Talk:San Miguel de Gualdape

Spelling error?
Is the title of the page correct? "San Miguel de Gualdape" -- or should it be "de Guadalupe"? Google suggests the latter, but there are both variants to be found. So which is the right one? --84.164.100.19 (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Spanish version by the founder of this location, Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón, clearly indicates that the name is "San Miguel de Guadalupe". Gualdape is not a known Spanish word or location. However, a search in Spanish for Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón on internet shows more alternatives like "Guadalpe" o "Guandape".

I include a comment on the Spanish Wikipedia entry for this person and in the English Wikipedia project for Spain History and the South Carolina.

> WikiProject Spain:Talk page

> WikiProject South Carolina:Request for assistance

> WikiProject South Carolina:Request for assistance

Heosphoros (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Too little documentation of slave rebellion
How did this poorly documented slave rebellion, of which nothing is told, get classified as "Victorious" in the table to the right of the article? Did all the slaves escape to freedom (likely to die on the island in their turn), or what? This seems absurd to include with so little data.Parkwells (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What makes you think they would have died? These slaves would have came from areas where they had the ability to build canoes. They could have just left the island.DDA9912 (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

location and Name
Thank you for this article. A lot of time was placed into it Im guessing. However - Im curious as to why Quattlebaum's book "The Land called Chicora" was not used as a reference? It has some significantly different conclusions than you have reached - chief among them being the colony name (which he refers to as "Gualdape"). He uses the recounting by Oviedo (1526) as one of his sources - quoting him as the source of the name "Gualdape".

Oviedo is also used to help determine the location of the colony as being on the Hobcaw Barony, near Pawleys Island. Quattlebaum also refers to Woodbury Lowery's 1901 book "The Spanish Settlements within the present limits of the United States" to also do so.

Francisco Chicora is a utilized source - mostly for his remembrances of geographical or technical aspects of the expeditions though. Very little is spent on Chicora's tall tales - which are essentially discounted by Peter Martyr, who is also a strongly used source.

I say all this, because the early colonization of SC is an interest of mine. Based on my reading of Quattlebaum Id gone with his conclusions.

Given your strong, well developed interest in the topic of the Spanish colonization of North America, and the obvious effort that you place into your research, Im guessing that you werent aware of the book. Its a readable - published in 1956 by University of Florida press.

But if you did read it but determined it to be lacking in effort or interpretation of the various sources used then Im interested in knowing that, because I want to know the true and accurate history of my State. And if that means that I have to change my worldview as a result of someone elses research or efforts then so be it.

Thanks again for the effort that you have placed in this topic.

VicCarpenter — Preceding unsigned comment added by VicCarpenter (talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with Quattlebaum's book but it's been out of print for quite a while and doesn't seem to be readily available. If you want to read a very good, more recent summary of Ayllon in North America, I recommend "A New Andalucia and a Way to the Orient" by Paul Hoffman. Regarding the location of the colony, Hoffman reviews a long history of folks trying to pinpoint the site. He even acknowledges Quattlebaum's viewpoint. Bottom line, until archaeological evidence is found, there just isn't enough information to definitively locate the colony. Regarding the colony's name, every source I've reviewed agrees that the name was San Miguel de Gualdape. I'm surprised it's been sitting this way in Wiki for so long--perhaps the eye just passes over the unusual spelling and assumes it must be Guadalupe. I'm going to propose we rename the article.Glendoremus (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Propose to rename
Every source I've reviewed spells the name of the colony as San Miguel de Gualdape. Hoffman, Lowery, Weber, and Quinn spell it Gualdape. Most of the sources cited in the article spell it Gualdape. Douglas T. Peck in Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón's Doomed Colony of San Miguel de Gualdape speculates the name refers to the Guale Indian tribe of the region. I propose we rename this article. Any concerns? Glendoremus (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Although most modern scholars seem to use "San Miguel de Gualdape", The Encyclopedia Britannica calls it "San Miguel de Guadalupe". I would not be opposed to the name change, but I think the article should include a note explaining that both spellings are still used. Carlstak (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the change as described above.Glendoremus (talk) 04:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Quejo?
Is Quejo the same person as de Quexos? 24.155.130.236 (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)