Hernández de Córdoba expedition

The Hernández de Córdoba expedition was a 1517 Spanish maritime expedition to the Yucatán Peninsula led by Francisco Hernández de Córdoba. The expedition ended in disaster after battling the Mayan city-state of Chakán Putum, resulting in half the Spaniards being killed, and the other half being wounded. The expedition nonetheless brought back exciting news of vast lands inhabited by a rich and civilized people, namely, the Maya civilization. The expedition is popularly credited as the first non-Amerindian contact with the Maya, and first non-Amerindian discovery of the Peninsula, though both these achievements are disputed in scholarly literature. It is deemed the opening campaign of the Spanish conquest of the Maya, and one of the precursor expeditions which led to the Spanish invasion of the Aztec Empire.^{[n 1]}

Hernández de Córdoba expedition
Part of Spanish colonization of the Americas
The Mayans of Chakán Putum attack the retreating Spaniards
Date March 1, 1517 - April 30, 1517 Location West coast of Yucatán Peninsula Result Chakán Putum victory
Belligerents
Chakán Putum	Spain
Commanders and leaders
Moch Couoh	Francisco Hernández de Córdoba †
Strength
Unknown	110
Casualties and losses
Unknown	55 killed 52 wounded 2 captured and sacrificed

Hernández de Córdoba expedition

Sponsor	Francisco Hernández de Córdoba, Cristóbal Morante, Lope Ochoa de Caicedo, Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar
Start	Havana / accepted; other Cuban port possible 8 February 1517 (1517-02-08) / accepted; other Feb date possible
End	Cuba April 1517 (1517-04)
Goal	To capture Amerindian slaves in Bay or Lucayan islands / probable To discover new lands / possible
Ships	2 caravels, 1 brigantine
Achievements	First non-Amerindian contact with Maya civilisation / disputed First non-Amerindian discovery of Yucatán Peninsula / disputed
Route
Possible route of the Hernández de Córdoba expedition / 2017 map / via Commons

Prelude

By the mid-1510s, Spanish settlements in the New World dotted only a few of the Antilles and some mainland coast in the southern Caribbean.^[1] The generally-deprived conquistadors had yet to find that which had been promised them since the earliest Columbian voyages, namely, western maritime passage to the East Indies, Amerindians to force into encomienda or enslavement, and above all, copious amounts of gold.^[2] The latter had proved dear and scarce, and the people they enslaved were being decimated not only by their captors' cruelty, but also European diseases such as smallpox.^[1]

In 1516, three wealthy Cuban settlers, Francisco Hernández de Córdoba, Cristóbal Morante, and Lope Ochoa de Caicedo, got together to undertake an expedition to the Lucayan archipelago^[3] for the purpose of capturing and enslaving more people. Each man reportedly contributed between 1,500 and 2,000 castellanos for the undertaking, with Diego Velázquez de Cuéllar further contributing a brig and authorisation.^[3] With Hernández de Córdoba named captain, the organisers promptly enlisted Bernardino Íñiguez as veedor, Alonso González as chaplain, a certain Morales as notary, and Antón de Alaminos, Camacho de Triana, and Juan Álvarez as pilots, and two ships, along with the necessary Spanish sailors and soldiers, native Cuban servants, and provisions.^[4]

Expedition

Departure

There are, curiously, few historical sources which precisely date the fleet's departure from Cuba. Though a majority of sources date the departure to 1517, only Bartolomé de las Casas and Bernal Díaz del Castillo date it to February 1517, and only the latter fixes a day, giving 8 February as the fleet's departure date from Havana.^[5] Following Castillo, the fleet hugged the Cuban coastline for twelve days, up to Cape San Antón, from where they put out to sea on 20–21 February.^[5] At this point, historical sources differ greatly.^[5] Some sources state the fleet's route was fixed, while some claim it was not.^[6] Still some in the former group further assert a storm was encountered which blew the ships off course, or claim strong currents were encountered which similarly took them off course, while others state the ships were intentionally steered off course upon a change of plans.^[6] Furthermore, the time it took to cross the Yucatán Channel is variously given as four, six, 21, or 40 days.^[6] Castillo, the only chronicler to give precise dates, claims a treacherous crossing of 21 days, implying a 13–14 March arrival in the Yucatán Peninsula.^[7] Unfortunately, Castillo also gives a precise date, 4 March, as the day when a flotilla of five Maya canoes from Cape Catoche approached the fleet, thereby implying at least a 3–4 March arrival at the Peninsula.^[7] Given such uncertainty, the historian Fernando Tola de Habich favours an arrival 'in the first days of March 1517.'^[7]

Northern prong

As with departure details, there is likewise much disagreement among historical sources regarding the fleet's exact point of arrival in the Peninsula.^[7] Tola de Habich favours an approach to some northerly cape on the mainland, rejecting as most improbable accounts of (i) an arrival to some northeasterly island, (ii) to Eccampi, (iii) to the province of Yucatán, and (iv) a forthwith coasting to Campeche.^[8] The scholar thus proffers Cape Catoche, Punta de Yucatán, and Punta Mujeres as the fleet's possible points of arrival, with the last of these deemed likeliest.^[9] Furthermore, while it is certain that, shortly upon first approaching the Peninsula, the ships disembarked at Cape Catoche, and thereafter coasted down to Campeche, exactly what occurred between first arrival and Campeche is, again, uncertain.^[10] Tola de Habich suggests as likely the crew's disembarking at Punta Mujeres, there coming upon 'a small salt-harvesting town, perhaps abandoned, where they found a small Maya temple with golden figurines of goddesses; from here they surely espied a larger town at some nearby headland, which prompted the fleet towards it: this was the town called Cairo by Peter Martyr, an appellation repeated by Castillo in his chronicle, adding the adjective Great.'^[11] The historian situates Great Cairo in Cape Catoche, describing the momentous encounter between civilisations as follows.^[11]

It [Great Cairo] was also a small salt-harvesting town with some thatched, limestone houses, a temple, a minuscule pyramid, and a few clothed men, women, and children, who would have been flabbergasted at the coastal approach of strange ships from which disembarked a people so foreign in appearance, clothing, and language. It was an encounter worthy of astonishment for the Spaniards [too] because of the new things they now discovered of the New World, having prior known only of the simple and rustic life of the inhabitants of the Antilles and of the Caribbean coast of [non-Mesoamerican Central and] South America.

— F Tola de Habich in Yucatán.^[11]

Accounts of this encounter are quite varied; nevertheless, a few common threads emerge, such as an encounter with local fishermen, descriptions of residents, golden ornaments, masonry buildings, temples, pyramids, towns, and 'Spanish awe at what they saw.'^[12] Particularly notable is the anecdote regarding the name Yucatán, purportedly uttered by locals to mean 'I do not understand you' upon the Spaniards' asking them what they called their land.^{[13][n 2]} Tola de Habich favours an alternative theory though, first reported by Castillo, which ascribed the name to one local christened Melchor.^[14] Melchor was one of two local fishermen from Catoche pressed by the crew for service, the other being Julián (so named by the Spanish).^{[15][n 3]} Similarly notable is the Spaniards' reported awe or terror upon reaching the Catoche town, their task suddenly looming large and foreboding compared to what they had expected.^[16] At this point, there was reportedly talk of returning to Cuba to prepare a stronger fleet, but 'their curiosity got the better of them, as well as their hope of finding more gold and, undoubtedly, the sense that they had nothing to lose.'^[17] And so, from Catoche, the fleet coasted southwards, encountering no resistance, and possibly no other coastal towns either.^[18]

Western prong

Idoles de Campêche et de Iucatan / 1723 etching by B Picart / via BnF

The cruise from Catoche to Campeche took 15 days per Castillo, or 110 Spanish nautical leagues per Martyr, with all sources agreeing the fleet arrived in Campeche on St Lazarus's feast day.^[19] The welcome agreement ends here though, as details of the Spaniards' reception differ among sources.^[20] Tola de Habich deems a cordial, even admiring, welcome likely, with residents and the batab coming up to shore to witness the fleet's entry, and the Spanish seizing the moment with a grand gun salute.^[20] At this point, the captain and either a small number or all his men disembarked, leaving at least all sailors manning the ships (as was custom).^{[20][n 4]} The Spanish found in Campeche a large town of, reportedly, close to 3,000 houses, presumably of limestone, in addition to at least one temple and some shrines, and perhaps a small pyramid.^[20] Accounts of their stay in Campeche are varied; though two notable events are mostly agreed upon – a banquet, and a visit to the temple.^[21] Sources describe at least five different menus for the welcome banquet afforded to the Spaniards, though all accounts suggest a great feast of many courses, heavy on fowl, game, maize, and seasonal fruits, though curiously lacking fish, greens, and beverages.^{[21][n 5]} Having dined and rested to their hearts' content, the men were reportedly then invited to visit Campeche's most important site – its temple.^[22] Tola de Habich quotes las Casas and others 'to get a clear idea of what they [Córdoba and company] saw and what it meant to them.'^[23]

[T]hey saw a tower or tower-like structure, squared, made of stone and whitewashed, with stairs; [...]. Atop sat a large idol with two lions or tigers which seemed to devour the idol by the flanks, and a serpent or animal of over 40 feet long and as wide as a thick ox which swallowed a fierce lion; all stone very well carved. Everything was awash in the blood of men who had been executed or sacrificed there.

— B de las Casas in Historia.^[24]

According to Tola de Habich, the temple would likely have impressed and terrified the men, this being their first encounter with such monumental and beastly statues, and their first indication of human sacrifice, in the New World.^[25] In spite of this, the Spaniards sojourned a few days in Campeche, possibly prompted by their hosts' hospitality, and thereafter continued on their way.^[26]

The fleet coasted southwest for some ten or 15 leagues, whereupon they sighted a town variously called Moscobo, Champotón, Nochopobón, and Potonchán in historical sources.^[27] Though this settlement is often identified as either Potonchán (now known as Frontera, Tabasco) or Champotón (now known as Champotón, Campeche), the scholar Jorge N Iturriaga has recently argued that only the latter is correct.^{[28][n 6]} Elated to find a source of fresh water, the much dehydrated men reportedly all disembarked with their pipas and arms aboard the brig and bateles, leaving the sailors and large ships a league offshore.^[29] Events onshore, as narrated in historical sources, are 'very strange and on many points quite incomprehensible.'^[30] Nevertheless, Tola de Habich accepts the following series of events as likely.^[29]

On land, the Spaniards, used to kindly receptions at Punta Mujeres, Cape Catoche, and Campeche, were now rather coldly received by armed locals who indicated their arrival was unwelcome.^[31] Córdoba's men, 'stubborn' but in dire need of water, landed regardless and set to sating their thirst and filling their pipas at the riverbank.^[31] Nightfall apparently crept up on the landed party, forcing the men to camp ashore for what must have been a tense night under the watchful eye of their aggrieved hosts.^[32] The men next awakened at dawn to a growing audience of a great many locals dressed for battle, 'with cotton armour down to their knees, and bows and arrows, and spears and bucklers, and swords like two-handed montanes, and slingshots and stones, and plumes of the kind they usually don, and their faces masked in black and white.'^[31] War drums now beat in their periphery, accompanied by a great roar, and an opening salvo of arrows and stones from all sides.^[33] Frenzied combat ensued, reportedly amidst the local war captain's shouted orders of al calachoni, 'target the [Spanish] captain.'^[33] Within 'little more than half an hour,' Córdoba, grievously injured, seeing nearly half his men fallen, a few captured, and little more than half alive but seriously injured, called for immediate retreat.^[34] The survivors now rushed seawards to their brig and bateles, the locals in dogged pursuit even into sea.^[35]

The Spanish managed to reach the safety of their fleet, whereupon the full weight of their loss dawned on them – reportedly, 55 men killed, 2 captured, 52 injured, an unknown number of sailors dead or injured, and all water and pipas lost.^[35] As Tola de Habich puts it, the engagement 'was a vicious carnage [...] the Spaniards' most catastrophic military defeat yet since arriving in the New World.'^{[35][n 7]} Now in dire straits and unable to man both ships and the brig, the captain had the latter scuttled, and, with great effort, the surviving men put out to sea aboard the ships.^[36]

Return

Most historical sources say the Spanish made a beeline for Cuba, which account Tola de Habich favours, but Castillo rather notes the fleet first anchored at Estero de los Lagartos in search of water, and finding none, were next led to Florida by Alaminos, from where they finally returned to Cuba after a native Floridian attack (though they had reportedly, at last, found water).^[37]

As with the fleet's departure, there are likewise precious few details regarding the fleet's return to Cuba.^[38] What is certain, Tola de Habich notes, is that both ships arrived in Cuba sometime in April 1517, whereupon the governor Velázquez was debriefed.^[39]

Aftermath

Córdoba died shortly upon arriving home at Sancti Spíritus, Cuba, purportedly from injuries sustained during the expedition.^[40] His surviving men are thought to have endured a lengthy convalescence, with only 'a few' joining further expeditions west.^[41]

In Santiago, expeditionary reports of lands of 'greater wealth, organisation, and social and material development [than heretorfore known in the New World]' reportedly 'excited' Velázquez, who immediately got to work outfitting the 1518 Grijalva expedition, which would notably return with news of the gold-rich Aztec Empire.^[42] The governor was similarly quick to claim credit for the discovery, successfully petitioning for the title of adelantado of Yucatán, granted him on 13 November 1518 in Zaragoza, which authorised his conquest and settlement of the Peninsula.^[43]

In the Maya Lowlands, at 'about the time of the Córdoba expedition a new and terrible disease devastated the [Yucatán] peninsula[; i]t was almost certainly smallpox, perhaps introduced by the expedition, though there is nothing to suggest that in the records, or by some forgotten victims of shipwreck, or brought by a long chain of Indian carriers from Panama.'^[44]

Legacy

In scholarship

The quasi-first-hand of Bernal Díaz del Castillo, and the second-hand account by Bartolomé de las Casas, have become influential sources in scholarly literature, though at least some historians have come to question their accuracy, with Fernando Tola de Habich recently calling them 'the most outlandish' accounts of the expedition.^[45] Nevertheless, the Castillo chronicle remains influential in scholarly literature. For instance, it is followed by Tola de Habich (to some extent), Jorge Victoria Ojeda (mostly), and Inga Clendinnen (mostly).^[46]

Quite a few of the campaign's details have come to be questioned. Firstly, the fleet's earliest point of arrival is commonly regarded as Isla Mujeres, following a 16th-century chronicle which listed 'a punta which he [Córdoba] named de las Mujeres ' as the fleet's first landing point.^[47] However, Tola de Habich argues that said chronicle, and still other historical sources, do not lend support for Isla Mujeres as the first landing point, but rather indicate some cape on the mainland, possibly Punta Mujeres or Cape Catoche.^[48] Similarly, Victoria Ojeda, following Marshall H Saville, rejects Isla Mujeres as the first landing point, deeming Cape Catoche as the likelier place.^[49] Secondly, the expedition's objective is variously reported as either to kidnap people to force into enslavement in the Lucayan archipelago or Bay Islands, or to discover new lands.^[50] Tola de Habich deems the former 'the most probable and supported [by evidence],' but nonetheless concedes the aim may have additionally been the latter one.^[51] Victoria Ojeda makes a similar assessment.^[52] Thirdly, since the influential 16th century chronicle of Castillo, quite a few historians have confused Potonchán for Champotón.^[53] In a recent paper, the independent scholar José N Itarriaga clarifies that the Hernández de Córdoba expedition landed at Champotón, a pre-Columbian city coincident with the modern Mexican city of Champotón, Campeche, and not at Potonchán, a pre-Columbian city coincident with the modern Mexican city of Frontera, Tabasco.^{[28][n 8]}

Both achievements credited to the expedition have been disputed. For instance, while it is popularly regarded as the first non-Amerindian discovery of the Yucatán Peninsula, Victoria Ojeda notes the feat might rather be attributed to the 1508–1509 Pinzón–Solís voyage, or the 1511 stranding of Gonzalo Guerrero, Jerónimo de Aguilar, and company.^[54] Tola de Habich makes a similar observation, further noting the Peter Martyr map as possible evidence in support of the former.^[55] Curiously, the 1562 Chronicle of Chac Xulub Chen, by Ah Nakuk Pech, seems to attribute non-Amerindian discovery to the latter.^[56] Similarly, some scholars ascribe first non-Amerindian contact with the Maya civilisation to the 1502 Honduran leg of Columbus's fourth voyage, or the aforementioned 1511 stranding.^[57] Tola de Habich nonetheless underlines the importance of this expedition as the one which 'opened the doors' to Mesoamerica, thus leading to Spanish conquest thereof.^[58]

In culture

Moch Couoh Park in Campeche / 2021 photograph by SH Darlin / via Flickr

The Cape Catoche settlement, Great Cairo, attained mythic proportions in the collective memory of 16th century Spanish society, becoming a vast city 'five times greater than Paris,' dotted with 'many rich palaces.'^[56] Victoria Ojeda attributes this simply to the novel sense of astonishment the settlement occasioned amongst Córdoba's men.^[56] In a similar vein, the story of Yucatán's being a great island, bound by the Ascension Bay (east) and Laguna de Términos (west), is thought to have been spread by the expeditionary pilot, Antón de Alaminos.^[52] This belief would not be corrected until further expeditions to what became New Spain.^[52] In the northern Maya Lowlands, Victoria Ojeda thinks the arrival of Córdoba's men would have been interpreted by Maya priests as fulfilment of prophecies of the arrival of bearded men, which omen was said to augur times of 'weeping skies, scarcity of corn, and great hunger.'^[59]

The 500th anniversary of the Hernández de Córdoba expedition, in 2017, was commemorated with a number of celebrations throughout the Yucatán Peninsula and Mexico, including in Campeche, Cancún, Isla Mujeres, and Mexico City.^[60] The 400th anniversary was commemorated by the federal government of Mexico via the 1917 dedication of a public monument in Isla Mujeres.^[54]

Tables

Crew

Known officers and crew of the Hernández de Córdoba expedition.^{[n 9]}

Surname	Forename	Post	Notes
Aguilar	Hernando de	?	–
Alaminos	Antón de	Pilot	Crew in Grijalva and Cortés expeditions
Álvarez	Juan	Pilot	Also known as el Manquillo; crew in Grijalva and Cortés expeditions
Aragón	Juan de	?	–
Ávila	Pedro de	?	–
Ávila Quiñones	Gaspar de	?	Previously also known as Dávila Quiñónez
Béjar	Benito de	?	Crew in Grijalva and Cortés expeditions
Benavides	Alonso de	?	–
Bernal	Juan	?	Crew in Grijalva and Cortés expeditions
?	Bernardino	Sailor	Reportedly levantisco
?	Berrio	?	Captured in Florida
Boto	Alonso	?	Captured in Champoton
Camacho	Pedro	Pilot	Crew in Grijalva and Cortés expeditions; also known as Camacho de Triana [n 10]
Cuenca	Benito de	?	Crew in Grijalva and Narváez expeditions
Díaz del Castillo	Bernal	?	Crew in Grijalva and Cortés expeditions
Gibraltar	Nicolás de	?	–
González	Alonso	Clergyman	–
Guisado	Alonso	?	Participation possibly uncertain; reportedly crew in Grijalva and Narváez expeditions
Hernández de Alanís	Cristóbal	?	Reportedly also known as Hernández de Mosquera, H. de Alanis, H. de la Puebla
Hernández de Córdoba	Francisco	Captain	–
Hernández Sevillano	Pedro	?	Crew in Grijalva and Narváez expeditions; previously known as Perdo Hernández
Íñiguez	Bernardino	Veedor [61]	–
Jerez	Alonso de	?	–
López	Diego	?	–
López	Francisco	?	Reportedly crew in Grijalva expedition
López Marroqué	Pedro	?	–
Martín	Ginés	?	–
Morales	?	Scribe	–
Ojeda	Alonso de	?	Participation previously uncertain; crew in Grijalva and Cortés expeditions; reportedly captured Xicoténcatl
Ortiz de Zúñiga	Alonso	?	Participation uncertain; likely crew in Grijalva expedition; reportedly crew in Narváez expedition
Ovide	Pedro de	?	–
Pérez de Ardón	Juan	?	Possibly also known as Juan Peréz
Perón	Pedro de Toledo	?	–
Porras	Diego de	?	Reportedly crew in Cortés expedition
Portillo	Cindo de	?	Participation previously uncertain; crew in Grijalva and Cortés expeditions; also known as friar Cindo de Villasinda, friar Cintos de San Francisco; see C de San Francisco
?	?	?	Known as portugués viejo; captured in Champotón; Portuguese [62]
Prieto	Pedro	?	–
Ramos de Lares	Martín	?	–
Ruiz de Alaniz	Juan	?	Reportedly cousin of C Hernández de Alaniz
San Francisco	Cintos de	?	Friar; reportedly returned to New Spain with Marquis del Valle; see C de Portillo
San Juan	?	?	Possibly also known as el Entonado or San Juan de Uchila
Vázquez	Martín	?	–
Vivanco	?	?	Participation uncertain but known crew in early New Spain expeditions
Zaragoza	Miguel	?	Crew in Grijalva and Cortés expeditions

Concordance

Concordance among select historical sources regarding select aspects of the Hernández de Córdoba expedition.^{[n 11]}

Claim	letter	Casas	Castillo	Gómara	Martyr	Oviedo	Salazar	Sepúlveda
Fleet departed in 1517	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Expedition organised by Córdoba, Morante, and Caicedo	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Expedition organised by all crew	—	—	Yes	—	—	—	—	—
Expedition organised by Velázquez too	Yes	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Expedition organised only by Velázquez	—	—	—	—	—	—	Yes	—
Expedition licensed only by Velázquez	—	Yes	—	—	—	Yes	Yes	Yes
Velázquez put up a brig	—	—	Yes	Yes	—	—	Yes	—
Fleet composed of two ships, one brig	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Crew coached by organisers	—	Yes	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	Yes
Córdoba captain	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Íñiguez veedor	—	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—
Alaminos pilot	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Maybe
Camacho and Álvarez pilots	—	—	Yes	—	—	—	—	—
González chaplain	—	—	Yes	—	—	—	—	—
Crew of 110	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Fleet departed in February	—	Yes	Yes	—	—	—	—	—
Fleet departed 8 February from Havana	—	—	Yes	—	—	—	—	—
Fleet departed from Santiago	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	—	—	Yes	Yes
Fleet coasted to Cape San Antón	—	Yes	Yes	—	Yes	Yes	—	Yes
Fleet put out to Yucatán Channel 20 February	—	—	Yes	—	—	—	—	—
Expedition aimed to discover new lands	No	No	Yes	No	Yes	?	No	Yes
Expedition aimed to capture Amerindian slaves	Yes	No	No	No	No	?	?	No
Expedition aimed to both discover and enslave	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	?	No
Fleet's sailing direction given	—	—	—	—	Yes	Yes	—	Yes
Expedition's aim changed during journey	—	Yes	—	—	—	—	Yes	—
Fleet's sailing style was exploratory	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	Yes	—
Storm steered fleet off course	—	—	Yes	Yes	—	—	Yes	—
Fleet arrived at Yucatán Peninsula	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Peninsula–Cuba distance given	Yes	Yes	—	—	Yes	Yes	—	—
Days spent crossing Channel given	—	Yes	Yes	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Fleet arrived at Punta de Yucatán	Yes	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Fleet arrived at Eccampi	—	—	—	—	Yes	—	—	—
Fleet arrived at Provincia de Yucatán	—	—	—	—	—	Yes	—	Yes
Fleet arrived at Punta de las Mujeres	—	—	—	Yes	—	—	Yes	—
Fleet arrived at Cape Catoche or Great Cairo	—	—	Yes	—	—	—	—	—
Fleet arrived at Cozumel	—	Yes	—	—	—	—	—	—
Fleet arrived at Campeche	—	—	—	—	—	—	Yes	—
Crew saw whitewashed masonry houses	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Crew saw clothed residents	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	Yes
Crew saw lots of gold	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	Yes
Captain named land Yucatán	Yes	—	No	Yes	Yes	—	Yes	—
Captain named cape Catoche	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	Yes	—
Crew abducted Catoche locals	—	Yes	Yes	—	—	Yes	—	—
Battle occurred at Cape Catoche	—	—	Yes	—	—	—	—	—
Fleet sailed from Punta de Yucatán to Campeche	Yes	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Fleet sailed from Provincia de Yucatán to Campeche	—	—	—	—	—	Yes	—	Yes
Fleet sailed from Cape Catoche to Campeche	—	—	Yes	—	—	—	—	—
Fleet sailed from Eccampi and Cairo to Campeche	—	—	—	—	Yes	—	—	—
Fleet sailed from Punta Mueres, Cape Catoche, and Yucatán to Campeche	—	—	—	Yes	—	—	Yes	—
Fleet sailed from Cozumel, an unnamed town, and Cape Catoche to Campeche	—	Yes	—	—	—	—	—	—
Fleet sailed from Cozumel, sans disembarking, to Campeche	—	—	—	—	—	—	Yes	—
Fleet sailed from straight to Campeche	—	—	—	—	—	—	Yes	—
Fleet arrived in Campeche	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Distance to Campeche given	—	—	Yes	—	Yes	—	—	—
Fleet arrived in Campeche on domingo de Lázaro or día de san Lázaro	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Captain named Campeche Lázaro	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Captain named mayor Lázaro	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No	No	No
Number of crew who disembarked in Campeche given	—	Yes	Yes	—	—	Yes	Yes	Yes
Crew well received in Campeche	No	Yes	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Yes	?	Yes
Cannons fired in Campeche	—	No	—	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Crew abducted Campeche locals	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	No	—
Banquet held in Campeche	—	Yes	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	Yes
Crew visited Campeche temple	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	—
Crew saw signs of human sacrifice in Campeche	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	Yes
Crew saw 'Christian' crosses in Campeche	—	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	Yes
Fleet arrived in Champotón	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Distance to Champotón given	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Champotón mayor named	Yes	—	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	?	—
Crew ill-received at Champotón	No	No	Maybe	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Crew slept ashore	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—	—	—	—
Champotón locals kept watch over crew	—	—	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Champotón locals sought to distance the landed crew from their ships	—	—	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	—
Crew noticed locals' night watch	—	—	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Locals launched surprise assault	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	?	Yes
Number of local attackers given	—	Yes	Yes	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Number of local casualties given	—	Yes	Yes	Yes	—	Yes	Yes	—
Number of Spanish fatal casualties given	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Number of Spanish non-fatal casualties given	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Two crew men were captured in battle	—	—	Yes	Yes	—	—	—	—
Captain was injured in battle	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Fleet fled from Champotón	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Fleet returned to Cuba	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Fleet stopped at Estero de los Lagartos	—	—	Yes	—	—	—	—	—
Fleet returned to Cuba via Florida	—	—	Yes	—	—	—	Yes	—
Velázquez was debriefed	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

See also

• Fourth voyage of Columbus, 1502–1504 expedition thought to have had contact with Maya civilisation
• Pinzón–Solís voyage, 1508–1509 expedition thought to have coasted the southeastern Peninsula
• Juan de Grijalva, leader of 1518 expedition occasioned by the Hernández de Córdoba expedition

Notes and references

Explanatory footnotes

1. Called Córdoba expedition in Clendinnen 2003, pp. 5, 14, 17, 19. For infobox –

   1. strength in Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 11–12, 86;
   2. aim in Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 180, Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 12, 183–185, Clendinnen 2003, p. 4;
   3. date in Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 42, 94–95;
   4. start in Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 93, 95;
   5. end in Tola de Habich 2018, p. 42;
   6. casualties in Iturriaga 2023, p. 245, Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 41–42, 121, 201–204;
   7. achievements in Victoria Ojeda 2019, pp. 175–176, Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 17, 29–33, Clendinnen 2003, pp. 3–4;
   8. ships in Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 40, 90, Clendinnen 2003, p. 5;
   9. sponsors in Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 60, 181–182;
   10. leaders in Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 95, 105, 115;
   11. strength in Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 117–118, 123–124, 167;
   12. casualties in Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 39–40, 101–102, 124, 167–168.
2. This story is similar to one told of the naming of Cape Catoche. According to Castillo, local fishermen from the cape approached the fleet with cries of cones cotoche, meaning 'come here [to our hometown],' wherefore the Spanish named the cape Cotoche, now corrupted to Catoche (Victoria Ojeda 2019, pp. 182, 184).
3. Castillo reports Julián and Melchor were rather prisoners-of-war, pressed during battle at Catoche, though Tola de Habiche argues against the occurrence of such engagement (Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 100–101). The fishermen would have been baptised and given Christian names, that is, Melchor (also Melchorejo) and Julián (also Julianillo) (Tola de Habich 2018, p. 101). Intelligence regarding the name Yucatán, existence of gold mines, and residence of Spanish men in Maya provinces is attributed to them (the latter presumably regarding those stranded in 1511, including Gonzalo Guerrero and Jerónimo de Aguilar; Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 39–40, 101). Julián was further forced to serve in the Grijalva expedition, and Melchor in the Cortés one (Tola de Habich 2018, p. 101). Details of their later lives are confused, though neither is thought to have afforded the Spanish praiseworthy service (Tola de Habich 2018, p. 101).
4. Tola de Habich deems it quite unlikely that all soldiers disembarked (Tola de Habich 2018, p. 108).
5. The menu notably included the guajolote mexicano, still a Christmas staple in Mexico (Tola de Habich 2018, p. 108).
6. Tola de Habich follows the historian Juan Francisco Molina Solís in mistakenly calling this town Potonchán, but correctly identifies it as a port on Río Champotón, and the capital of the maritime province of Aguanil, governed by the batab Moch Couoh, which is just, in fact, Champotón (Tola de Habich 2018, p. 115). Victoria Ojeda correctly identifies the same settlement, but likewise misnames it Potonchán, further noting the town is 'sometimes recorded as Champotón' (Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 182). Champotón's pre-Columbian name is thought to have been Chakan Putún (Iturriaga 2023, p. 254).
7. Tola de Habich deems the attack and Spaniards' defeath 'surprising and incomprehensible' (Tola de Habich 2018, p. 122). Regarding the loclas' attack, they dismiss the locals' having prior intelligence of Spanish cruelty as causus belli, favouring rather their need to safeguard drinking water, though still finding this unsatisfactory (Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 122–125). Regarding Spanish defeat, they suggest as contributing factors poor preparedness, lack of crossbows and shotguns, shortage of swords, and lack of armour or even clothing (Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 126–128). They venture 'a similar number [to 57] or much greater' of locals killed in combat (Tola de Habich 2018, p. 124).
8. Further details questioned include the number of expeditionary funders and organisers, and the Champotón battle casualties (Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 181–182, 201–204).
9. Per Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 173–177, unless otherwise indicated.
10. For instance, in Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 181 and Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 86, 144.
11. Per Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 139–172. Here, letter refers to a letter dated Veracruz, Mexico, 10 July 1519, written by Cortés's soldiers, 'some of whom, no doubt, participated in the voyage of Hernández de Córdoba' (Tola de Habich 2018, p. 23). Casas, Oviedo, Salazar refer to chronicles by Bartolomé de las Casas, Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, Francisco Cervantes de Salazar, respectively, all of whom spent time in the New World (Tola de Habich 2018, p. 23). Gómara, Martyr, Sepúlveda refer to chronicles by Francisco López de Gómara, Peter Martyr, Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda, respectively, none of whom spent time in the New World, but all of whom are thought to have (i) received first- or second-hand accounts of the expedition, and (ii) consulted written reports of the expedition (Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 23–24). Castillo refers to the chronicle by Bernal Díaz del Castillo, participant of the expedition (Tola de Habich 2018, p. 24). Note, all but letter and Martyr 'were written many years after' the expedition (Tola de Habich 2018, p. 97).

Short citations

1. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 51.
2. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 51, 54–55, 63–66.
3. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 84–85.
4. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 85–87.
5. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 93.
6. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 94.
7. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 95.
8. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 95–96.
9. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 96, 99.
10. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 98.
11. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 99.
12. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 99–100.
13. Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 184; Tola de Habich 2018, p. 101.
14. Victoria Ojeda 2019, pp. 184–185; Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 101–102.
15. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 101–102.
16. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 102.
17. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 102–103.
18. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 99, 105.
19. Iturriaga 2023, pp. 245–246; Tola de Habich 2018, p. 105.
20. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 106.
21. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 107.
22. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 108.
23. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 108–110.
24. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 109–110.
25. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 110.
26. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 113.
27. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 115.
28. Iturriaga 2023, pp. 244–245.
29. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 116.
30. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 116–117.
31. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 117.
32. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 119.
33. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 120.
34. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 120–121.
35. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 121.
36. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 131.
37. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 132–133.
38. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 134.
39. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 42, 134.
40. Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 183; Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 41–42, 137.
41. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 43.
42. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 43; Clendinnen 2003, p. 16.
43. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 134, 136–137.
44. Clendinnen 2003, p. 19.
45. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 11.
46. Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 179; Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 12, 23–24; Clendinnen 2003, p. 212.
47. Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 176; Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 11, 189.
48. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 11–12, 189–195.
49. Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 176; Saville 1918, pp. 442–443.
50. Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 180; Tola de Habich 2018, p. 12.
51. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 12, 183–185.
52. Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 180.
53. Iturriaga 2023, p. 243.
54. Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 177.
55. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 29, 31–33, 35–40.
56. Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 179.
57. Tola de Habich 2018, pp. 30, 35–40; Clendinnen 2003, pp. 3–4.
58. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 47.
59. Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 184.
60. Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 176.
61. Victoria Ojeda 2019, p. 181; Tola de Habich 2018, p. 85.
62. Tola de Habich 2018, p. 26.

Full citations

1. Chamberlain RS (1948). The Conquest and Colonization of Yucatan, 1517-1550. Publication. Vol. 582. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. hdl:2027/mdp.39015014584406. LCCN 48010986.
2. Clendinnen I (2003) [First published 1987 by Cambridge University Press]. Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517-1570. Cambridge Latin American Studies. Vol. 61 (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-82031-6. LCCN 2002191144.
3. Eatough G (1999). "Peter Martyr's Account of the First Contacts with Mexico". Viator. 30: 397–421. doi:10.1484/J.VIATOR.2.300843.
4. Gómez Martín JA (June 2013). "El descubrimiento del Yucatán". Revista de estudios colombinos. 9: 53–60. ISSN 1699-3926. Dialnet 4502253.
5. Iturriaga JN (January–June 2023). "¿Champotón o Potonchán? Del error geográfico al error histórico". Estudios de historia moderna y contemporánea de México. 65: 243–263. doi:10.22201/iih.24485004e.2023.65.77818. S2CID 254756963.
6. León Cázares MC, Conover Blancas C, eds. (2020). Encuentros y desencuentros en las costas del Yucatán (1517). Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios Mayas. Vol. 43. Ciudad de México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. ISBN 978-607-30-3182-0. LCCN 2021398905. GB TNixEAAAQBAJ. Perlego 3854520.
7. Ortiz Lanz JE (2018). Las verdaderas historias del descubrimiento de la Nueva España: Las expediciones de Hernández de Córdova y Grijalva, 1517–1518. Ciudad de México: Cámara de Diputados, LXIII Legislatura; Pámpano Servicios Editoriales. BNM 000707478.
8. Saville MH (November 1918). "The Discovery of Yucatan in 1517 by Francisco Hernández de Córdoba". Geographical Review. 6 (5): 436–448. doi:10.2307/207701. JSTOR 207701.
9. Tola de Habich F (2018). Yucatán 1517: El segundo descubrimiento de América (Hernández de Córdoba). Viajeros; Colección sextante. Vol. 6. Mérida, Yucatán: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. ISBN 978-607-30-1074-0. LCCN 2019447521.
10. Victoria Ojeda J (2019). "El arribo de los españoles a la Peninsula de Yucatán y el inicio del cambio en el paisaje biocultural de la región, siglo XVI". Boletín americanista. 78: 175–195. ISSN 0520-4100. UB 22237.
11. Wagner HR, ed. (1942). The Discovery of Yucatan by Francisco Hernández de Córdoba: A Translation of the Original Texts with an Introduction and Notes. Documents and Narratives Concerning the Discovery and Conquest of Latin America; New Series. Vol. 1. Berkeley, California: Cortés Society. LCCN 42016589. OCLC 16731061.