Sunday, June 29, 2014

Project updates

The Wikipedia editing relating to the Portola expedition led (as WP editing always does) to many other California history articles needing improvement and/or correction. Most WP articles eventually get pretty good if enough editors take an interest. Articles about small-to-medium sized CA communities, however (including many of those later established at Portola campsites), tend to have only a few editors and few reliable sources. Where scholarly online sources are lacking, the oft-inflated claims of local boosterist websites go uncorrected.

The current program is twofold: 1) continue to discover and read early CA history sources, and 2) after finishing a CA history book, to go back through it again looking for passages to be used as WP citations. That was a lot of fun with the Crespi diary. Next up for that treatment are several books from SCPL:

  • Fages, P., Priestley, H. I., & Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia y Etnografía (Mexico). (1937). A historical, political, and natural description of California. Berkeley: University of California Press. 
  • Hutchinson, C. A. (1969). Frontier settlement in Mexican California: The Híjar-Padrés colony and its origins, 1769-1835. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • McKittrick, M. M. (1944). Vallejo, son of California. Portland, Or: Binfords & Mort.  

Saturday, May 10, 2014

Santa Cruz County History Update: the Explorers

The following is the most recent post from "W C Casey's blog" on Santa Cruz Patch. Since the departure of editor Brad Kava, SC Patch has been spiraling down. When this post failed to post, it seemed like the time had come to move on. This blog will be a temporary home for this post (sans images) until a dedicated blog and/or page is set up.

Post title: Santa Cruz County History Update: the Explorers 

Recently, I've been revisiting the Portolà expedition of 1769-70, so it seems like a good time to update this post from August 12, 2011. The original plan for this blog was to proceed chronologically through Santa Cruz County history, and this post was third in that progression, after an introduction and the Ohlone.
The impetus for a new look at Portolà came from the discovery that translations of the three diaries kept by expedition members are now available online (see the Wikipedia article for links). For a history geek, it's fascinating to read those diaries and realize that they are the first written descriptions of those places ever recorded, and that the authors were actually camped at those unknown (to Europeans) places as they wrote.
The briefest diary was by Portolà himself; a longer one was written by military engineer Miguel Costanso, and the most detailed was by Franciscan missionary Juan Crespi. The Pacifica Historical Society has a great tool on its website - a day-by-day account with entries from all three diaries (watch out for a few transcription errors). At times, it would be helpful to also have the original Spanish alongside the English translations, but that project awaits some future web-savvy California historian.
The translator of the online version of the Crespi diary, Herbert Bolton, worked out the present-day locations of the places visited by the expedition during its travels, and shares that information in footnotes. That's very useful because:
  1. The native Californians had no written languages to record their names for places,
  2. Portolà and his companions were the first Europeans to see most of those places,
  3. the Spaniards of the Portolà expedition did not attempt to transliterate very many of the native names they heard, and
  4. very few of the Portolà names have survived. 
As noted in the original post, Santa Cruz was one of those few surviving Portolà names. Furthermore, our county is the only one in the state that preserves a Portolà expedition name (and it was almost Branciforte County).
Wikipedia provided a handy place to post information about the expedition's stopping places, so there are now added bits of Crespi's diary in a bunch of articles, and a new "category" (found at the bottom of WP articles) called "Places of the Portolà expedition", where links to Portolà expedition-related articles can be found.
Those who also love geography already know about Google Earth. I had a great time using GE, in conjunction with the diaries, to follow the day-by-day progress of the explorers from San Diego to a wind-swept ridge overlooking San Francisco Bay.  In many places, the exact route remains in dispute, so the "geogrophiles" out there can have fun using zooming into the satellite views to compare the different possibilities. Another useful site was the USGS National Map, which combines current versions of all of the "quadrangle" topographic maps into one zoomable online map. Many old place names can be found on USGS maps.
Following is the original 2011 post, with inserted editorial comments enclosed in square brackets:
Original title: Names on the Signs in Santa Cruz: the Explorers
In comparison to other parts of California, Santa Cruz was missed by the early European explorers. The first voyage to come close was the Spanish expedition led by Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, who sailed north from Mexico in 1542 on a mission to explore the unknown coast.
Cabrillo gave names to many places in California, but, for some reason, none of those names were retained by future Spanish explorers. Cabrillo landed at places now known as San Diego, San Pedro and the Channel Islands. He sailed past Point Conception, missed the entrances to Monterey and San Francisco bays, and made it [one of his ships did, anyway] as far north as the mouth of the Russian River before turning back.
On the way south, he found and sailed into Monterey Bay but didn’t land. Still, Cabrillo was the first European to come anywhere close to Santa Cruz, so his is the oldest European name to appear on local signs: at Cabrillo College. The section of Highway 1 running through Santa Cruz County is known by some as Cabrillo Highway [it should really be called Portolà Highway]. The photo is of a sign from San Mateo County, but I haven’t found one locally. Maybe some observant blog reader knows where there is one? [Portolà Highway is an even more appropriate name because later explorers bypassed the coastal route in favor of the path followed by today's Highway 101]

On the basis of Cabrillo’s voyage, Spain claimed California as part of New Spain, a huge area that included today’s Mexico and Central America in addition to much of the southwestern and south-central United States. England also had colonial ambitions, and Queen Elizabeth dispatched Francis Drake in 1577 to plant the British flag. During his round-the-world journey, Drake also sailed north along the California coast. The exact location of his landings is unknown, but no one has ever claimed he stopped in Santa Cruz.

Spain moved to follow up on that brief flurry of exploratory activity. A second sailing expedition, led by Sebastián Vizcaíno, arrived at the southern end of our bay in 1602. Vizcaíno named it Bahia de Monterrey, after the Viceroy of New Spain. The name stuck, superceding Cabrillo’s Bahia de los Piños (Bay of Pines). Vizcaíno named lots of other places around Monterey and further south, but never came to our end of the bay. His expedition left without establishing a settlement, and our quiet bay was left to the Ohlone once again.

Over 160 years later, Spain was finally roused to action by the expansion of British and Russian trading posts southward along the Pacific Coast from Alaska and Canada. In 1769, an expedition commanded by Gaspar de Portolà set out [by land and sea] from Mexico to rediscover the bay described by Vizcaíno. They reached the coast [from the Salinas Valley] on a typical summer day and found the view obscured by fog. They didn’t even realize they were on a bay.
Thinking they had missed Monterey Bay, Portolà’s party turned north and [after crossing and naming the Pajaro River] marched until they got to a large river which they [Crespi] named Rio de San Lorenzo. Crossing the river, they explored the area and found a spring-fed creek, which they [Crespi] named Arroyo Santa Cruz. The creek, which flows into Neary Lagoon, is known today as Majors Creek or Laurel Street Brook. Soon, Portolà moved on up the coast to discover San Francisco Bay before turning around and marching back to San Diego. He never returned to Santa Cruz, but those three names stayed on. Portolà's name is memorialized on signs up and down the California Coast, but not a lot in the Santa Cruz area. We have Portola Drive out in Pleasure Point, but that's about it.
After Portolà, more than 20 more years were to pass before the arrival of more European visitors. The next Spaniards, however, came to stay. They were the missionaries.











Sunday, August 18, 2013

Updating 'Sidewalks of Washington Street'

Just added a summary at the top of  The Sidewalks of Washington Street, preparatory to a complete rewrite of the page. I'm hoping the summary will serve both as guide and motivation for that endeavor, with a view toward possible submission to MAH's new Online History Journal.

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Whatever happened to Arroyo Santa Cruz?

Recently, I've been studying several panoramic or "birds eye" views of Santa Cruz, produced between 1870 and 1877. Among many fascinating details, this one (from the 1870 view) especially caught my eye:


That meandering little stream running from Neary Lagoon to reach Monterey Bay at Cowell Beach is Arroyo Santa Cruz, so named by the Spanish exploration party led by Portola in 1769, the first Europeans to visit the northern end of Monterey Bay. The later Franciscan mission, and eventually the American town, both adopted the name first given to the creek.

Over the years, much of the creek has gone underground. (between the lagoon and the beach, and also from California Street to Laurel), or is channelized and hidden behind rows of houses above Mission Street. The name has changed several times: Mill Creek, Majors Creek, Laurel Creek, and today the really uninspiring Laurel Street Brook. There aren't even any signs anywhere. I think we Santa Cruzans should reclaim our heritage and give the creek back its original and historic name.

A caveat: contemporary accounts indicate that, at the time of Vizcaino's arrival, a branch of the San Lorenzo River ran through today's Neary Lagoon, so the Spaniards would have seen Arroyo Santa Cruz ending when it came tumbling down the hill at today's Laurel Street.

Still, I bet the Babbling Brook Inn and Emily's Cafe (two places where you can still see the creek) would support an effort to give us back some of our earliest history. I may have to become a community activist.

Patch blog TOC update

Just finished the semi-annual update to the Table of Contents page for my blog over at Santa Cruz Patch. Eight new posts in six months+ is not great production, but not so bad. A milestone reached: the July 3 post is number 50 on that blog. Does that mean anything? I guess it proves I haven't been completely idle. Happy 4th!

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

San Lorenzo River through Neary Lagoon?


In E. S. Harrison's History of Santa Cruz County (1892), there's a translation of Fr. Crespi's diary recounting Portola's 1769 exploration of our area. On the day the party reached the river, it says:

"Toward the end of this day's journey, we turned to the westward, and not very far from the sea we came to a river of much water, which we crossed. It was about fifty-four feet wide, and in the middle the water reached to the bellies of the animals. It is the largest stream we have seen in all the journey. In its bed there are many poplar and alder trees, and has very good patches of land that can be sown and irrigated. The stream is not distant from the beach, and according to what the explorers say, it empties into a small shallow arm of the sea into which the tide rises and falls. We rested on the other side of the river, and to descend and ascend the banks of it caused us some trouble. The river has besides many redwood trees. Near the river we came to good and different land which was not burnt over. It gave us pleasure to see the grasses and the variety of the herbage, and the roses of Castile. We called the river San Lorenzo."

The translator (author of this chapter E. L. Williams?) adds the following:

"[From the above diary it will be seen that the San Lorenzo River was discovered and named on Tuesday, October 17, 1769, the expedition having occupied an entire day traveling from Soquel Creek to the San Lorenzo River. From Father Crespi's description of where the river debouches it would seem that at that time it emptied into what is now the " Neary " lagoon. Corroborative evidence of this has been found by the translator in pieces of redwood logs discovered beneath the surface of the earth, and charcoal at twelve feet depth when digging wells...]"

If this is true, the geography of Santa Cruz was much different in those days. I have doubts, however, that the entire river (plus Santa Cruz Creek) flowed out of Neary Lagoon through the narrow gap where the railroad tracks now pass under the old truss bridge. I think the river must have had more than one mouth.

This information could be used to expand a couple of the "Names on the Signs" blog posts: The Explorers and The River.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Birth of California Narrow Gauge

"...a regional study of the technology of Thomas and Martin Carter". by Bruce MacGregor (2003).

Just found this at SCPL. Several chapters relate to the Santa Cruz Railroad and South Pacific Coast RR. Many good and rare photos - I used this as a source for "Southern Pacific took over Santa Cruz County railroads in the 1880s". 

Saturday, February 2, 2013

The four wharves of Santa Cruz

Recently sent the following email to geologist and local historian Frank Perry:
 
Hi Frank - just found your paper, Notes on the History of Wharves at Santa Cruz, California. Many thanks to you, Barry, Rick and Stan for clearing up the confusion. I always wondered why that 1870 litho didn't show a third wharf. My best guess was that the "Gharky" wharf was demolished a few years before the "Railroad" wharf was built. It never occurred to me that the Gharky and Powder wharves were the same. I'll link your paper, along with a correction note, to a couple of my blog posts on Santa Cruz Patch. My two main goals in blogging were 1) to motivate myself to get more into the research and, 2) to catch and correct errors by me and others. Thanks again - Carey   
Frank Perry
Jan 29 (4 days ago)

to me
Hi Carey:
Glad you enjoyed our paper.  We had fun researching it and finally setting the record straight.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Patch Blog TOC Updated

Just finished updating the table of contents page for the Santa Cruz Patch blog (see link in the column to the left), including links to each post. The chronological progression has reached 1880, and so far it looks like not much happened in the 1880s that was really new. After the breakneck pace of change in the preceding 30 years, it seems like Santa Cruz took a decade or so to catch its breath and consolidate its gains. But there are always interesting things to read and write about - so on we go.  

Friday, May 11, 2012

Another New Page

A link to the new page, Santa Cruz Patch blog - Errata and Notes, can be found in the sidebar to the left. I'm still working on the index.