centuries, did anyone begin disputing Columbus' Genoese origins. At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, Genoese [ Contemporary European writers: 106 ]. Still more significant is the testimony of ambassadors of the period : Pedro de Ayala, Nicolo Oderico, Angelo Trevisan and Gaspare Contarini. Scholars from all over the world agree that Columbus was Genoese. The fact was fully accepted by Harrisse, the illustrious late 19th-century American historian. Even Vignaud - a relentless detractor of Columbus - does not question his Genoese birth. The position of Caddeo, an energetic and wholehearted supporter of Columbus' Italian and Genoese origins, is adopted by the Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari, who wrote a succinct and impressive biography in the 1930s. Samuel Eliot Morison, the greatest of contemporary American biographers, writes: "The story starts in Genoa with Discoverer's parents." In short, we can say that the question of the Discoverer's homeland has been positively resolved. He is Genoese. There is no mystery about the birth, family or race of Christopher Columbus. --Davide41 (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no mystery about the birth, family or race of Christopher Columbus." Yes. This is true. There is no mystery about wool-weaver laborer and bankrupt Cristoforo Colombo from Quinto called "lanerio de Janua" weaver of Genoa in all the Raccolta Documents. The person the mystery is Don Cristóbal Colón a scholar, nobleman, navigator, knight with a coat of arms and uncle to noble Portuguese courtesans already in 1479 and a trusted subject of King John II of Portugal. If the other confused the two person for not knowing any better does not make them the same person. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Columbus Portuguese ? Manuel Rosa analyst it ( The historian an expert on Columbus [ sic ] )

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/8166041/Christopher-Columbus-was-son-of-Polish-king.html

"I have made a request to the Cathedral in Krakov to examine remains from the tomb of Vladislav II, who could turn out to be the grandfather of Columbus. It would prove the truth of my theory," said Mr Rosa.

( " Maybe in Italy where you think you are a "historian" " ) Go, Mr Rosa ! --Davide41 (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ginovés does NOT mean from Genoa

If one thousand people called him "ginovés" in Spain it meant nothing of the sort. Go to your library and read the Colón's "Pleito contra la Corona"- the official Spanish court documents in where witnesses who knew Admiral Colón are asked if they know for certain if the Admiral was a Genoese:
THE WITNESSES ANSWER:

  • "A los estrangeros de estos reinos los suelen llamar Ginoveses, aunque sean de otras Nasciones... llaman todos los estranjeros Ginobeses ... y tiene por cierto este testigo que el dicho Almirante don Christoval le llamarían Ginobés aunque fuese de otra nación." (To the foreigners in these kingdoms we are accustomed to call Genoeses, even if they are from other Nations... all foreigners are called Genoeses... and this witness has it for certain that the said Admiral Don Christoval would be called Genoese although he was from another nation.)
  • "el común hablar en España es dezir ginoveses a cualesquier extranjeros" (The common way of talking in Spain is to say Genoeses to any foreigners).

Here in USA it is common to call Mexicans to all illegals even though they are from Guatamala, Ecuador, Colombia, Honduras, Panama, etc. Even if 300 million Americans say a Colombian is a Mexican it does NOT make him a Mexican. Nor is a Colombian a Mexican even if he himself says he is from Mexico so that when he is deported he has less road to travel back to the USA from Mexico than he would have from Colombia. Understand? Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(...) A charlatan. R. I. P. End Of Comments. --Davide41 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genoese origin

  • The greatest of all Spanish historians : Ballesteros [ Professor of the University of Madrid ]
  • The greatest of contemporary American historians : Samuel Eliot Morison [ Professor of the Harvard and Oxford University ]
  • Europe's leading authority on Columbus : Paolo Emilio Taviani [ A library of 2500 books on Columbus ]
  • Manzano Manzano, Rector of Seville University, author of a vast work, precise and detailed, on the seven years Columbus spent in Spain, before setting out on his great voyage of discovery.

Robertson, Navarrete, Milhou, Irving, Boorstin, Demetrio Ramos, Carpentier, D'Avezac, Manuel Alvar, Nunez Jimenez, Munoz, Peschel, Duro, Mollat, Harrisse, Perez de Tudela, Aynashiya, Morales Padron, Magidovic, Roselly de Lorgues, Asensio, Braudel, Winsor, Fiske, Ciroanescu, Ruge, Markham, Serrano y Sanz, Obregon, Laguarda Trias, Thacher, de Gandia, Emiliano Jos, Aurelio Tio, Goldemberg, Vignaud, Ramirez Corria, Alvarez Pedroso, Marta Sanguinetti, Altolaguirre, Breuer, Leithaus, Alegria, Arciniegas, Davey, Nunn, Johnson, Juan Gil, Sumien, Charcot, Ballesteros Gaibrois, Levillier, Dickey, Parry, Young, Streicher, de La Ronciere, Muro Orejon, Pedroso, Brebner, Houben, Rumeu de Armas, de Madariaga, Stefansson, Martinez Hidalgo, Taylor, Mahn Lot, Consuelo Varela, Verlinden, Bradford and Heers. Among the leading Italian authorities on Columbus, who also concur, are Spotorno, Sanguineti, Tarducci, Peragallo, Desimoni, De Lollis, Salvagnini, Uzielli, Assereto, Pessagno, Caddeo, Magnaghi, Almagia, Revelli and Bignardelli. Humboldt, Burckhardt, Fisher, Pirenne, Merzbacher, Konetzke, Milton Meltzer, Esmond Wright, Edward Everett Hale, Martin Dugard, David Boyle, José-Juan López-Portillo, Valerie I.J. Flint, Anna Maria Salone, Antonio Calcagno, Granzotto, Caraci, de Góis, de Resende, Zurita y Castro, Frutuoso, Galvão, Barreiros, Osório, de Barros Etc. Etc. Etc.

The 95 - 98 % of the historians

  • Some sources
  • Contemporary European writers are 101 and eight in the 17th century.
  • The letter from Columbus to the patrons of the Banco de San Giorgio in Genoa.
  • The text of two letters addressed to Nicolo Oderico, ambassador of the Republic of Genoa to the Court of Spain.
  • The testament in Seville of Ferdinand Columbus
  • Ferdinand accuses Giustiniani (born at Genoa in 1470) of telling lies about the discoverer: Thus this Giustiniani proves himself to be an inaccurate historian and exposes himself as an inconsiderate or prejudiced and malicious compatriot, because in writing about an exceptional person who brought so much honor to the country ...
  • In chapter v, writes: And because it was not far from Lisbon, where he knew there were many Genoese his countrymen, he went away thither as fast as he could ...
  • He also says (chapter xi), that his father, before he was declared admiral, used to sign himself "Columbus de Terra rubra," that is to say, Columbus of Terrarossa, a village or hamlet near Genoa.
  • Piri Reis writes: " Amma şöyle rivayet ederler kim Cinevizden [from Genoa] bir kâfir [an infidel] adına Qolōnbō [named Columbus] derler imiş, bu yerleri ol bulmuştur "
  • Hundred and ten notarial documents [ Prof. Aldo Agosto ]

Columbus Portuguese

  • Historians [ Columbus Portuguese ? ] 0 [ Analysts, economists but not Historians ]
  • Documents [ Columbus Portuguese ? ] 0
  • Testimony of contemporaries ? 1

"homeland" in relation to Portugal [ " drawing unwarranted deductions from things that Columbus said or did " ]

This must be reported. Not the fantasies of a Dilettante. Most supporters of this thesis are not experts: many are even complete outsiders to the field of history. For the sake of vanity, or an easy notoriety, or a misguided nationalism, they have voiced risky opinions without bothering to seriously verify their statements. The various hypotheses - in particular, the one proposed by Manuel Rosa - are pure fiction, unworthy of attention except to illustrate the imaginations of their inventors. This episode deserved extended coverage not only for the sake of destroying a fiction, but also to duly recognize the seriousness of Portuguese historiography --Davide41 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continues with the hallucinations. " Will not find anything ". [ Go ! Vladislav II ] --Davide41 (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


If I can say something from an skeptic point of view, there are many things in the Portuguese theory that are more pausible than the woolweaver fairy tale from Genova.

  • Colon's written and spoken language
  • Colon's own words about his origins with the King.
  • Names given to new islands, rivers, mountains (all match the ones in north Portugal)
  • Descriptions of animals, plants, geography are made using similar ones in Portugal-Spain, not the ones in Italy.
  • Family position, access to education, marriage with a noble women and confident with the kings (not a normal thing at that time...)
  • Didn't read about those DNA tests but some scientific analysis (DNA, geography, ethymology, heritage, etc) seems to be the right method, more than opinions of historians based on the opinions the other historians based on the opinions of other historias. You got the point.
  • And remember that several millions of people beleiving in whatever God (as it could be Santa Claus) doesn't mean any god exists...

PD: Sorry for participate in the discussion since I'm not an historian, just a Doctor in Physics.

Overwhelming evidence

Son of Christopher Columbus, Genoese, admiral who first discovered the Indies ...

  • The Life of Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand :

01. In chapter ii, Ferdinand accuses Giustiniani (born at Genoa in 1470) of telling lies about the discoverer:

Thus this Giustiniani proves himself to be an inaccurate historian and exposes himself as an inconsiderate or prejudiced and malicious compatriot, (Definition : A person from one's own country) because in writing about an exceptional person who brought so much honor to the country ...

02. In chapter v, writes:

And because it was not far from Lisbon, where he knew there were many Genoese his countrymen, he went away thither as fast as he could ...

03. He also says (chapter xi), that his father, before he was declared admiral, used to sign himself "Columbus de Terra rubra," that is to say, Columbus of Terrarossa, a village or hamlet near Genoa.

Reconfirmation :

Bartolomé de las Casas who was a close friend of the Colóns, writes in chapter 2 of his Historia de las Indias: "This distinguished man was from the Genoese nation, from some place in the province of Genoa; who he was, where he was born or what name he had in that place we do not know in truth, except that before he reached the Nation in which he arrived, he used to call himself Cristóbal Colombo de Terra rubra."

End of an Era of Lies

José Antonio Carbonell Pla (comment book) :

"Con gran profusión de datos, y gracias a un profundo estudio de textos originales... Creo que, en efecto, la obra logra cambiar la perspectiva histórica existente sobre la figura colombina, gracias al rigor científico de las deducciones y sus fundados criterios. Por eso tengo la impresión de que no es relevante que este libro cuente la historia vista desde el ángulo portugués, dada la nacionalidad del autor. En absoluto significa esto que sus tesis sean menos valiosas. Aspectos poco conocidos de la realidad histórica del momento en la península ibérica afloran con un lenguaje llano que huye del artificio y se sustenta en la solidez de la documentación... la caída de la historia oficial del descubrimiento de América, con la puesta en cuarentena de la tradicionalmente aceptada cuna genovesa del navegante…hacen de este ensayo un trabajo a tener en cuenta por quienes deseen acceder a un conocimiento más cercano y bien documentado de la verdadera figura del hombre que abrió los ojos de la vieja Europa a un nuevo mundo.
... Translation: (With a wealth of data, thanks to an in-depth study of original texts... I think that indeed the book succeeds in changing the existing historical perspective on the figure of Columbus, thanks to the scientific rigor of the deductions and criteria on which they are founded. Therefore, in my view, it is immaterial that this book tells the story seen from the Portuguese angle, given the nationality of the author... Little known aspects of the historical reality of those times in the Iberian Peninsula appear in plain language free from artifice and based on the strength of the documents... the fall of the official history of the discovery of America, an end to the traditionally accepted Genoese birthplace of the navigator... turn this essay into a work that should be considered by those who seek access to the to well-documented knowledge about the real life of the man who opened the eyes of the old Europe to a new world ). the Truth revealed at Last thanks to an IT guy! Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an actual scholarly review- but just a guy on the internet. Not a reliable source of anything.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Greek Historian Claims Columbus was Greek

There is an interesting and well-documented study by Ruth G. Durlacher-Wolper, Founder-Director of the New World museum, San Salvador, Bahamas, and Chief Executive Officer of the New World Foundation that has written a book titled Christopher Columbus: a Byzantine Prince. So it's not only Greek historians who claim he was Greek. In fact, in the coming years I think you will hear more of this theory. Was he Greek? No one knows for certain. But the strongest theory is certainly not the idea that he was Italian, and if you were to stack the various theories up by logic and evidence it would certainly be that he was from Byzantine nobility.

Facts:

  • Columbus' signature "Xpo-Ferens" (Christophoros), is Greek-Latin (Byzantine).
  • Columbus spelled Chios with a Greek X -- Xios.
  • Columbus kept "a secret accurate reckoning" and two logs. The author shows that his "secret reckoning" was in Greek leagues, whereas his "his "official log" was in Roman leagues.
  • Ferdinand could find no sign of the Christopher Colombo family when he searched for it high and low in Genoa. These were supposedly the relatives of Christopher Columbus, but Ferdinand wrote that "I have not been able to find out how or where [they] live."
  • Chios was a colony of Genoa.
  • Chios had been Genoese for almost 150 years (since 1346).
  • Columbus concealed his identity because of his well founded fear of being killed by the Turks after the fall of Constantinople: this prevented him from revealing his Byzantine heritage as the Ottomans killed most of the remaining Byzantine royals to prevent any claims to the Roman throne.
  • Columbus did not speak Italian.

--Nikoz78 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Historians [ Columbus Greek ? ] 0
  • Documents [ Columbus Greek ? ] 0
  • Testimony of contemporaries ? 0
  • Documents [ Columbus Genoese ? ] More than two hundred documents
  • Testimony of contemporaries ? [Columbus Genoese ? ] 101 and eight in the 17th century
  • The testament in Seville of Ferdinand Columbus : Hijo de don Cristóbal Colón, genovés, primero almirante que descubrió las Indias ...
  • Piri Reis writes: " Amma şöyle rivayet ederler kim Cinevizden [from Genoa] bir kâfir [an infidel] adına Qolōnbō [named Columbus] derler imiş, bu yerleri ol bulmuştur "
  • The Life of Admiral Christopher Columbus by his son Ferdinand :

Thus this Giustiniani [ Born at Genoa in 1470 ] proves himself to be an inaccurate historian and exposes himself as an inconsiderate or prejudiced and malicious compatriot [ Definition : A person from one's own country ], because in writing about an exceptional person who brought so much honor to the country ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2001/jun/21/guardianobituaries.philipwillan

[...] Taviani devoted his time to the study of Christopher Columbus, becoming one of the world's leading authorities on the subject. He retraced the voyages of the Genoese navigator and wrote numerous books about his life and times. Last year Taviani, who was made a life senator in 1991, donated his collection of 2,500 volumes on Columbus to a council-owned library in his native Genoa.

http://books.google.it/books?id=2z4LAAAAYAAJ&q=

[...] Paolo Taviani, not only Europe's leading authority on Columbus, but one of modern Italy's leading politicians, finds Columbus deficient in only one main aspect: political acumen.

Taviani is not an analyst. Also the Professor Samuel Eliot Morison is not an analyst. --Davide41 (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that "0" historians claim he was descended from Byzantine nobility was just proven false. Are we really to believe that an illiterate man from Northern Italy (Genoa) and the peasant son of a wool-worker was able to hold court with Spanish royalty and further convince them to fund an expensive and wild venture into the unknown? I cannot say if he was a Byzantine noble or not, but I can say that in no way shape or form was he Italian. He did not even speak Italian. If he was Italian then why didn't he go to Italy to fund he adventure? After the fall of Constantinople all the Greek/Byzantine nobles and intellectuals fled for Italy and Spain. That is a fact. So don't act like the theory has no merit. In fact, I challenge you to consider the few books that put forth this theory and then try to come up with a more plausible explanation. Like I said, if you stack the theories side-by-side there isn't a more convincing one. Columbus was a Byzantine noble. --Nikoz78 (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that Davide41, if you look at his page, is an Italian nationalist. Nearly every single one of his contributions is about Italians and only Italians. Hardly objective! No wonder you argue so vehemently about this. Sorry if other possible theories about Columbus's ethnicity upset you, but if you are truly a professor (as you claim) them you'd think you would be far more objective and far less biased. I am sure you have never even considered other possibilities. --Nikoz78 (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can I write more than 150 names of foreign historians.
  • Foreign historians (Greek origin of Columbus)? 0
  • Columbus Greek? Imagination.

( In good company )

  • The Mystery of Columbus Revealed book by Manuel Rosa [analyst]
  • Columbus Re-Discovered book by David Sarfaty [economist]
  • Alfonso Ensenat de Villalonga writes: "his family name was Scotto, and was not Italian but of Scottish origin" [engineer]

I repeat: Apart from the documents, there is the testimony of contemporaries.

Not until the 18th and 19th centuries, did anyone begin disputing Columbus' Genoese origins. At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, a Genoese. Judging from contemporary writings, nobody even thought it was worth discussing the subject.

Historians and geographers from many nations Spain, Portugal, Germany, England, the Netherlands, Switzerland, France and Turkey all speak of the Genoese Columbus, who discovered the Americas. Nor did their books and atlases gather dust in libraries. Some went through several editions. The reports contained and repeated in them were never denied.

  • Scholars from all over the world agree that Columbus was Genoese. The fact was fully accepted by Harrisse, the illustrious late 19th-century American historian. Even Vignaud a relentless detractor of Columbus does not question his Genoese birth.
  • Samuel Eliot Morison, the greatest of contemporary American biographers, writes: The story starts in Genoa with Discoverer's parents and There is no more reason to doubt that Christopher Columbus was a Genoese-born Catholic Christian, steadfast in his faith and proud of his native city, than to doubt that George Washington was a Virginia-born Anglican of English race, proud of being an American.
  • The greatest of all Spanish historians, Ballesteros, Professor of the University of Madrid and director of the monumental series of publications on the Historia de America y de los pueblos americanos, devotes eighty pages to the question of Columbus' native land, and concludes that "no one can cast the least shadow of doubt" on his being from Genoa
  • The position of Caddeo, an energetic and wholehearted supporter of Columbus' Italian and Genoese origins, is adopted by the Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari, who wrote a succinct and impressive biography in the 1930s.
  • Manzano Manzano, Rector of Seville University, author of a vast work, precise and detailed, on the seven years Columbus spent in Spain, before setting out on his great voyage of discovery.

Those who reject this and the more than ample other contemporary evidence, given by both Italian and Spanish sources as well as by witnesses at these court hearings, are simply flying in the face of overwhelming evidence. The answer can also be found in other contemporary documents. In a Genoese civil court document dated 1472, there is a listing for Christopher Columbus wool worker. Later, in 1479, he is described in another court document as Christopher Columbus, citizen of Genoa. He himself claimed Genoa for his home in letters, in the entail of his estate, in his will, and again in the final codicil to his will, made on his deathbed. These are historically verified facts

"The answer can also be found in other contemporary documents. In a Genoese civil court document dated 1472, there is a listing for Christopher Columbus wool worker."EXACTLY. You are the one who needs to verify FACTS. This is the proof that sinks the Genoese Colombo. No wool-worker in 1472 poor, peasant son of peasants (so poor that father and son together could not pay a measly 77 euros to their debtors) could EVER marry nobility. Now, once you know who Filipa Moniz was and knowing that Cristóbal Colón married her in January 1479, with the King of Portugal's own permission, it is VERY CLEAR that Colón and Colombo are not the same person. Colombo was your "well-documented" Genoese peasant wool-weaver while Colón was a nobleman with a coat-of-arms, instructed in several languages and sciences, was in direct contact with several courts and was already in 1479 uncle to the Marquis of Montemor, a Bragança,- because Bragança's wife was niece of Colón's wife- as well as uncle to several other high profile nobles in Portugal including the King's own Lord Chamberlain. Furthermore, Colón was brother-in-law to one of the King's bodyguards and his wife's half-sisters were direct cousins to the King's Mistress whose aunt was nanny for the King's children. Get it??? The sister-in-law of Colón's father-in-law raised the Holy Roman Empress... "Oh Great Woool-Weaver, how did you manage such a marriage?????? the wool-weaver is a genoese fantasy. Stop it. This Walt Disney "rags-to riches" weaver tale is over.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


it is VERY CLEAR that Colón and Colombo are not the same person. Colombo was your "well-documented" Genoese peasant wool-weaver while Colón was a nobleman with a coat-of-arms - Colon-el-Nuevo
  • Act drawn in Genoa on 25 August 1479 by a notary, Girolamo Ventimiglia, known as the Assereto document
  • Witnesses in favor of Lodovico Centurione

In light of the two acts cited, the tendency to compare, or worse, to confuse or replace the true "Genoese" Columbus family with other similarly named Ligurian, Lombard, Italian or foreign families collapses, as does the main argument of the dilettantes who oppose the Genoese documentation and try to maintain that there was indeed a Genoese Christopher Columbus, woolen-weaver, but who was not the discoverer of America. In addition to the two documents cited, there are others that confirm the identification of the Genoese Christopher Columbus, son of Domenico, with the admiral of Spain. An act dated 11 October 1496 says:

Giovanni Colombo of Quinto, Matteo Colombo and Amighetto Colombo, brothers of the late Antonio, in full understanding and knowledge that said Giovanni must go to Spain to see M. Christopher Columbus, Admiral of the King of Spain, and that any expenses that said Giovanni must make in order to see said M. Christopher must be paid by all three of the aforementioned brothers, each one to pay a third... and to this they hereby agree.

In a fourth notarial act, Sebastiano Cuneo, heir by half to his father Corrado, requested that Christopher and Giacomo (called Diego), the sons and heirs of Domenico Colombo, be summoned to court and sentenced to pay the price for two lands located in Legine. This document confirms Christoforo and Diego's absence from the Republic of Genoa with these exact words: “dicti conventi sunt absentes ultra Pisas et Niciam” --Davide41 (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Davide41, you give us MORE False Premises: "Giacomo (called Diego)" is another invention of the historians. In 1484 YOUR Giacomo Colombo was 16 years old according to your trusted Colombo documents which makes him born in 1468. Right? Yes, right. That is what the Genoese documents about your wool-weaver say. 16 years old in 1484. Now have a look at the forensic investigation done in Granada in 2004. Forensic scientists from around the world concluded that D. DIEGO (and NOT Giacomo) Colón died at about 60 years old. Right? Yes. Right. Don Diego Colón, the Spanish nobleman who could read and write in Castilian, died in 1515 and his bones show him to have been about 60 years old. The year of death was 1515 minus age of death 60 = 1455 year of birth. Now take a look at your Giacomo, date of birth 1468 but the Colón Diego date of birth is 1455. A difference of 13 years between what YOUR suspect Genoese documents say and what Forensic Science says. Who will you believe? I believe the science.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That only means that you are not aware of the limits of the accuracy of forensic dating of old bones. I once again reiterate - this is not the place to challenge the scientific consensus or defend new theories. This is not a forum for discussion of primary sources relating to the nationality of Columbus. It is an encyclopedic article and it must be written within the guidelines laid out in WP:NOT, and WP:V. Stop using wikipedia as a forum or a soapbox. The next warning I issue will be accompanied by a 24 hour block.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maunus: You are misunderstanding my statements. It is not that I am not aware that dating of bones "in general, the age at death of a skeleton can be determined to around five to ten years" it is that everything so far points away from the written documents used by historians to affirm the Genoese birth. The 477 DNA samples from Italian Colombo families failed to match. The age of Diego's bones failed to match, the marriage to Filipa Moniz failed to match a peasant's birth, the written language of the man is not Italian nor Genoese, the things he mentions in his letters are all based on the Portuguese living experience, the names he gave to the New World are all Portuguese name places. You would have to bend over backwards to try and make the facts of Admiral Colón fit the life of peasant Colombo. I realize Wiki is not here to deal with these controversies, but stating over and over that there is no controversy, as David41 does, is contrary to reality.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
is another invention of the historians - Colon-el-Nuevo

There is also a very important sixth document from the notary of Bartholomeo Oddino, drawn in Savona on 30 March 1515. With this notarial act, Leon Pancaldo, the well-known Savonese who would become one of the pilots for Magellan's voyage, sends his own father-in-law in his place as procurator for Diego Colon, son of Admiral Cristobal Colon. The document demonstrates how the ties, in part economic, of the Discoverer's family with Savona survived even his death. Ignoring the ravings of Colon-el-Nuevo (and various alias ); these documents irrefutably demolish the dilettantish claims that would make Cristobal Colon, the discoverer of America, a different person than Cristoforus Columbus, son of Domenico, despite reference to Columbus in more than seventy Genoese and Savonese documents. --Davide41 (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Testimony of contemporaries
  • Jerónimo Zurita y Castro, historian of the kingdom of Aragon, writes: "Christopher Columbus, man, as he said, whose company had always been for the sea and its predecessors, so that was foreign born and raised in poverty and the banks of Genoa."
  • Antonio Gallo (1470?-1510), chancellor of the Bank of St. George, to which Columbus left a legacy, wrote, "He was born in Genoa of plebian ancestors."
  • Agostino Giustiniani (1470-1536), historian, in his Polyglot Psalter (Genoa, 1516), in which he says in a marginal note to Psalm XIX that Christopher Columbus was "a native of Genoa" and "plebian ancestors"
  • Ferdinand Columbus - The Life of Admiral Christopher Columbus [ V. Lib. II. , cap. 7 ] : Basso Stato / "plebian ancestors" --Davide41 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim for a Portuguese Columbus emerges every now and then from that country's dilettante historians, and it reappeared during the 1930s with the fantastic thesis that Zarco - the rediscoverer of Porto Santo and Madeira - and Christopher Columbus were one and the same.

Now, Manuel Rosa a Portuguese analyst proposed the theory of a "Columbus Portuguese-Polish" --Davide41 (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare has been treated in much the same fashion. As with Columbus, his unquestionable greatness, together with his unequaled fame, have generated absurd imaginings about him. And then there are the namesakes, which have given rise totales and legends wherever one finds the surname Columbus. Claims based on namesakes soon appeared in Liguria and in the areas of Piacenza and of Monferrato starting in the sixteenth century. They appeared outside of Italy in the late seventeenth century, the eighteenth century, and even as late as the nineteenth century. Thus, in Digne in 1697, a lawyer by the name of Jean Colomb proclaimed himself a descendant of the Navigator Two centuries later, in honor of the fourth centennial of the discovery of the Americas, some heraldic scholars labored hard to trace the origins of the Coullons or of the Colombs of Bordeaux, Bourgogne, and Savoy. A certain M. Colomb who generously gave refuge to one of the Ruffini exiles in Helvetic territory in 1834 believed with an almost naive sincerity that he himself was a descendant of the great Columbus. --Davide41 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

then... came the turn of the Spanish to produce a series of studies meant to proclaim the admiral's Hispanic, not to mention Galitian, origins. De la Riega based his argument on documents from Pontevedra, which Manuel Serrano y Sanz and Eladio Oviedo y Arce immediately stated were worthless. --Davide41 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will not find anything. There's nothing to discover. " Fantasies of Dilettantes " --Davide41 (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which document? What testimony can be offered to demonstrate the Greek birth of Columbus? Absolutely none.

  • Documents ?
  • Testimony of contemporaries ?
  • Foreign historians ? N a m e s
  • Greek Origin: 0 - 0 - 0
  • Genoese Origin: about 200 Documents. 101 Testimony of contemporaries. About 150 historians. ( A u t h o r i t y )

" Waste of time ". --Davide41 (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" Funny that Davide41, if you look at his page, is an Italian nationalist. " - Nikoz78

  • Samuel Eliot Morison writes: The story starts in Genoa with Discoverer's parents and There is no more reason to doubt that Christopher Columbus was a Genoese-born Catholic Christian, steadfast in his faith and proud of his native city, than to doubt that George Washington was a Virginia-born Anglican of English race, proud of being an American.
  • Washington Irving writes: [...] He was at this time elevated above all petty pride on the subject. His renown was so brilliant, that it would have shed a lustre on any hamlet, however obscure: and the strong love of country here manifested would never have felt satisfied until it had singled out the spot, and nestled down, in the very cradle of his infancy. These appear to be powerful reasons, drawn from natural feeling, for deciding in favor of Genoa.
  • Antonio Ballesteros Beretta writes: [...] "Yet what document, what testimony can be offered to demonstrate the don't italian birth of Columbus ? Absolutely none" and concludes that "no one can cast the least shadow of doubt" on his being from Genoa.

If, however, you suppose that these facts would settle the matter, you fortunately know little of the so-called "literature" on the "Columbus Question." By presenting farfetched hypotheses and sly innuendos as facts, by attacking documents of proven authenticity as false, by fabricating others (such as the famous Pontevedra documents), and drawing unwarranted deductions from things that Columbus said or did, he has been presented as Castilian, Catalan, Corsican, Majorcan, Portuguese, French, German, English, Greek, and Armenian. [...] Samuel Eliot Morison --Davide41 (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Morison is not a reliable source. Morison stated that Columbus's mother-in-law was paying convent fees when in fact the convent was paying her to live there. Morison’s book is full of assumptions. Miles Davidson writes regarding Morison’s book and confirms the “fairytale histories” we have been exposed to when he writes:
  • Neither Morison nor Wilford presented any evidence, not even a reasonbable possibility, page 22.
  • Morison offered undocumented details... Unfortunately, this was also one of those occasions on which Morrison allowed his lively imagination to run away, page 33.
  • Morison changing Columbus’s own statement, page 34.
  • [Kirkpatrick] Sale... found Morison’s book to be “seriously flawed” and “erroneously certain stating as facts" page 78.
  • Recently the unsupported assumptions made by Morison and others, page 86. Miles Davidson, Columbus Then and Now: A Life Reexamined, U. of Oklahoma Press, 1997.
The same can be said for Taviani who wrote that "the Portuguese never sailed into the high seas before Columbus" and who placed the CENTER for navigational knowledge in the mid 1400s in GENOA. The Portuguese had been sailing the High Seas between the Azores and Lisbon for 70 years before 1492 and the CENTER for Navigational knowledge in the 1400s was not Genoa it was LISBON. Unreliable sources like Morison and Taviani have helped to confuse not enlighten the history.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting Sale and Davidson who do not in fact argue that Morison is an unreliable source and also do not question the genoese origins of Columbus.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not misrepresenting. I am quoting what is on Miles Davidson's book on the respective pages as indicated and what Davidson says that Sale said. Anyway I think I am done here because it will take time for the new evidence to work its way out. Rome was not built in a day. Cheers.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus scholars have always recognized that the fundamental texts on the explorer's life and discoveries are the works of Pietro Martire d'Anghiera, D. Fernando, Bartolomè de Las Casa, and Fernandez do Oviedo. The son of D. fernando Colon, or whoever compiled the Historie di Cristoforo Colombo in either use or abuse of the family name, states without a shadow of a doubt that his father was born in Italy to a family that came from Lombardy, a name that he attributed to norther Italy and not just to the area marked by the region's actual borders. In Decades de Orbe novo Pietro Martire begins his account of the great discovery as follows: "A certain (quidam) Christopher Columbus, native of Liguria."

  • The Portuguese Rui de Pina wrote two works, Chronica d'El Rey, don Alfonso and Chronica d'El Rey, don Juan II. It has been ascertained that the manuscripts had been completed before 1504, although they were published in the Eighteenth century. Chapter 66 in the second manuscript, "Descubrimiento das Ilhas de Castella per Collombo," explicitly states, "Christovan Colombo italiano."
  • The Portuguese Garcia de Resende writes the Cronic de don Joao II between 1530 and 1533, and it was published in 1544. In chapter 165, "De como se descubriram per Colombo as Antilhas de Castella," he writes, "Christouao Colombo, italiano."
  • Bartolomeo de Las Casas writes in chapter 2 of his Historia de las Indias: "This distinguished man was from the Genoese nation, from some place in the province of Genoa; who he was, where he was born or what name he had in that place we do not know in truth, except that before he reached the Nation in which he arrived, he used to call himself Cristobal Colombo de Terrarubia."
  • The Spaniard Francisco Lopez de Gomara, in his Historia general de las Indias of 1533, wrote under the fourteenth title in part I: "Christopher Columbus was originally from Cogurreo or Nervi, a village of Genoa, a very famous Italian city."
  • Fernandez de Oviedo writes in chapter 2, book 3 of his Historia general de las Indias: "Christopher Columbus, according to what I have learned from men of his nation, was originally from the province of Liguria, which is in italy, where the city and the Seignory of Genoa stands: some say that he was from savona, others that he was from a small place or village called Nervi, which is on the eastern seashore two leagues from the selfsame city of Genoa; but it is held to be more certain that he may have been originally from Cugurreo (Cogoleto) near the city of Genoa."

Every contemporary writer, without exception, agrees that the discoverer was Genoese. --Davide41 (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Columbus was not Genoese. He was. Born and raised on the Genoese island of Chios. All the citizens of the Genoese empire were not ethnic Italians, obviously. But it has been demonstrated that Columbus did not speak Italian. If you believe that an illiterate son of a peasant wool-worker was able to travel to Spain and hold court with royals and even convince them to fund an extremely expensive and outrageous adventure then we can not even debate the issue. You are dogmatic and clearly there IS no issue in your mind. You flood the page with information we have all read to the point of exhaustion a long time ago. It is already understood by all what the mainstream account is. Crowding the discussion by copy and pasting officially recognized walls of text and data does not help us consider other possibilities.

"Which document? What testimony can be offered to demonstrate the Greek birth of Columbus? Absolutely none."

Actually, plenty. But you refuse to review it or even acknowledge it's existence. But this discussion will not decide the issue. Only future revelations and expert annalists will conclude the Columbus issue once and for all. I understand that to you the issue IS resolved. But many disagree.

Best regards. --Nikoz78 (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando's Testament is a Copy not Original

The article presents this statement "Conformable to the testament in Seville (3 July 1539) is the evidence of Ferdinand Columbus, who states that his father was conterraneo (of the same country) with Mons. Agostino Giustiniani, who was, beyond all doubt, born at Genoa:
 Hijo de don Cristóbal Colón, genovés, primero almirante que descubrió las Indias ...[37]
— Son of Christopher Columbus, Genoese, admiral who first discovered the Indies ...'' "
However the original document of Fernando's Last Will does not exist as is explained in the book El testamento de don Hernando Colón y otros documentos para su biografía (Author: José Hernández Díaz Published: Sevilla [Impr. editorial de la Gavidia] 1941.) What we have, as is the case with most of this story, is a later copy which cannot be verified in any way to be an exact copy of the original. Therefore when we write that it is from (3 July 1539) this is not true. It is a copy from a latter date.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another False Claim of facts

Under "Genoese origin" the article reads The conviction is tied to the debt of Domenico — together with his son Christopher (explicitly stated in the document) — toward a certain Girolamo del Porto. In the will dictated by Admiral Christopher Columbus in Valladolid before he died, the authentic and indisputable document of which we have today, the dying navigator remembers this old debt, which had evidently not been paid. This is absolutely not true. The document about Girolamo del Porto is not the Codicil of may 19, 1506 which is truly "indisputable document of which we have today" but the "Memorial de Pagos" which has NO DATE, was written years after Columbus died by a guy named Pedro de Azcoitia and was never written by Columbus before he died nor after he died.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" Another False Claim of facts "

Primary sources.

The Galitian hypothesis at least had the appearance of truth in the beginning, until the manipulation of the Pontevedra documents had been demonstrated. But with the Portuguese thesis we are faced by a system of clues based essentially on a negative approach, which declares that anything which can prove that the discoverer was Genoese is false. Enough with the hallucinations. --Davide41 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book by Manuel Rosa ?

The historian's mission is essentially that of making the past come to life, of resuscitating the fact which has been forgotten in time; but to construct studies, which are only scientific in appearance, based on second-hand third-hand hypotheses, leads not to history but rather to a more or less gratuitous fiction. This is what Rosa has done! --Davide41 (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The facts (Genoese Origin)

  • 101 Contemporary European writers
  • 225 Documents
  • 192 Historians
Davide41-You and the whole world can put here all the numbers you want of writers, chroniclers, historians and inventors who wrote "Genoese" it is only misguided repetition. In the end they are worthless against forensic science. I have numbers also: 477 negative DNA results from Mediterranean Colombo/Colom families proves Admiral Colón was NOT from a Colombo family from Genoa. You will argue with DNA science? Or maybe you will now say that Colón was adopted into the Colombo family and that is why his DNA is not the same? That was the End of Big Genoese Weaver Fantasy Tale.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The son of Ferdinand Columbus, or whoever compiled the Historie di Cristoforo Colombo in either use or abuse of the family name, states without a shadow of a doubt that his father was born in Italy to a family that came from Lombardy, a name that he attributed to norther Italy and not just to the area marked by the region's actual borders. --Davide41 (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Manuel Rosa has done is sift through all the evidence with a fine-tooth-comb and shown how documents accepted for centuries as authentic and accepted as saying one thing were actaully false or at the very least abused by the Genoists such as this Memorial de Pagos written supposedly by a notary Pedro de Azcoitia (while Columbus's notary was Pedro de Enoxxedo) and was presented by a Genoese impostor named Baltazar Colombo some 80 years after Columbus died and subsequently the document was thrown out of court in the Pleitos de Veragua in 1580s. Yet you still continue utilizing it to trick the readers. The Genoese birth is so clear and so well proven that even Davide41 admits Columbus was a Lombard. Nice!!!Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authentic and indisputable document.
  • All the modern and past historians agree that Columbus was Genoese. The first person to argue the case for Columbus' birth in Calvi, in the mid-19th century, was a "credulous churchman".
  • The Idea of a "Portuguese" Christopher Columbus, was born in Portugal only in 1915. Patrocínio Ribeiro docet ! (whose theory have been refuted by the greatest historians)

" Yet you still continue utilizing it to trick the readers. "

You're not the only: Celso Garcia de la Riega, in 1892, in honor of the fourth centenary of the discovery, began to produce a series of studies meant to proclaim the admiral's Hispanic, not to mention Galitian, origins. De la Riega based his argument on documents from Pontevedra, which Manuel Serrano y Sanz and Eladio Oviedo y Arce immediately stated were worthless. Luis Ulloa ? He found hints of Catalan origins in the admiral's name, in his coat of arms, and in his symbols and signature. To Ulloa, even the navigator's reminiscences on geography were proof of his Hispano-Catalonian origins. The his system of historical elaboration and his method of work were immediately invalidated. --Davide41 (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The myth of Columbus has prompted some minds to hallucinate and some dilettantes to try to appropriate the myth for themselves.

This is not the place for interpret or discuss the primary sources. --Davide41 (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David41, constant repetition of the same phrases is a sign of senility - your argument is flawed because it is based on bad documentation. It is that simple. You state "Authentic and indisputable document." when in fact the document was disputed in 1580 when a Genoese Baltazar Colombo presented it to the court of Spain. In fact the document was accepted by all historians as authentic and as having been written by Columbus, when it was not written by Columbus nor written by the notary that was at Columbus's bedside. You "Authentic and indisputable document" was written decades after Columbus died by a man named Pedro de Azcoitia!!! Go read it for yourself and explain here for the rest of us who was Pedro de Azcoita. While you are at it, go read Fernando Col]on and post here the "Authentic and indisputable" evidence in "Historie..." that says Columbus was born in Genoa. Your sources, such as Morison, have huge flaws in not going to look at the documents themselves they failed in writing accurate details. Now it is another story.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not the place for interpret or discuss the primary sources, why do you keep bringing them up? Are primary sources like Columbus's last will, like Fernando Colon and Las Casas only allowed to be used IF they support your view? Seems like a double-standard on primary sources.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unethical and Fallacious Editing

Over many years I have been making contributions to these articles that continue to be removed. In the beginning I understood this to be because I did not provide sources. lately I have been adding the sources and original images yet those continue to be removed because they are contrary to what other editors believe to be the truth. By writing in the article quotes from documents that are actually not in the documents, by taking as genuine documents that are not and by removing facts that are actually in the documentation you create a fallacious article that is unethical in its content because it lies to the readers and to maintain that lie my edits are not welcomed and are continuously removed.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk)

Correction Footnote 12

The current footnote 12 reads "Christophorus Colonus quidam ligur vir" or "a certain Christopher Columbus, man of Liguria". This is not correct footnote should read "Christophorus Colonus quidam ligur vir" or "a certain Christopher Colonus, man of Liguria"- Colonus is already Latin and it is not the same as the Latin Columbus. Peter Martyr knew how to write Columbus in Latim and he knew the discoverer's name was not Columbus but Colón as he is documented in all the documents.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In Decades de Orbe novo Pietro Martire begins his account of the great discovery as follows: "A certain (quidam) Christopher Columbus, native of Liguria."

Source: Paolo Emilio Taviani, Italian Journal, (1991, Vol. V, No. 5/6, pp. 5-37), Vol. II.

David41- please clarify which is correct because a footnote should not contain bad transcriptions of statements as well as wrong meanings of statements. Certainly you cannot say that when Peter Martire wrote "Christophorus Colonus quidam ligur vir" that it is the same as "A certain (quidam) Christopher Columbus, native of Liguria." IT IS NOT THE SAME THING. Colonus is Latim and is NOT at the same time Columbus Latim. This is another one of those cases where Taviani tried to pull the wool-weaver's wool over our eyes. 'Colón' (colon, semi-colon) comes from the Greek Kõlon meaning member and is therefore NOT the Latin Columbus meaning pigeon. Furthermore, ligur does not imply from Genoa but a race of people that were spread over many regions, like Iberia where Portugal is, and who went back to antiquity. When a man is trying to hide his identity giving us a vague description of his "race" as ligur is not the same as saying "Genoese" - Liguria, in its original sense, as “the land of the Ligurians,” comprised a much more extensive tract. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0064:entry=liguria-geo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligures -- The Portuguese created a false identity for the discoverer but now we can see this trick. The crux of the fraud is simple. No wool-weaver could ever marry a noble member of the Portuguese Order of Santiago whose Master was the very King of Portugal. End the Fairy Tale. Just because hundreds of historians got it wrong does not mean we need to keep repeating it.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholars from all over the world agree that Columbus was Genoese.
  • Genoese Origin of Columbus ? This can be scientifically proven on the basis of the documents

The documents irrefutably demolish the dilettantish claims that would make Cristobal Colon, the discoverer of America, a different person than Cristoforus Columbus, son of Domenico, despite reference to Columbus in more than seventy Genoese and Savonese documents.

  • Every contemporary writer, without exception, agrees that the discoverer was Genoese.
  • Then there is the eloquent testimony of the ambassadors: Nicolo Oderico, Pedro de Ayala, Angelo Trevisan and Gaspare Contarini.
  • Every early map on which his nationality is recorded describes him as Genoese. The Piri Reis map Docet !
  • Ferdinand Columbus in the Historie, states without a shadow of a doubt that his father was born in Italy.
  • No document, no historical data, authorize or even partially justify the tales spun around the birth of Columbus.

To conclude:

Jerónimo Zurita y Castro, historian of the kingdom of Aragon, writes: "Christopher Columbus, man, as he said, whose company had always been for the sea and its predecessors, so that was foreign born and raised in poverty and the banks of Genoa."

This is where the history talks out of both sides of the mouth "whose company had always been for the sea and its predecessors" was he and his predecessors ALWAYS men of the sea? Really? When, then, were the Colombos weaving wool at Quinto? ?? And you mispeak when you say Fernando Colón wrote that his father was Italian. In fact Fernando could not locate ONE single relative when he went to Italy. Not one single relative. Not one.71.111.216.204 (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [ Ferdinand Columbus ] He says (chapter xi), that his father, before he was declared admiral, used to sign himself "Columbus de Terra rubra," that is to say, Columbus of Terrarossa, a village or hamlet near Genoa.
  • Bartolomé de las Casas, whose father traveled with Columbus on his second journey and who personally knew Columbus' sons, writes in chapter 2 of his Historia de las Indias: This distinguished man was from the Genoese nation, from some place in the province of Genoa; who he was, where he was born or what name he had in that place we do not know in truth, except that before he reached the Nation in which he arrived, he used to call himself Cristóbal Colombo de Terrarubia.
  • The mystery of the epithet "da Terrarubia" (which the admiral and his brother Bartolomea gave themselves at times.) Quinto is, in effect, a place that was called Terrarossa until the beginning of the century. Moreover, a Terrarossa still exists today in the township of Moconesi, a birthplace of the grandfather, Giovanni.

Overwhelming Evidence.

71.111.216.204 Alias Colon-el-Nuevo.

Far be it for me to question why a book like the Historie... of Fernando Colón writen in ITALIAN and printed in Italy would have in it "terra Rubra" instead of the the Italian Terra Rossa. But I can tell you that in Portuguese "terra Rubra" is Portuguese 100%. But what does this have to do with correcting the footnote from Peter Martyr so that his word Colonus does not get corrupted into something he did not write or mean? Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

  • "Admiral of the ocean sea: a life of Christopher Columbus." By Samuel Eliot Morison. (Little, Brown and Company, 1942). Page: 7.
  • "Italian Journal." Christopher Columbus: Genius of the Sea. By Paolo Emilio Taviani. (1991, Vol. V, No. 5/6, pp. 5-37), Vol. II. [1]
  • "Le Letteratura di viaggio dal medioevo al rinascimento: generi e problemi." Università di Genova. Dipartimento di archeologia, filologia classica e loro tradizioni. Page: 244.

Etc. You can't edit this page. --Davide41 (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of cohesion and consistency. Not about sources. The sources are all contradictory and the article is contradictory. My point has always been to remove the contradictions. DAVID41 enters a source that says Columbus or rather Colombo ""whose company had always been for the sea and its predecessors"" - However all the documents that David41 relies on in Genoa are about a wool-weaving family not about people of the SEA as the statement claims. Peter Martyr wrote that the guy's name in Latin is COLONUS not Columbus as the footnote claims. By changing Peter Martyr's words you are committing a fraud. The discoverer married 15 years prior to the First Voyage a lady of High Portuguese nobility, this means he was NOT a peasant wool-weaver from any where. While the wool-weaver was struggling to pay his meager debts the discoverer and his brothers were rubbing elbows with kings. The history claims the discoverer was an Italian yet the discoverer left behind dozens of letters and thousands of notes and nothing written in Italian but all in Latin or Spanish with a Portuguese slant. in 2 notes of about 20 words each where he attempted to write in Italian one can see so many errors that it is obvious he did not know Italian. Therefore say all you want. Add all the sources you want- But at least try to not create contradictions amongst your own story. No matter how much you repeat the source material, you cannot remove the contradictions because the whole story is a fantasy.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is historically certain that Columbus was of Ligurian stock, that he spent his boyhood and early youth in Genoa. All historians recognize that the discoverer was Genoese. The fact was fully accepted by Harrisse, Even Vignaud, Ballesteros, Morison, Taviani, [...]

  • Christopher Columbus Portuguese ? Manuel Rosa, an information technology analyst.
  • Christopher Columbus Scottish ? Alfonso Ensenat de Villalonga, an engineer.
  • Christopher Columbus Catalan ? David Sarfaty, an economist.
  • Christopher Columbus Catalan ? Luis Ulloa.

Ballesteros (his exact words being):

In the course of the Conference on American Studies held in Hamburg, the pertinacious Peruvian presented his thesis on the discovery of America relying, as always, on suppositions and interpretations of texts. On that occasion, without entering into the merits of the question, his system of historical elaboration and his method of work were immediately invalidated.

Genoese Origin ? All primary sources. You can't edit this page. --Davide41 (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your mistake it to judge what you do not know using the works of others who knew even less. Manuel Rosa has done lectures for 6 years at Universities and Historic Societies not ONCE was his evidence invalidated. It will all change soon enough. It can't expect 500 years of fables to be rewritten overnight. But the ship of truth lifted anchor in 2006. It is now just a few more years before it reaches bombordo.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unethical and Fallacious Editing

Over many years I have been making contributions to these articles that continue to be removed. In the beginning I understood this to be because I did not provide sources. lately I have been adding the sources and original images yet those continue to be removed because they are contrary to what other editors believe to be the truth. By writing in the article quotes from documents that are actually not in the documents, by taking as genuine documents that are not and by removing facts that are actually in the documentation you create a fallacious article that is unethical in its content because it lies to the readers and to maintain that lie my edits are not welcomed and are continuously removed.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • Historians and geographers from many nations, all speak of the Genoese Columbus, who discovered the Americas.
Historians and geographers can "speak" of a Genoese Columbus but Columbus NEVER did and hearsay is not basis for historic fact and the Colombo that was found in Italy NEVER can be the same man who was uncle to the Countess of Penamacor, Portuguese adoptive mother of Diego Mendez. This is not found on a "primary source" see Louis André Vigneras, "Diego Méndez, Secretary of Christopher Columbus and Alguacil Mayor of Santo Domingo: A Biographical Sketch" in The Hispanic American Historical Review, 1978. You can hold on to your Genoese Colombo, in the end it was a good fooling of the world, but now things will change. Blame the idiot Portuguese historians who let this wool-weaver lie stand fort so long.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can hold on to your Genoese Colombo, in the end it was a good fooling of the world, but now things will change - Colon-el-Nuevo

  • Fanaticism is one of the faces of obstinacy. However, there are two notes in Italian which are definitely in Columbus's handwriting: both came long after the discovery. The first is a gloss to the Libro de las profecias, and the other is in the margin of an Italian translation of Pliny. De Lollis contends that Columbus wrote them in Italian because of the sharp resentment he nursed in those years toward the court of Spain. The only thing definite is that Columbus would not have written anything in Italian if he had not been intimate with many Italians, first in Portugal, then in Spain, and finally, in the voyages of the discovery. The Italian language, i.e. Tuscan or Roman, was then a sort of lingua franca among the Genoese, Tuscans, Corsicans, Venetians, Neapolitans, Umbrians, Romans, and Sicilians who met outside of their common homeland, which already had a well-defined traditional and literary identity, but no political unity. --Davide41 (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valiant scholars have dedicated themselves to the subject of Christopher Columbus's language; chief among them are Menendez Pidal, Arce, Caraci, Chiareno, Juan Gil, Milano and Consuelo Varela. Results ? Christopher Columbus's language is Castilian punctuated by noteworthy and frequent Lusitanian, Italian, and Genoese influences and elements. --Davide41 (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, there is an additional argument against Rosa's hypothesis...

Manuel Rosa forgets or has not read Las Casas who refers to Colombo, in chapter 2, Book 1, of the Historia de las indias as: "este varon excogido de nacion ginoves." And Rosa did not notice that the Portuguese Joao de Barros states in his famous book Da Asia (decas 1, ch. XI), that Columbus was "genoves de nacao." Of equal weight was the testimony of Diego Mendez, Columbus's criado (retainer), who is known to have accompanied him constantly from 1492 until his death, after which Mendez continued to serve in the entourage of Columbus's son Diego. --Davide41 (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your is a Fringe theory. --Davide41 (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Davide41- Why do you only quote half of what Las Casas says? You leave out the rest of the sentence which reads "cuál fuese, donde nació o que nombre tuvo el tal lugar, no consta la verdad dello" do you not understand this? I will translate it for you (which it was, where he was born or what name had that such place, we don't know the truth of it.) Your way of tricking the readers is amazing. Why do you think Las Casas had to qualify his sentence with this explanation? Furthermore João de Barros could write whatever he wanted, it has no value since Barros only copied Rui de Pina, because Barros born in 1496 was only 10 years old when Colón died and had never met him. And Diego Méndez was living in Spain under an assumed identity as Luis de Vigneras exposed so he is no credible since he covered for Colón and Admiral Colón covered for him. And Colón's notes are far from being Italian:
"Del ambra es çierto nascere in India soto tierra, he yo ne ho fato cavare in molti monti in la isola de Feyti vel de Ofir vel de Cipango, a la quale habio posto nome Spagnola, y ne o trovato pieça grande como el capo, ma no tota chiara, saluo de chiaro y parda, y otra negra." the preceding is one of the two notes in "Italian" out of the hundreds written by Admiral Cristóbal Colón which were written in Spanish and Latin. But these 2 notes in Italian are actually so poor that no one believes Italian was Colón's first language. Here are the words not Italian in these "Italian" notes: es, çierto, tierra, yo, pieça, como, el, y, pardo, otra, negra (Salvador de Madariaga, Vida del Muy Magnífico Señor Don Cristóbal Colón, Buenos Aires, 1958.) The "Lingua Franca" argument is pure BS. It was a theory invented to explain the unexplainable of how an Italian who lived in Italy for 25 years could not write a single sentence in Italian. No matter how much you try to pull the wool over our eyes, it will no longer work. And again you misquote Mendez Pidal and Consuelo Varela, maybe you need help understanding Spanish, if so I can translate it for you:
  • En su castellano se encuentran portuguesismos claros: hasta un deter ‘detener’ en la relación del tercer viaje... En su clásico estudio sobre la lengua de Colón, Menéndez Pidal ha señalado, con razón, que los autógrafos castellanos tienen un claro barniz portugués, perceptible sobre todo en la grafía en el vocalismo... En definitiva, el Almirante se sirve de una norma más portuguesa que italiana... De todas maneras, siempre nos queda la sospecha de que Colón pensara no en el castellano como, sino en el portugués... En varias ocasiones usa la palabra tablachina,... en el vecino Portu gal se seguía diciendo por aquel entonces con mayor propiedad tavolachina ... (Dia rio da viagem de Vasco da Gama, f. 20: (traían arcos con sus flechas muy largas y tauolachenhas) Manuscrito Valentim Fernandes, (hacen de él tauolachmas). El 4 de diciembre aparece un pozo singular: «ay una grande baía que sería buen pozo para Lesnordeste y Suest(e) y Sursudueste». La frase no tiene sentido en castellano, pero sí en portugués... en el Diario del viaje de Vasco de Gama: «Mandou Pero d’Alanquer no batell a sumdar se achava bom pouso». Turbonadas... de un término náutico que tarda mucho tiempo en aclimatarse en castellano, y que sólo comienza a ser usual cuando se impone en las naves españolas el léxico de los pilotos portugueses .(Consuelo Varela y Juan Gil, Cristóbal Colón, Textos y documentos completos, Edición de Consuelo Varela, Nuevas Cartas: Edición de Juan Gil, Alianza Universidad, Madrid, 1997.)
  • In 1973, Virgil Milani tried to prove that the Portuguese words in Admiral Colón's letters were not Portuguese, but were, in fact, Genoese words. However, the critic Peter Boyd-Bowman, in Hispanic Review (Winter, 1976) says of Milani's work that although a few words the Admiral inserted into his Spanish were the same words in Genoese as Portuguese, the majority were Portuguese and that Virgil Milani consulted a dictionary that DID NOT contain words documented and "in use". Similarly, Prof. Ralph J. Penny, of the School of Modern Languages ​​(Queen Mary, University of London) in his article The Language of Christopher Columbus, demonstrated clearly that Virgil Milani minimized the clearly Portuguese words of Columbus to try to impose a Genoese language that WAS NOT so clearly present in the Admiral's letters. Ralph J. Penny says that "it is easier to identify the influence of the Portuguese language" than a Genoese influence. (Manuel Rosa in Colón: La Historia Nunca Contada.)
No matter what you insist on saying, the facts are contrary. All the facts are contrary to a wool-weaver's birth as well as an Italian birth.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Book by Manuel Rosa is a tertiary source. He isn't an academic. Authoritative sources: Samuel Eliot Morison, Paolo Emilio Taviani or Antonio Ballesteros Beretta (the greatest historians on Christopher Columbus); the list of contemporary historians and ambassadors or great encyclopedias... Today all Columbus scholars, both his admirers and his detractors, recognize that he was Genoese. (The reader may find a long list at his or her disposal...)

Also the Spanish historians have since abandoned the thesis that Columbus was Spanish, and they all recognize that the discoverer was Genoese. Like Manzano, Beretta, Consuelo Varela, Muro Orejon, Rumeu, Dde Armas, Perez de Tudela [...] Greetings. --Davide41 (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


All the facts are contrary to a wool-weaver's birth as well as an Italian birth. - Colon-el-Nuevo

There are at least twenty such publications in the 16th century and nine in the 17th century. In addition, there were sixty-two by Italian writers. Two of Columbus's contemporary chroniclers, Pietro Martire d'Anghiera in 1504 and Andres Bernaldez in 1550, both of whom knew him personally, said he was from Liguria but did not identify the town. Among the earliest published reports, Paolo Interiano in 1506 clearly identified Cogoreo as Columbus's birthplace, whereas Augustini Giustiniani in 1516 said Genoa. Martire later identified him as "Genovese." Alonso de Santa Cruz, 1550, said he was from Nervi. In a work first published in Rome in Latin in 1631, Alessandro Geraldini (first resident bishop in the Americas), who claimed to have helped Columbus get royal approval for his first voyage, reported that he was "Ligurian." Witnesses in the 1511 and 1532 hearings in the Pleitos agreed that Columbus was from the Ligur. Pedro de Arana, a cousin of Columbus's Spanish mistress, testified that he knew Columbus was from Genoa. Pedro was close enough to Columbus to have commanded a vessel on his third voyage across the Atlantic. Another witness at the same hearing placed it more precisely, testifying, "I heard it said that [he] was from the seigneury of Genoa, from the city of Savona..." --Davide41 (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Samuel Eliot Morison, the greatest of contemporary American biographers, writes: "The story starts in Genoa with Discoverer's parents."
  • The professor Taviani is considered both in Italy and abroad to be the greatest expert in Columbus studies and donated his entire collection of books ( 2.500 volumes and 1.000 scholarly essays ) to the Berio library writes: "Not until the 18th and 19th centuries, did anyone begin disputing Columbus' Genoese origins. At the time of the discoveries, everyone considered him Italian, Genoese, a foreigner..."
  • The greatest of all Spanish historians, Antonio Ballesteros Beretta, Professor of the University of Madrid writes: "no one can cast the least shadow of doubt on his being from Genoa"
  • The historian Washington Irving ? The his exact words being: "He was at this time elevated above all petty pride on the subject. His renown was so brilliant, that it would have shed a lustre on any hamlet, however obscure: and the strong love of country here manifested would never have felt satisfied until it had singled out the spot, and nestled down, in the very cradle of his infancy. These appear to be powerful reasons, drawn from natural feeling, for deciding in favor of Genoa." --Davide41 (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your is a Fringe theory --Davide41 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. --2.33.180.3 (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mayorazgo is Unreliable as Evidence

The article uses the following statement as the main argument that Columbus was from Genoa:

"Firstly, there is the deed of primogeniture of 1498. In it, Columbus writes:
'Siendo yo nacido en Genova... de ella salí y en ella naci...
As I was born in Genoa... came from it and was born there..."

However this "deed of primogeniture" (or mayorazgo as it is called in Spanish) is NOT from 1498 as any one with one good eye can see in the image http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Mayorazgo1498.jpg . The document was dated 1598 with a "4" later inserted over the 5. If the Article aims to be non-biased this clearly valid flaw in what is a paramount document to the Genoese theory should be explained. It is not enough to insert quotes from sources that clearly never laid eyes o the document.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Spain and Portugal were fierce enemies and fought over control of the Atlantic trade routes." "Columbus was a Portuguese double-agent, a spy and conspirator, working in Spain on a covert mission to divert Spanish forces far and away from the real India, leaving the way free for the Portuguese to reach it without Spanish intervention." http://www.righterpublications.com/6-11%20christopher%20columbus.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.247 (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1479, Christopher married Felipa Muñiz, of the order of Santiago, whose marriage had to be approved by the Portuguese monarchy. Christopher and his brother had access to four European royal courts, something difficult to achieve if one is descendant of poor Genoese weavers." http://www.righterpublications.com/6-11%20christopher%20columbus.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.241.220 (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The Whole World Knew Columbus was Genoese, Except the Genoese

In 1998 Maurizio Tagliattini wrote in his investigative work about Columbus:
To repeat, my research on works of Genoese chroniclers and historians of the XVI and XVII centuries has failed to reveal any trace of Genoese claimants. In fact, in the work of Uberto Foglietta, 1559 (Roma) Di Uberto Foglietta, della Republica di Genova and its revised edition of 1575, Milan), among the famous citizens of Genoa not even Christopher Columbus is recorded! For the historical record, among Genoese Captains mentioned in Foglietta's annals of 1475, there is Biagio D'Assereto, captain of thirteen ships and three galleys who valiantly broke up the Aragonese Armada near Genoa; in 1467, Lazaro Doria with six ships fought the Catalans and acted well, "si comporto' bene"; in 1466, Captain Simone Vignoso, with three ships, was at the service of the Republic of Genoa during the "exploit" in Chios; in 1477, Ludovico di Riparolo, Captain of six galleys acted well, et cetera, to the year 1500. Foglietta was obviously concerned about Genoese captains, but the fact that he never mentioned Christopher Columbus, presumably the most famous of all Genoese captains, is a remarkable omission.

My research of 15th and 16th century Genoese annalists (apart from Giustiniani, Gallo, and Senarega) has yielded no results either. Nor does the Genoese historian Senator Federico Federici (who died in 1647) offer any information about the Genoese Colombos. The annals of the 18th century Genoese Gianbattista Richeri (like Federici, of Patrician origin) failed to shed more light on the issue; his annals from 1299 to 1502 record the existence of 18 Colombos, but no Domenico or Christopher appears in his Foliatum Notariorum Genuensium (1724 ca.) (original resides at the "Biblioteca Comunale Berio di Genova"). The MS. of Guglielmo Da Cassina includes annals dated from 1191 and offers no lead either.

In summary, until we reach the 18th century, heralded by the 1708 work of Genoese annalist Filippo Casoni (1662-1723), the Genoese do not appear concerned about locating the great discoverer's family in the city of Genoa. Nor do they appear preoccupied with whether documents in their notarial archives could prove such existence "with any degree of certainty." Genoese scholars until the time of Casoni, it seems, had a real problem in pairing the name of Colón or Colom with documentation showing the name Colombo.
The time will come when the truth will be believed and the lie retrieved.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are still both using this forum to promote your point of view and struggling with reliable sources. Maurizio Tagliattini seems to be a construction executive whose not exactly had much luck getting scholars to pay attention to him or indeed getting his book published. Please stop using this page as a forum. Dougweller (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your position (Dougweller)

  • Nicolo Oderico : " our fellow citizen, illustrious cosmographer and steadfast leader " ( Morison 2008 )
  • Angelo Trevisan : " Christoforo Colombo zenovese, homo de alta et procera statur, rossa, de grands ingegno et faza longa " (Taviani 1985)
  • Gaspare Contarini : " This admiral (Diego) is son of the genoese Columbus " (Taviani 1985)
  • Las Casas : " era genovés " ( Morison 2008 )
  • Martin Waldseemuller : " Iste insule per Columbum genuensem almirantem " ( Morison 2008 )

Overwhelming Evidence For the Identity of Columbus. There are many (many) other examples... --2.33.180.79 (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is something awfully wrong when the whole world calls a man "Genoese" and yet his supposed city of birth does not know who he was or where he came from to the point of never mentioning him in any of its published works about great Genoese citizens. There is something awfully wrong!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.158 (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though all the contemporary chronicles and the majority of modern and past historians state he was from Genoa, [2] some non-historians (an information technology analyst [3], an engineer [4], an economist [5], a lawyer [6] [...]) have elaborated alternative hypotheses. They are the new voice of God. What are the historians ? Historians ? Old stuff. Today ? This is the generation of Manuel Rosa. --2.33.180.85 (talk) 09:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The leading North American authority, Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison, the Harvard historian, was the most distinguished writer on Columbus (with Taviani), the author of a multi-volume biography, and was himself a sailor who retraced Columbus’s route across the Atlantic. In his popular book "Admiral of the ocean sea: a life of Christopher Columbus" written in 1942, he writes : The story starts in Genoa with Discoverer's parents.

The History to the Historians.

Manuel Rosa is the latest to join generations of Columbus' "birthers." A Portuguese computer analyst... His sources are unreliable. --2.33.180.85 (talk) 09:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New information :

1535-1557. Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés " Viviendo Domínico Colom (Domínico Colom = Domenico Colombo), su padre (su padre = his father), este su hijo (este su hijo = this his son), seyendo mancebo, e bien doctrinado, e ya salido de la edad adolescente, se partío de aquels sua patria (patria = Fatherland) " (Historia general y natural de las Indias) (Graça Moura, p. 22).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus&oldid=459947846"