Galleon Santiago

I’m interested in information anyone would have regarding the sinking of the galleon Santiago on or around July 1659 en route from Cartagena to Habana. Its 64 cannon were recovered in the Bay of Ascension in the Yucatan peninsula the following year. Its Captain was Martin de la Rinaga.

Marx makes reference to it here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yG...lt&resnum=2&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAQ

"In 1659, [vessels] San Martín and Santiago were sailing near the southern coasts of Puerto Rico. They were heading for Cuba from Colombia’s ports, with silver and jewels. They never made it to Havana. Sea bandits sank them after a ruthless attack on board." Apparently, this is another vessel with the similar name that also sunk in 1659 in the same general area.
Source: http://www.cubanow.net/pages/loader.php?sec=19&t=2&item=6125

Don.........

Thank you Don, I don’t believe in ghosts but somehow two of my Marx books have mysteriously disappeared recently from my desk and I do miss them. When I go stateside I must replace them as they are a valuable source of constant referral. Interesting to see if these are the same Santiago . I’ll let you know once I figure it out as the information I have is that the main mast of the galleon got broken up during a storm on its way to Havana and they ended up in Yucatan. The coincidence of the year and route do make one think though.

It is not very clear where this galleon shipwrecked. According to Cesareo Fernandez Duro, Armada Española he got lost in Honduras. But in a document of the AGi that I found the lost it was in the Cozumel island (INDIFERENTE GENERAL 1675. Madrid, June 19, 1659). According to Walter Cardona happened in Mexico. 
The bundle of the AGI, Contratación  5179 correspond to the declarations of the lost. 
P.S. Marx has many errors in his books. I personally believe much more in the documents of the AGI. 
Cheers.

Thank you Vox Veritas. As a matter of fact you are somehow related to this query of mine as I remember reading some years ago when you wrote in one of your articles, years before your new book came out, in reference to the 1605 Cordoba fleet that you believed one might have wrecked in this same Bay of Ascension, you wrote:

“In 1994 when investigating Francisco Nuñez Melian, character that in 1625 it recovered half million of pesos of the remains of the galleon Santa Margarita, shipwrecked in 1622 with the today it celebrates Nuestra Señora de Atocha in the keys of Florida, I located a document of the 1628 in that which the king authorizes him go to look for to a galleon lost in the bay of the Ascension, Mexico. Nuñez had known about this ship for a called pilot Juan Contreras, neighbor from Merida of Yucatan. In 1995 at the 97 I carried out several trips to Mexico and Central America. In an occasion I came closer to the mentioned bay and I could know for a called local fisherman Pedro that in the external part of the reef that is to the entrance, he had seen several times cannons and an it anchors like to some five fathoms of depth. With the accustomed ability that they have the fishermen to find a place in the means of the sea, it took me exactly above, and it was not very difficult to check with a tube, one chewed and some fins that exactly there about four cannons were, and a little more to the east an it anchors. When asking to the fisherman if he knew of another place with remains of old ships, he told me that in the whole reef that has some two miles long, there was not anything but that could be old”.

I have always believed Veritas that what you perhaps found in your trips to this Bay are the remains of the Santiago not the San Roque as you had stated. What makes me wonder though is that I have a document from 1660 that states that they had recovered the cannons of the Santiago, I have an exact map of where they were found so if they indeed recovered the cannons, whose cannons were the ones you saw in the Bay of Ascension?
You know that I don’t believe anything Zacarias said or did, I spent five years researching the Isla Misteriosa ordeal and I concluded that he was only trying to get out of jail claiming all kinds of lies and contradictions that were based on a catastrophe that must have shocked the whole of Europe and America for the great loss of life and gold. In the 1615-1620 periods everybody knew of the Cordoba fleet disappearance, everybody that spoke Spanish or English and this Flemish scoundrel was no exception. Similar to the effect of the sinking of the Titanic in the few years after the accident, everyone knew about it.  
By the way I have always believed that Bob Marx in dealing with very “valuable” archival documentation that he came across after hours of looking, that people pay much dinero to get their hands on, simply had an “artistic license” to “modify” critical facts that the normal reader need not know. That is only my personal feeling and I have no reason to say this other than most of his information is very accurate and I understood some of his “errors” to be somehow understandable.  

I, too, researched the Isla Misteriosa and Z. story. The only two islands that I could relate to the map were the Swans. About a dozen years ago, I took my boat there and we 'worked' the area for a week--and found nothing more than modern wreckage (and an 'unusual' R and R camp). Coincidentally, Marx briefed me before we embarked; telling me of caves and 'goodies' within those caves. Unfortunately, when we got there, the ceiling of those caves had caved in.
Don.......

I, too, researched the Isla Misteriosa and Z. story. The only two islands that I could relate to the map were the Swans. About a dozen years ago, I took my boat there and we 'worked' the area for a week--and found nothing more than modern wreckage (and an 'unusual' R and R camp). Coincidentally, Marx briefed me before we embarked; telling me of caves and 'goodies' within those caves. Unfortunately, when we got there, the ceiling of those caves had caved in.
Don.......

Possibly you didn't look for in the appropriate place!

Thank you Vox Veritas. As a matter of fact you are somehow related to this query of mine as I remember reading some years ago when you wrote in one of your articles, years before your new book came out, in reference to the 1605 Cordoba fleet that you believed one might have wrecked in this same Bay of Ascension, you wrote:

“In 1994 when investigating Francisco Nuñez Melian, character that in 1625 it recovered half million of pesos of the remains of the galleon Santa Margarita, shipwrecked in 1622 with the today it celebrates Nuestra Señora de Atocha in the keys of Florida, I located a document of the 1628 in that which the king authorizes him go to look for to a galleon lost in the bay of the Ascension, Mexico. Nuñez had known about this ship for a called pilot Juan Contreras, neighbor from Merida of Yucatan. In 1995 at the 97 I carried out several trips to Mexico and Central America. In an occasion I came closer to the mentioned bay and I could know for a called local fisherman Pedro that in the external part of the reef that is to the entrance, he had seen several times cannons and an it anchors like to some five fathoms of depth. With the accustomed ability that they have the fishermen to find a place in the means of the sea, it took me exactly above, and it was not very difficult to check with a tube, one chewed and some fins that exactly there about four cannons were, and a little more to the east an it anchors. When asking to the fisherman if he knew of another place with remains of old ships, he told me that in the whole reef that has some two miles long, there was not anything but that could be old”.

I have always believed Veritas that what you perhaps found in your trips to this Bay are the remains of the Santiago not the San Roque as you had stated. What makes me wonder though is that I have a document from 1660 that states that they had recovered the cannons of the Santiago, I have an exact map of where they were found so if they indeed recovered the cannons, whose cannons were the ones you saw in the Bay of Ascension?
You know that I don’t believe anything Zacarias said or did, I spent five years researching the Isla Misteriosa ordeal and I concluded that he was only trying to get out of jail claiming all kinds of lies and contradictions that were based on a catastrophe that must have shocked the whole of Europe and America for the great loss of life and gold. In the 1615-1620 periods everybody knew of the Cordoba fleet disappearance, everybody that spoke Spanish or English and this Flemish scoundrel was no exception. Similar to the effect of the sinking of the Titanic in the few years after the accident, everyone knew about it.  
By the way I have always believed that Bob Marx in dealing with very “valuable” archival documentation that he came across after hours of looking, that people pay much dinero to get their hands on, simply had an “artistic license” to “modify” critical facts that the normal reader need not know. That is only my personal feeling and I have no reason to say this other than most of his information is very accurate and I understood some of his “errors” to be somehow understandable.  

I always insist. primary source of information. Then it is when I begin to believe. But I continue investigating and only at the end I emit a view. Zacarias was free (he didn't have accusations) around 1620 but it signed an agreement with Diego Mercado to go to the island. Why? An Italian archaeologist found remains of an old shipwreck in the island. Only the time and meticulous prospectings will say if Zacarias lied or he said the truth. 
About the primary source of Marx's publications, is a lot to discuss. In many occasions I have verified, for several clients, informations coming from Bob Marx. No comments!!

I agree with you Veritas 100% that the primary source is the more reliable and credible documentary source and that one should always consult this initially. Should contradictory information appear of a secondary nature it needs to be looked in that light. Point well made.

I don’t want to hijack this thread to the San Roque subject which we have discussed elsewhere before with Veritas and Don but I must say that if Don, a truly accomplished and veteran explorer, didn’t find any trace or clues in his very exhaustive search, I would personally believe that nothing is there of what Zacarias said. There is a statement made by Zacarias at the end of one of his travels in which he retracts himself of all his previous statements and admits them as false. Enough said on this subject.

What does puzzle me Veritas, in your expert opinion, is if you believe from your detailed and excellent research that one of the Cordoba galleons ended up in Misteriosa Island (Swan), whose cannon do you think you found in Bay of Ascension? Just curious.

I'll have to agree with Claudio its in Conzumel.....The "Santiago" was the first wreck I did research on...Walter Cardona send me 4 pages from the archives.

Good Luck!!!

Chagy...

the best way to have wrecks for yourself * is to send folks out on wild goose chases *----  by freely revelling info on wrecks that you have already found and already harvested / tied up in books --then mixing in a few wrecks that are known but unhuntible for various reasons * then put out tips and info on yet to be found wrecks * -- with info on the "big fish" projects off a bit --you can then hunt them freely while everyone esle is chasing "geese".

think if you had solid leads to several dozen multi millon dollar wrecks --you would just hand it over to "strangers" for a few bucks in book royalitys?

marx books are great and worth buying just for the general info they contain but its info as far as area lost at is often very general in nature -- ie "lost on the coast of florida"  this frankly is of of little help --- only a few are more exact like the " at 30 degrees on the florida coast a spanish nao was lost while going from havana to spain" in 1711". --now that is a lead.

I agree with you Veritas 100% that the primary source is the more reliable and credible documentary source and that one should always consult this initially. Should contradictory information appear of a secondary nature it needs to be looked in that light. Point well made.

I don’t want to hijack this thread to the San Roque subject which we have discussed elsewhere before with Veritas and Don but I must say that if Don, a truly accomplished and veteran explorer, didn’t find any trace or clues in his very exhaustive search, I would personally believe that nothing is there of what Zacarias said. There is a statement made by Zacarias at the end of one of his travels in which he retracts himself of all his previous statements and admits them as false. Enough said on this subject.

What does puzzle me Veritas, in your expert opinion, is if you believe from your detailed and excellent research that one of the Cordoba galleons ended up in Misteriosa Island (Swan), whose cannon do you think you found in Bay of Ascension? Just curious.

Hi Panfi,
The place of the shipwreck of the Santiago is very confused. It truly requires an intensive research. 
It was a galleon of the armada of Honduras and gave escort to the fleet of Tierra Firme. I think that he could have 800 or 1000 tons. 
I have investigated the matter of the bay Asension and Núñez Melian, but it is not very clear. Neither the own Spaniards of the time had evident knowledge of the matter.

I tend to disagree with you here Vox Veritas, I believe I know where one Santiago wrecked, at least I have a map that depicts the exact location and it is in the Bay of Ascension not in Cozumel. Bear in mind that there were many Santiago’s sailing the seas at the same time so we have to be chronologically very precise so as not to confuse things. Perhaps another Santiago did wreck in Cozumel but I seriously doubt it was in the same year of 1659.  As Don MacKay pointed out, Marx does mention a Santiago that wrecked in Ascension Bay in 1647; I believe that these two might be the same with just a mistake made on the year, too many coincidences for these to be two different wrecks. Then again Marx does relate the same 1659 Santiago, en route from Cartagena to Havana that wrecked “on the east side of Cozumel”. Vox Veritas and Chagy both believe that it wrecked on Cozumel also so that leaves two possibilities that I can think of as likely scenarios: First scenario: one Santiago wrecks in 1659 on Cozumel island and one Santiago wrecks in the Bay of Ascension in 1647, the latter being the one that appears in the map I came across. Second scenario: Marx made a mistake, there was only one Santiago wrecked in Yucatan, it first wrecked in Cozumel then drifted and ended up in the Bay of Ascension. I’m more inclined towards the first

I tend to disagree with you here Vox Veritas, I believe I know where one Santiago wrecked, at least I have a map that depicts the exact location and it is in the Bay of Ascension not in Cozumel. Bear in mind that there were many Santiago’s sailing the seas at the same time so we have to be chronologically very precise so as not to confuse things. Perhaps another Santiago did wreck in Cozumel but I seriously doubt it was in the same year of 1659.  As Don MacKay pointed out, Marx does mention a Santiago that wrecked in Ascension Bay in 1647; I believe that these two might be the same with just a mistake made on the year, too many coincidences for these to be two different wrecks. Then again Marx does relate the same 1659 Santiago, en route from Cartagena to Havana that wrecked “on the east side of Cozumel”. Vox Veritas and Chagy both believe that it wrecked on Cozumel also so that leaves two possibilities that I can think of as likely scenarios: First scenario: one Santiago wrecks in 1659 on Cozumel island and one Santiago wrecks in the Bay of Ascension in 1647, the latter being the one that appears in the map I came across. Second scenario: Marx made a mistake, there was only one Santiago wrecked in Yucatan, it first wrecked in Cozumel then drifted and ended up in the Bay of Ascension. I’m more inclined towards the first

Hi Panfilo,  
this morning I could read in the AGI the several declarations of some survivors of the galleon Santiago, aground the night of December 27, 1658. These are the main data of nautical character.  
- The pilots thought to have beached in the island of Little Cayman, but some people that knew this island they said not to be certain.  
- Martin de Larrinaga, captain of the galleon, went aboard in a boat with several sailors to look for earth. Between 7 and 9 hours later, navigating to the west, they found a big island that they planned to be Grand Cayman.  
- They were 9 days in this island and then they tried to return to the small island where the Santiago got lost.  
- They left this island without being able to reach the small island, and after having navigated between 24 and 30 hours direction NE-N reached Cozumel. The Santiago got lost some 26 /30 leagues from Cozumel in some reefs.  
  
For all this information it is deduced that they cannot have been lost in the Asension bay, because it is at 14 leagues from Cozumel and  there is not any small and big island at a distance of 7/9 hours. Also, from this bay there are not 24/30 hours of sailing direction NE-N with Cozumel.  
  
Anyway, interesting shipwreck. I will continue investigating to publish the history in my next book.

I forgot it. A rich galleon of the Santiago's same fleet also shipwrecked on the river Lagartos (Yucatan) year 1658.

Rio Lagartos is not a river but a town on the north part of the peninsula which is one of the reasons that I believe that this "Santiago" galleon is not the one depicted on the map of the Bay of Ascension because of the great distance between the two places:

  “...el piloto poco perito en la costa de Yucatán lo hizo embarrancar…el Capitán se metió en un bote y recalo en el puerto de Pole y de allí a Cozumel…y salieron tres balandras con bastimentos y gente de socorro al mando del mismo Capitán La Rinaga… se dispuso que de Río Lagartos saliesen canoas cargadas de maíz.”

Where is the Bay of Ascension?

Sorry Sphillips, I couldn't find a map with both Rio Lagartos and the Bay of Ascension together so here is one with the Bay. Though the map does not state it the Bay of Ascension is the one aligned with Roo in Quintana Roo in the area with the darker coloring. The bay North of this is Espiritu Santo.

Rio Largitos is over on the Gulf of Mexico side (not really a river).  Google link for a map http://www.maplandia.com/mexico/yucatan/rio-lagartos/rio-lagartos/
Long way from the Bay of Ascenision or Cozumel.  Off hand I would say the closest Spainish base to Rio Largitos would have been Campeche

Rio Largitos is over on the Gulf of Mexico side (not really a river).  Google link for a map http://www.maplandia.com/mexico/yucatan/rio-lagartos/rio-lagartos/
Long way from the Bay of Ascenision or Cozumel.  Off hand I would say the closest Spainish base to Rio Largitos would have been Campeche

Gus,
had two galleons shipwrecked in 1658: one the Santiago and another in the area of Rio Lagartos and this came very rich. Both belonged to the fleet of Tierra Firme.

Estimado Panfilo,

I believe we should star off by making sure we are all talking about the same “Santiago” to avoid more confusion. Are you talking about one of the galleons of Juan Echeverri Marques de Villarubio…..If so…I believe I know why there is so much confusion with the location of the wreck(s)…See Echeverri lost 4 vessels on his way from Cartagena to Habana….One in Honduras and 2 in the coast of Yucatan and one in Conzumel…..I have not been able to find the pages from the AGI that Walter Cardona send me,  I’m sure they have to be in a box that is lost in my garage....LOL... If my memory serves me right I want to say that the “Santiago” wrecked in Conzumel but I can be wrong. I’m almost 100% sure  that one of the primary sources such as Fernandez Duro mixed up the story and from there on so did everyone else. See F. Duro  has it listed as 1660 El navio “Santiago” de la armada de Juan Echeverri, naufrago cerca de la  costa de Honduras. Los naufragos estubieron en una isla desierta 53 dias, construyeron una embarcacion y llegaron al continente 276 hombres.

Then  Marx  has it listed 3 times in the same book, one lost in Honduras in1660 as the “Santiago” a galleon of Juan Echeverri, the survivors reached a small island and stayed there for 53 days and they build a small vessel from the timbers of the wreck. (F. Duro is one of Marx sources for his book)  then he has it listed in Mexico in 1647 in Sonda de Campeche near Bahia de Ascencion and again same story as F. Duro that the survivors build a vessel and 276 man reached the mainland. Then he has it listed again in Mexico in 1659 as a galleon of the Marques de Villarubio ( which was Juan Echeverri) on the east side of Conzumel and that the survivors were rescued 2 month later (close to 53 days) and that other 3 vessels wreck lost in the coast of Yucatan.

Many other sources have the event listed as happening in 1658, 1659 and 1660….Echeverri left Cadiz in 1658 and returned in 1660 or 1661 probably that’s why the big confusion of the year of the wreck

Man I wish I could find those 4 pages from the AGI to share them with you> I’m almost sure that I have the same information that Claudio has…

Panfilo out of curiosity the information you have is a map that shows the “Santiago” wreck in Yucatan or do you have a testimony of the Captain or of one of the survivors?
It seem that all the sites claim to have el “Santiago” there is a map in the Library of Congress that shows a 1659 wreck St. Yago in the coast of Honduras.

Bottom line is that if in fact there were 276 survivors I’m sure there has to be a report of an Oidor some were with all the testimonies…maybe in Guatemala or Mexico.

I’ll see what else I can find in the subject….

All the best,

Chagy…….  

Estimado Panfilo,

I believe we should star off by making sure we are all talking about the same “Santiago” to avoid more confusion. Are you talking about one of the galleons of Juan Echeverri Marques de Villarubio…..If so…I believe I know why there is so much confusion with the location of the wreck(s)…See Echeverri lost 4 vessels on his way from Cartagena to Habana….One in Honduras and 2 in the coast of Yucatan and one in Conzumel…..I have not been able to find the pages from the AGI that Walter Cardona send me,  I’m sure they have to be in a box that is lost in my garage....LOL... If my memory serves me right I want to say that the “Santiago” wrecked in Conzumel but I can be wrong. I’m almost 100% sure  that one of the primary sources such as Fernandez Duro mixed up the story and from there on so did everyone else. See F. Duro  has it listed as 1660 El navio “Santiago” de la armada de Juan Echeverri, naufrago cerca de la  costa de Honduras. Los naufragos estubieron en una isla desierta 53 dias, construyeron una embarcacion y llegaron al continente 276 hombres.

Then  Marx  has it listed 3 times in the same book, one lost in Honduras in1660 as the “Santiago” a galleon of Juan Echeverri, the survivors reached a small island and stayed there for 53 days and they build a small vessel from the timbers of the wreck. (F. Duro is one of Marx sources for his book)  then he has it listed in Mexico in 1647 in Sonda de Campeche near Bahia de Ascencion and again same story as F. Duro that the survivors build a vessel and 276 man reached the mainland. Then he has it listed again in Mexico in 1659 as a galleon of the Marques de Villarubio ( which was Juan Echeverri) on the east side of Conzumel and that the survivors were rescued 2 month later (close to 53 days) and that other 3 vessels wreck lost in the coast of Yucatan.

Many other sources have the event listed as happening in 1658, 1659 and 1660….Echeverri left Cadiz in 1658 and returned in 1660 or 1661 probably that’s why the big confusion of the year of the wreck

Man I wish I could find those 4 pages from the AGI to share them with you> I’m almost sure that I have the same information that Claudio has…

Panfilo out of curiosity the information you have is a map that shows the “Santiago” wreck in Yucatan or do you have a testimony of the Captain or of one of the survivors?
It seem that all the sites claim to have el “Santiago” there is a map in the Library of Congress that shows a 1659 wreck St. Yago in the coast of Honduras.

Bottom line is that if in fact there were 276 survivors I’m sure there has to be a report of an Oidor some were with all the testimonies…maybe in Guatemala or Mexico.

I’ll see what else I can find in the subject….

All the best,

Chagy…….  

Chagy, indeed, the same Spaniards of the colonial administration, depending on the place where the news came, they mention the same Santiago like lost in Honduras, Cozumel and in other several places, but in my opinion, read the declaration of the captain of the ship, I think that it beached in Lighthouse Reef. Cheers VV

Thank you Chagy, you definitely know your “Santiagos”! I came across a map that depicts the location one Santiago galleon wrecked in the Bay of Ascension. Two things popped into my mind, one was that perhaps that wreck was the one I had read Vox Veritas had found thinking it was one of the Cordoba fleet, and then the curiosity set in, which of the Santiagos was this one. I never believed that one of the Cordoba ships made it to land, the news would of made headlines in their time, it was similar in impact as the Titanic had in our grandfathers generation, huge. There would have been several survivors and there is no record of this. Thanks again

Archivo General de la Nación (Mexico) Vol.6 exp. 54, f. 159

Julio 22 de 1659

Cozumel informa al Virrey lo acaecido al navio Santiago, que navegando en ruta de Cartagena a la Habana, naufrago y se perdio en la isla de Cozumel.


Archivo General de la Nación (Mexico)

Junio 5 de 1660

Yucatan. Se comunica al Virrey lo que se escribio al Gobernador de Yucatan, acerca de la artilleria que se habria de sacar del galeon “Santiago” que naufrago en aquellas costas. Vol. 6. exp. 147, fs. 357-358

If you go here and zoom on the map you will be able to see that Bahia Ascencion is just south of isla de Cozumel.

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/ser...The-coast-of-Yucatan-from-Campeche-

The vessel could have hit the reef s in between the 2 locations the deck with guns could have ended in Bahia Ascencion and the survivors could have drifted to isla de Cozumel. Specially if the winds were blowing clock wise

Yes, Chagy, my quotes above are from the AGN in Mexico, same source as yours:
 “...el piloto poco perito en la costa de Yucatán lo hizo embarrancar…el Capitán se metió en un bote y recalo en el puerto de Pole y de allí a Cozumel…y salieron tres balandras con bastimentos y gente de socorro al mando del mismo Capitán La Rinaga… se dispuso que de Río Lagartos saliesen canoas cargadas de maíz.”

Vox Veritas, what else do you know of the Rio Lagartos wreck, was it ever recovered at the time?

Yes, Chagy, my quotes above are from the AGN in Mexico, same source as yours:
 “...el piloto poco perito en la costa de Yucatán lo hizo embarrancar…el Capitán se metió en un bote y recalo en el puerto de Pole y de allí a Cozumel…y salieron tres balandras con bastimentos y gente de socorro al mando del mismo Capitán La Rinaga… se dispuso que de Río Lagartos saliesen canoas cargadas de maíz.”

Vox Veritas, what else do you know of the Rio Lagartos wreck, was it ever recovered at the time?

As I said, I have read Martin Larriaga's declaration, captain of the Santiago (AGI, Mexico, bundle # 38, f. 12). I differ totally about Asension bay. The pilots thought to have been lost in Little Cayman. Later on, Larriaga embarked in a boat and it navigated to the west during 6/7 hours (can have traveled 17/20 miles) and they arrived in a big island, and they planned to be Grand Cayman. In Asension bay there are not between a possible small island and another big to the west 17/20 miles. Another witness affirms that between the small island and the big one they took arriving 8/10 hours (between 21 and 30 miles). for this reason cannot be Asension bay. 
Panfilo, I didn't investigate the shipwreck of Rio Lagartos, but I will make it, since I want to publish these two shipwrecks in my next book.

Estimado Panfilo,

Please correct me if I’m wrong or maybe I missed something but I don’t see any mention of a wreck in Rio Lagartos…All it says is that canoes were dispatched from Rio Lagarto with corn…..Also if you look closely at the map I posted on my prior post you will see that in fact Rio Lagartos is a river and provably the town in the mouth of the river got named after the river……Also if you look closely on the map right under Bahia Ascencion it says; “Galleon Santiago lost here” Is this the same map you have? I bet that’s where they found the guns but it’s not the actual place where the hull was lost. The hull most be further East….

Yes, Chagy, my quotes above are from the AGN in Mexico, same source as yours:

All sumarized, here, online:

http://books.google.pt/books?id=l0L...tcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Marx makes reference to it here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yG...lt&resnum=2&ved=0CA4Q6AEwAQ

"In 1659, [vessels] San Martín and Santiago were sailing near the southern coasts of Puerto Rico. They were heading for Cuba from Colombia’s ports, with silver and jewels. They never made it to Havana. Sea bandits sank them after a ruthless attack on board." Apparently, this is another vessel with the similar name that also sunk in 1659 in the same general area.
Source: http://www.cubanow.net/pages/loader.php?sec=19&t=2&item=6125

Don.........

Mac, I worked for CARISUB and RAMAL investigating during almost three years shipwrecks in waters of Cuba. The Concepción and the Magdalena, erroneously shipwrecked in 1556 in San Anton Cape (Cuba) they never shipwrecked, because they arrived at the Azores islands and they followed trip to Seville.  In several documents that I found, among them. AGI, Contratacion bundle #3281-A and AGI Contratacion bundle #2928, it is demonstrated this way. Once again, the effect "parrot" it continued in the several publications (Fernandez Duro, Marx, Pickford, Stenuit, etc.), but the truth is that many of these informations are not truthful. It is necessary to take care of the primary source.
Cheers VV

There is not absolute security that one of the missing galleons in 1605 is in Asension bay. Juan Contreras's 1627 news mentions the possibility, but it is that, a not based possibility. According to this person, the galleon it was in San Martin's bank . 
Also, it is well-known that the Spaniards have used the name Santiago in a repetitive way in connection with names of ships, as Rosarios, Concepciones, etc.

VV:
Thanks for the clarification.
Don........

Thank you Chagy, Don, VV and Alexandre for your comments, sorry I took so long to respond. I have been traveling in Belize on an unrelated matter and managed to slip away to the Bay just to get a better picture of the area and speak with some of the fisherman. We all know that Mexico is totally off-limits in so far as permits are concerned but my interest has been only to discard the possibility that one of the Cordoba fleet galleons would be the one or ones lying in those waters. Some cannons have been pulled up and I think it safe to say that they are not from the San Roque, Santo Domingo, Begoña or the San Ambrosio.  This possibility was driving me crazy and the idea is not too far fetched, it made much sense if you study the winds and currents, one of these ships without sails could have drifted to this bay.
                 Chagy, no my map is a Spanish one not the British one you posted which curiously enough has the two bays confused, Espiritu Santo north, Ascension south since it’s the other way around.
                 Vox Veritas, just out of curiosity where is the San Martin bank (bajo?) as I have several modern and antique maps of this area and there is no mention of this bank anywhere.
                 Lastly, to put the Santiago subject to rest, I don’t think that the ones we have looked into here sunk in the Bay of Ascension, it makes no sense as it would be too far south of where help was sent out to rescue the survivors, Chagy’s and VV theories make more sense. Thanks all for the feedback and comments

smart of you to weed out wiether or not they were lost in mexican waters BEFORE going further along with your exploration .  

It's the other way around Ivan, I have been involved and researching the Cordoba fleet for 16 years and have a very good idea where two are located; I filed a claim (denuncia) on one 11 years ago and because there is no legislation in Colombia nothing can be done except wait for this to happen. Vox Veritas had me worried for a while with his Mexican connection but I now believe that if one of them drifted in that direction first thing for sure is that there were no survivors and secondly that it is not in the Bay of Ascension much less in the Swan islands.   

I mean before going any further from this point , since mexican waters are "no go" if the ship went down there --basically its a waste of time and effort if they are in mexican claimed waters.--so best to rule it out if in doubt before procedding farther.

It's the other way around Ivan, I have been involved and researching the Cordoba fleet for 16 years and have a very good idea where two are located; I filed a claim (denuncia) on one 11 years ago and because there is no legislation in Colombia nothing can be done except wait for this to happen. Vox Veritas had me worried for a while with his Mexican connection but I now believe that if one of them drifted in that direction first thing for sure is that there were no survivors and secondly that it is not in the Bay of Ascension much less in the Swan islands.   

I spoke to a diver who claims he found two of them in Colombian waters...some other day I will share the story...

Panfi,
seemingly had a survivor in the fleet of 1605: the captain Francisco Calderón, in a brief of 1629 affirms to be had lost with all his money when came in one of the galleons  of Luis Fernandez de Cordoba's and only he survived in a boat, reaching the island of Cuba.   
The original documents don't lie. 

Claudi:
            Documents don't lie, people do. Sometimes there are contradictory accounts in contemporary documents, you know this plus not everything that is in an antique document is necessarily true just because you found it in an archive in Sevilla. One has to analyze several independent reports and I had come across this information sometime ago but there are many other documents that range from 1605/06/08/12 that state that there were no survivors aboard the four missing ships. One of which is from the same Governor of Cuba, Pedro de Valdes, which I would assume you have in your documents stating that there were no survivors. In particular a document from 1612 states that there were no survivors so I would put in doubt the veracity of what that document states. You perhaps know that there were several search expeditions after the event, the first by the fragata San Diego of Sebastian Fernandez Pacheco and the San Simon led by Rafael Perez. There was a later expedition that left Cartagena in 1607 and there is no mention of any survivors in any of these documents. The most contradictory fact is that the San Cristobal which survived the storm and ended up in Cartagena finally returned at the end of December 1606 with the Armada de la Guardia of General Jeronimo de Portugal, don't you think they would have mentioned this very critical information that there was a survivor that could finally tell where the galleons sunk? That never happened... because there were no survivors.   

Let me ask you guys a question. A friend of mine found a chart that shows the Santo Domingo wrecked off Memory Rock in the Bahamas. He went there (with a permit) and found artifacts dated to 1605. He claims the Spainards fabricated the story of the 1605 fleet sinking off Seranillas to keep the pirates away. Does this make any sense?

Later in that century, the British were salvaging a Spanish galleon at Seranilla. If not one of the 1605 then what would it have been?
Don....

I think Salvor that anything is possible though unlikely at best. I remember reading about your friends Bahamas 1605 wreck and it made me think that this was very strange though probable because it meant that after the storm the Santo Domingo (as they stated) would have had to bypass and avoid Cuba and must have been on its way to Spain in order to be in the channel. Unlikely after loosing the masts or sails or both with much gold onboard. What perhaps could have happened is that one of the ships that recovered part of the wreck Don mentions like the Drake or two others that I know about that went to Jamaica, traded the loot and this ship sank off Memory Rock, just a thought, a theory.

Claudi:
            Documents don't lie, people do. Sometimes there are contradictory accounts in contemporary documents, you know this plus not everything that is in an antique document is necessarily true just because you found it in an archive in Sevilla. One has to analyze several independent reports and I had come across this information sometime ago but there are many other documents that range from 1605/06/08/12 that state that there were no survivors aboard the four missing ships. One of which is from the same Governor of Cuba, Pedro de Valdes, which I would assume you have in your documents stating that there were no survivors. In particular a document from 1612 states that there were no survivors so I would put in doubt the veracity of what that document states. You perhaps know that there were several search expeditions after the event, the first by the fragata San Diego of Sebastian Fernandez Pacheco and the San Simon led by Rafael Perez. There was a later expedition that left Cartagena in 1607 and there is no mention of any survivors in any of these documents. The most contradictory fact is that the San Cristobal which survived the storm and ended up in Cartagena finally returned at the end of December 1606 with the Armada de la Guardia of General Jeronimo de Portugal, don't you think they would have mentioned this very critical information that there was a survivor that could finally tell where the galleons sunk? That never happened... because there were no survivors.   

Hi Panfi, 
certainly, this it is the research method. It is necessary to analyze the information and to compare it with another that can cross. About the captain Calderón, is strange what says, but on the other hand there are not reasons so that he lies, except to justify that it lost his fortune and in 1626 it claims a grace to the king. 
I like your analytic spirit. Please, let me have your e-mail. Cheers VV

And we know the 'Drake' was dispatched to Seranilla to protect British interests from the French; while the British were salvaging a Spanish galleon. Yet, has the French record ever been checked to see what they may have discovered or salvaged? Personally, I've read nothing on that point.
Don..

If one likes the study of shipwrecks and this is not for everybody, one needs to have primarily a well developed deductive mind as you are foremost a nautical detective, looking for clues and analyzing the evidence to find out what actually happened, when and how. You are a renowned “naufrologo” by profession and have studied hundreds of cases to know that the obvious sometimes is not the truth and that people have many reasons to lie to the authorities. More so if there is a monetary reward involved, people tend to let the imagination flow and change things a bit or a lot. Remember Zacarias… he is number one in my personal list of liars, a Guinness record in “advanced imaginary accounts” Captain Calderon could have indeed been aboard one of the four surviving galleons and figured that 20 years later nobody could contradict him and stated that he had lost all his fortune there. “Probable cause” is what they call this in detective shows, a reason for lying, he was claiming he lost all his fortune but he alone survived. Possible but very unlikely when compared to many other contemporary reports. I’m not saying that this account is not true, just that its very unlikely and does not fit the other accounts, interesting to see if there are other facts in his account to support his claim, what happened, where did it sink but more important of all how did he manage to get a small boat into the water in the middle of a furious hurricane alone?

   Yes Don, the French connection is very interesting indeed...a novel.