Laysan Island: the name, the "discovery" and a lot of confusion
by Doug Sinclair
Research is still being conducted. This article is based on what has been found as of October 2007.
.....
In the history of human contact, the Hawai'ian archipelago is one of the most remote places on the planet. It stretches almost 1700 miles across the central Pacific Ocean. The islands west of the major Hawai'ian Islands are tiny, as islands go. Laysan is one of the larger, and is only about 1 mile wide and 2 miles long. It has a roughly ovoid lake in the center, and this may explain why Hawai'ians have named it "Kauo," a word used to describe an egg. Islands in the archipelago were sighted by European and American sailors over decades in the early 19th century. They passed through the area when commerce between the United States and Japan developed, with Hawai'i being critical for supplies, not to mention its own value in trade. It also quickly became a major whaling ground after early forays about 1820. Russians were among the earliest known Caucasians to explore the archipelago. Among them were Capt. Staniukowitch of the ship Moller. Staniukowitch assumed he "discovered" Laysan/Kauo in May 1828, named it after his ship and apparently caused a map of the area to be drawn. Although this may have been the first chart to include Laysan/Kauo, there is good evidence that he and his crew weren't the first humans to see the island, or the first to record the event.
A US Navy report on "islands, reefs, shoals, etc." encountered by ships, most if not all whaling ships, that sailed out of New England ports was issued in September of 1828 and lists "Laysan's Island," with two precise latitude/longitude locations.(2) This reference, and many others in the report, were taken from a Nantucket newspaper article dated 7 March 1825.(2.5) One is clearly for Lisianski Island, Laysan's neighbor (although roughly 160 miles distant) to the west. The other closely points to Laysan/Kauo. The author of the report, Jeremiah N. Reynolds, was relying mostly on reports from captains and ship's logbooks. His references are extremely brief and leave alot unexplained. He may have been given two coordinates for an island he was told was "Laysan's" by two different sources, so included both under one heading. The sources probably thought they had sighted Lisianski, but only one was right. There is also a separate listing for "Lassion's" Island, with Lisianski's coordinates. The name "Lisianski" never appears in the report. Given the coordinates, "Lassion's" and "Laysan's" very likely were garbled references to Lisianski('s) Island. It is understandable that these apparent versions of the name Lisianski found there way into the report. The island had been recorded as seen over 20 years earlier by a captain of that name. There were few if any American sailors in the early 19th century who would have been familiar enough with eastern European names to be able to easily remember the name "Lisiansky," but some version of it, simplified, was likely known to Pacific navigators, as well as an approximate location. That leaves the second set of coordinates given under "Laysan's" Island unaccounted for. Someone apparently saw what they thought was Lisianki/Lassion's/Laysan's, but was almost certainly Laysan/Kauo. It clearly was Reynolds' report that set the name "Laysan" Island, inadvertently named by a captain or crewman who thought he saw a different island and whose name he misunderstood.
In some instances Reynolds recognized the similarities in coordinates in different reports of sightings, but apparently missed others. The second "Laysan's" coordinates, those that aren't for Lisianski, are similar enough to certainly refer to an island noted by Capt. Briggs and are included in the Reynolds report.(3) While "Capt. Briggs" may seem to be a trifle of information to go on to further his identification, it is possible to narrow the field to one man. Information in Reynolds' report came from "New London, Stonington, Newport, New Bedford, Edgartown, Nantucket, and other places where information might be found of the Pacific ocean and South seas." Only one captain named Briggs is evident who sailed in the right time period in the Pacific Ocean from the Northeastern states. This alone leaves gray area, but let's look more closely at John Briggs of New Bedford. John made two trips to the Pacific Ocean on the ship Wilmington & Liverpool Packet before the Reynolds report. The first was between 1821 and 1823 and the second between 1824 and 1827. On both voyages it is a matter of record that he stopped at one of the larger Hawaiian islands.(4) Although the logbooks for both are not known to still exist, the logbook for the first is excerpted in The New Bedford Mercury(5) and places the ship north of Kure Island in June of 1822 on its way to Japan from Oahu. Kure is at the west end of the Hawai'ian archipelago. This location was given in connection with his sighting of another ship, which was customary in shipping news. It also shows that he had to have passed at least relatively near the other archipelago islands between Kure and Hawai'i, perhaps close-by. Less is known of his second trip aside from his being again in the Hawai'ian Islands. John Briggs was back at sea by the time Reynolds compiled his report (in the summer of 1828), but while in New Bedford and inquiring about whalers in the Pacific Ocean, he could easily have been referred to John's wife Sophia or John A. Parker, the ship's primary owner, either of whom could have had Briggs' log books. Reynolds says he spoke to ship owners as well as captains, and visited their houses. There is still the presumed Laysan/Kauo coordinates published in Nantucket in 1825 to consider. Was this reported by a Nantucket ship? Were all the reports from Nantucket ships? Did this sighting pre-date the one reported by Capt. Briggs?
Capt. Briggs also gave a description if his unnamed island. Reynolds was told "the island is low, with not more than 60 feet in any part from the water; 3 miles long and 2 across it." The description of the island was surely an estimation made from beyond the surrounding reefs. In shape (if not in precise size) and elevation, this is close to the appearance of Laysan. It doesn't describe any of Laysan's neighbors, if one entertains the idea that the coordinates were way off. It is actually a little over one mile wide and two miles long and the highest point determined with 20th century technology was or is 50 feet.
Had Reynolds not asked, it would probably never be known that a Capt. Briggs was at Laysan. Coming across a tiny scrap of land in the middle of the ocean may not have struck the captain as important. Whales were his priority. There apparently had been no attempt to that point in the United States to account for all the sightings of land features in the Pacific and chart them.
A good scholar will be very careful when declaring or citing a discovery. It can't be said which human first saw Laysan Island. If we relied only on written records we would have to ignore all activities of people who didn't normally record their life events, such as the native Hawai'ians in the early 19th century. For the sake of speculation, and as an interesting part of the history of commerce in the Pacific Ocean, there is some evidence to feed a discussion of the first written reference to seeing Laysan. Tom Unger, in his book Max Schlemmer, Hawaii's King of Laysan Island, repeats the idea that Staniukowich "officially discovered" Laysan, but also refers to the "Capt. Briggs" sighting. He cites "Atoll Research Bulletin No. 171" as saying that Capt. Briggs was likely John of Wilmington & Liverpool Packet and was at Laysan before Staniukowitch.(7) "Officially discovered" in this context is obtuse and unsupportable. Staniukowitch was captain of the ship, but there is no proof he was even the first on his ship to see the island. Perhaps he did see it first, but what is provable is only that his social and political position provided the opportunity to map the island and to try to name it. Staniukowitch would not have known about New England whalers previously recording a similar sighting in logbooks and perhaps wouldn't care. The motivations of men in glorifying themselves and their homeland throughout history is another subject, but the days when it alone makes something factual are or should be over. Since neither of the presumed Laysan sightings is given a date, it may never be known which came first. The crew of Wilmington & Liverpool Packet might have seen the island in June 1822 when they passed through the area and noted it in the ship's log, possibly predating the sighting noted in 1825. They may not have seen it until their next trip and would then have been the second crew to record it.
I bring up this subject as a point of discussion and not as a matter of importance. John Briggs was one of my ancestors, but I have no interest in glorifying him. In my biographical research I go where the evidence leads. The history of "Laysan" means very little without the fact that this area was the home to unique animal species (the Laysan Albatross, or "gooney bird" may be the most famous), long before humans were sailing across the Pacific Ocean. Willful interference from human habitation at Laysan decimated the wildlife on the island and caused the extinction of several species, but Theodore Roosevelt had the good sense to legislate protection for the archipelago. With a few exceptions, the islands are restricted to highly-monitored scientific research. The wildlife on Laysan can never be restored to pre-human contact, but it has increased dramatically.
from "Jane's Oceana" site (http://www.janeresture.com/laysan/), taken from a report made in 1923.
2. "Information Collected by the Navy Department Relating to Islands, Reefs, Shoals, Etc., in the Pacific Ocean and South Seas, and Showing the Expediency of an Exploring Expedition in that Ocean and those Seas by the Navy", 29 January 1835, American State Papers: Naval Affairs Vol. 4, pp. 688-700." (obtained at a website). Within the report it says "Captain Briggs discovered an island west and north of Sandwich Islands, in 25 deg. 47 min. north, longitude 172 deg. west. The island is low, with not more than 60 feet in any part from the water; 3 miles long and 2 across it." Laysan is at 25 deg. 42 min. latitude, 171 deg. 44 min. longitude.
2.5. Daily National Journal, citing an article in The Nantucket Inquirer, issue of 7 March 1825.
3. The level of accuracy of any of the coordinates given in Reynolds report can't be determined, but any ship travelling those distances would have to be guided by a dependable navigator and equipment. According to Reynolds, "The whalemen are much advanced in mathematics and practical navigation beyond other navigators: for, on their long voyages out and home, the most intelligent officers assist the younger in their mathematical and nautical studies; and thus schooled, all come home improved in their branches, distinction in them being the direct road to preferment." The coordinates are sometimes not exactly correct for Lisianski or what is supposed to be Laysan, but they are close enough to leave little doubt which island is referred to. Most of the archipelago islands are not near enough to each other that the coordinates for one, even if they are off a bit, can be confused for another. That is certainly the case with Lisianski and Laysan.
4. Crew lists for the ship are available at the National Archives at Waltham, MA, with notes that refer to being in the Sandwich Islands on both trips, specifically Oahu in the Spring of 1822.
5. New Bedford Mercury, 9 January 1824, p. 3.
7. Tom E. Unger, Max Schlemmer, Hawaii's King of Laysan Island (date?), p. 10. That is the most detailed reference to research on the subject in print I have found. I haven't seen the Atoll Research Bulletin.
