Galleon Santiago

Marx makes reference to it here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yG...ook_result&ct=result&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, ContrataciĂłn 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.......
 

Mackaydon said:
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.......
Click to expand...

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

Panfilo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Panfilo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 

Panfilo said:
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
Click to expand...

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.”
 

Attachments

  • Rio Lagartos.gif
    Rio Lagartos.gif
    42.8 KB · Views: 931
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.
 

Attachments

  • yucatan-peninsula-map.gif
    yucatan-peninsula-map.gif
    42.2 KB · Views: 1,050
gus said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

need help to find dealers for wreck artifacts

⬅️ Previous Thread

Civil War wrecks

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
We Dig Metal Detectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top