Spanish Manila Galleons in California (1565-1815)? San Juan Capistrano Visitor Series Part 2

Sunset with the moon at Dana Point with Santa Catalina Island in the distance.

 As a kid in Southern California, I would look out over the ocean and conjure images of pirates and ships during the early modern period. These images were the products of all of the typical pirate and sailing fodder - rides at Disneyland, pictures in kids' books and magazines, Saturday morning cartoons, and the mysterious model of a sailing ship sitting on the mantle in the "den." And from the bond fire I stood barefoot in the sand and watched the sun set beyond the continuous washing of waves over the rocks and sandy shore, while the rising northwest wind produced its familiar but ever-surprising chill, and thought about the sailors of a time long past, returning back to their anchored vessels and drying out their sandy clothes in the lantern-lit below decks. This post tells what I could find of their story.

 The story begins with a question; why was California a part of Spain at the time of Cabrillo's voyage in 1542? To understand the answer, we have to rewind back to the first voyage of Christopher Columbus in 1492.

After Columbus returned to Europe from his famous voyage to islands in the Caribbean, Portugal and Spain disputed ownership of the lands he "discovered" in the New World (there were already people living there for thousands of years, so "discovered" only applies to Europeans). Instead of starting a war, the Portuguese and Spanish realized that the potential profits from the goods procured from these lands were still far enough into the future that they could explore a diplomatic solution.

Given that the Reformation was still decades away and most of Europe was still Catholic, the Catholic Church was the closest entity to a centralized European government in existence at the time. Spain and Portugal therefore turned to the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Alexander VI, to find a solution to their dispute.




The difference between the longitudinal line drawn by Pope Alexander VI and the one negotiated by Spain and Portugal illustrates the limited knowledge Europeans had concerning the extent of the Americas. Had the Portuguese known, they never would have agreed to the Treaty of Tordesillas.

 In 1493, the Pope, who was Spanish by birth, marked a longitudinal line at the western edge of the Atlantic Ocean which "granted," in minds of Europeans, all lands west of it to Spain and east of it to Portugal. The location of this line resulted in most of the Americas becoming a part of Spain while only a small portion of modern-day Brazil became a part of Portugal. This line is essentially the reason why Brazil's national language is Portuguese and why we call Del Taco by its familiar Spanish name rather than "Do Taco," in Portuguese.
How the negotiations may have transpired had all parties been aware of the extent of the Americas.

 After Spain and Portugal sorted out the details of the Pope's decision, which included slightly moving the Pope's line, Spain was finally formally "granted" what is now California under the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494. Given the extremely limited knowledge of the extent of the Americas by Europeans (in 1494 they only knew of the islands Columbus visited), neither the Spanish nor the Portuguese understood exactly what they were doing during negotiations. But after the true extent of the Americas was understood, Spain was quite satisfied with the result.

At first, however, Spain made little headway into developing most of "their" lands in the Americas. Among their challenges were the wars they waged as an invasive force against existing American civilizations, answering the question of what role American inhabitants would play in the Spanish empire, how to promote the idea of Spanish citizens becoming colonists in the New World, and the logistics of building settlements thousands of miles away from their homeland. The bottom line was that development only progressed at a fast enough rate for  investors, who took on quite a bit of risk, to amass wealth within their lifetimes.
This is the first page of one of the copies of the Treaty of Tordesillas. This treaty is essentially why those of us from California speak at least a little Spanish.

 The Cabrillo expedition's explorations in 1542 were therefore just that; explorations. Without a monetary incentive to hasten Spanish development of California, it would continue to lay far out on the Spanish frontier.

This monetary incentive soon presented itself, though it only affected California obliquely. European leaders wanted to trade for Asian goods but needed ways to access and pay for them. Spanish officials knew that ships from New Spain could follow the trade winds used by the Magellan expedition in early 1521 to sail west to Manila, the primary Spanish port in Asia. They also knew that gold and silver from New Spain could be used to pay for Asian goods. All they needed was a return route. In 1565, Spanish navigators Alonso de Arellano and Andres de Urdaneta sailed north from Manila and discovered eastward blowing winds and currents that could propel ships east to the Californias and then southward to Acapulco. With this discovery a circular trade route was established whereby large trading ships, called galleons, would be loaded with gold and silver from New Spain, depart in the spring from Acapulco, head west to Manila, trade the gold and silver for Asian goods, then head north to catch the trade winds blowing east, sight land somewhere in the Californias sometime during the fall or early winter before turning southward to Acapulco. Typically, one galleon made the round trip annually.

Unfortunately, few records from these early galleons are currently available. Those that do exist generally only mention the signs of land visible in the ocean, often in the form of plant life visible in the water. One record left in 1584 by Francisco Gali, captain of the galleon San Juan Bautista, preserves a typical description of the signs of land visible at sea but also seems to hauntingly describe the Indians living along the coast. He wrote "When I steered so as to approach the coast of New Spain [in this case, California], I sighted it in 37.5 degrees [probably along the coast near San Francisco]. It is a high land, covered with trees and without snow. At a distance of 4 leagues from land I found great bunches of roots and leaves and canes and a number of seals, which made me believe that there must be many rivers and good harbors on the whole of this coast as far as the Port of Acapulco." As the ship continued down the California coast, he wrote that "On this stretch of 500 leagues [to Cabo San Lucas] along the coast there are many islands, which, though small, would seem to possess many good harbors...and all these lands are inhabited and in my opinion good, as I saw fire by night and smoke by day." (Wagner, Pg. 135)

A map of the winds and currents used by Manila galleons to facilitate trade between New Spain and Asia.

The trip aboard a galleon was anything but pleasant. The mortality rate was very high, perhaps as high as 54%. Galleons could be well over 1,000 tons with well over 300 passengers. Sharing your crowded quarters with rats, eating food with worms, inhaling the rancid perfume of the bilge below decks, and confronting a high probability of contracting infectious diseases were all normal parts of life. It's kinda like being in the most crowded campground you've ever been in but all the food has gone bad and you can't escape for over 3 months, except worse.

 Given the inherent dangers of the 3-6 month voyage home from Manila, it's not surprising that, by the end of the 16th century, the valuable cargoes of a handful of galleons failed to reach Acapulco. But the dangers didn't stop at the possibility of sinking in a storm at sea, wrecking on land or starving; they also included the threat of privateers. Sir Francis Drake was one of them, sent by the King of England to disrupt Spain's trade network with Asia in the Pacific. Drake visited California in 1579 where he spent about a month in what is now "Drake's Bay" while attempting to intercept, that's right, a Manila galleon. Though Drake failed to see a galleon, his fellow compatriot, Thomas Cavendish, was successful in plundering and sinking the galleon Santa Ana off the coast of Baja California in 1587.

Sir Francis Drake in 1581, just a couple years after he and his crew likely became the first English-speaking visitors California. In some circles he is best known for possibly being the first to sport a hipster mustache on the west coast.

 The viceroys of New Spain had to do something about the privateers. One of their approaches was to order returning galleons to search for safe harbors in California. As a result, two homeward galleons actually anchored and landed crews in California. The first was captain Pedro Unamuno's galleon the San Juan in 1587, which anchored in what was probably the vicinity of Morro Bay, or the inlet in the vicinity of Pismo Beach, and sent a land party inland. The second was captain Sebastião Rodrigues Soromenho's ship, San Agustin, in 1595, which ended up wrecking in the surf and remains below the sand in the vicinity of Drake's Bay. In the case of the San Agustin, Soromenho and his crew salvaged some of the wood from the wreck and constructed an open-top boat to sail the surviving crew members back to New Spain. They kept close the California coastline all the way south to Acapulco where almost eighty crew members arrived, nearly starved. Their experience must have been extraordinary and inspires no trivial amount of awe when looking out over the Pacific from the California coast.
Archaeologists working on sites in the Drake's Bay area sometimes find Chinese pottery shards from the 16th century Ming Dynasty. There are essentially two possible sources for these shards: the wreck of the San Agustin in 1595 or Drake's visit in 1579 (Drake raided a Spanish treasure ship before coming to California which may have had such pottery). Since historians are fairly certain that the wreck of the San Agustin is indeed somewhere in Drake's Bay, it is the likely source of these shards. It's incredible to imagine what this artifact went through - made by a Chinese artisan in the 16th century, traded to a Spanish galleon, sailed across the Pacific, broke up on shore and obtained by California Indians. 877 Type 5 Sample 4.

 The viceroy of New Spain in the late 16th century, Gaspar De Zuniga y Acevedo, 5th Count of Monterey, learned from the challenges of sending galleons whose crews were exhausted from their long voyage across the Pacific to explore the coast of California. He instead organized an expedition that would sail northward from Acapulco with the specific purpose of exploring potential ports along the California coast where galleons could seek refuge and gather supplies. The appointed head of this expedition was Sebastian Vizcaino, who was a crew member of the Santa Ana when Cavendish plundered it in 1587 and led an unsuccessful expedition on the coast of Baja California looking for pearl hatcheries in 1596.
It's somewhat difficult to find contemporary images of Manila galleons. This drawing of Acapulco in 1614 comes from a book published in 1632 (Pg. 117) concerning an expedition carried out by Nicholas de Cardona. This was the port of departure and the destination for all Manila galleons for the 250 years they took sail. The Vizcaino expedition also sailed from this port in 1602, just a little over a decade before this drawing was likely made. 

 The Vizcaino expedition departed from Acapulco for the coast of California on May 5, 1602 with three ships: a 200-tons burden flagship purchased in Realejo named San Diego, a smaller vessel purchased in Peru named Santo Tomas, and a small vessel with a couple sails named Tres Reyes (the term "fragata" is used to describe this vessel, which meant a small open-boat at the time, not a frigate. Wagner, Pg. 175, 185, 393). Apparently, the viceroy didn't completely trust Vizcaino and appointed several members of the expedition who served in two councils, one for navigational decisions and another to make military decisions. Vizcaino was given specific orders to comply with the decisions of his councils, having only the power of the tie-breaking vote in the case that either or both of the councils were deadlocked. Such councils were common on vessels at the time, but typically only for advisory purposes to the head of the expedition. (Wagner, Pg. 175). The expedition explored north up the coast of both Baja and Alta California. The ships were often separated from each-other and the crews ended up seriously suffering from scurvy, but they succeeded in thoroughly exploring Baja California, San Diego, Santa Catalina Island, the Santa Barbara Channel, Morro Bay, and Monterey Bay (which they named after the viceroy). A member of the expedition, Sebastian Melendez Rodriguez, was the pilot of the aforementioned San Agustin (Pg. 94-95) on its tragic voyage in 1595, but the weather prevented him and the expedition from exploring the wreck site. In Northern California, the Tres Reyes was separated from the other ships and made it as far north as Oregon. All of the ships were able to return back to Acapulco in 1603.

These two images were taken by Nicolas de Cardona's aforementioned work published in 1632 but produced from an expedition circa 1615. The image on the left is a drawing of Cardona's expedition ships. Vizcaino likely used ships similar to these in his expedition to California. The ship on the right is identified by Cardona as a "Fragata," the same type as Vizcaino's "Tres Reyes." 

And since this is the second in a series on first-hand accounts from visitors to the San Juan Capistrano area, it's important to note that the Vizcaino expedition conducted the very first recorded exploration of San Juan Bay, now known as the Dana Point/San Juan Capistrano area. After leaving San Diego on November 20th, 1602, one of the expedition members, Father Antonio de la Ascension, wrote:

 "From the time the fleet sailed from the Puerto de San Diego in pursuit of its voyage, the northwest wind, the king and absolute master of this sea and coast, commenced its work anew. It was as strong as usual, and they [Ascension used third-person point of view in his account] went on the bowline, making headway little by little with great labor, until they came in sight of an Ensenada. The country surrounding this was very verdant and the Indians made many smokes and fires, apparently signals for the ships to enter. On coming to look it over, no place was found where the ships could anchor and be safe from the northwest wind, so they passed on. A few lleagues [sic] farther, they saw a large island, almost twelve leagues away from the mainland, and went to inspect it. This was the day of the martyr Santa Catalina, and for this reason it was named 'Santa Catalina.'" (Wagner, Pg. 234-235)

Henry R. Wagner, the premier 20th century historian of early Spanish expeditions to the California coast, identified this "Ensenada" as "San Juan Bay" (Wagner, Pg. 401). The Vizcaino expedition produced maps that also gave Dana Point its first name, calling it "Punta de Arboleda," which roughly translates to "Grove Point." The word "grove" very likely referred to the tress that grew along the mouth of San Juan Creek.  Trees were a rare sight along the coastline in southern and Baja California, making them worthy of mention by Father Ascension. Before the voyage, the viceroy forbade Vizcaino from going inland to look for the Indians because they were unrelated to the goals of the expedition, so it's unsurprising that they were ignored (Wagner, Pg. 175). Santa Catalina Island is easily visible from the Dana Point area, even on a semi-clear day, so there must have been some kind of overcast or haze obscuring the view for the expedition not to see it until sailing a few leagues further north.


A comparison between a map from the Vizcaino expedition (c. 1602-1603, Wagner, Pg. 235) on the left and Google Earth on the right. During the expedition, there were a series of maps produced by its two cartographers, Geronimo Martin Palacios and Father Antonio de la Ascension. These maps were combined to make a complete map of California dating back to about 1603.

Though the Vizcaino expedition was successful in rediscovering the potential ports in California first explored by the Cabrillo expedition, in 1607 the viceroy Juan Mendoza, 3rd Marquis of Montesclaros declared that crews in returning galleons considered their voyage nearly complete by the time they reached California, making the need for developing a port unnecessary. Still, Manila galleons continued to sail along the California coast for over two hundred years after the Vizcaino expedition.

Depending on the winds, crews of these galleons would sight land in California somewhat randomly in latitude. Sometimes they arrived near Cape Mendocino, north of San Francisco, other times off Point Concepcion, or  sometimes further south into Baja California. Records that pinpoint the exact location of any particular voyage aren't conveniently available, but we do have some. In 1679 the San Antonio de Padua sighted land in 36 degrees, 29 minutes, where the logbook records that they saw "some very high, whitish, and treeless mountains." In 1702 the Rosario made landfall at Point Concepcion and in 1731 the Covadonga arrived in 36 degrees, 20 minutes, just south of Monterey Bay. For a complete and comprehensive list of every known Manila galleon, consult this website (the original link is dead, so I've provided one from the Wayback Machine).

While it's unclear how frequently non-Spanish ships visited California during this period, there were likely at least a few. One was a French merchant vessel, the Saint-Antoine-de-Padoue, captained by Nicolas de Frondat, that ended up in California in 1709 on a return from Asia. On July 23rd, 1709, the crew sighted land. Frondat wrote "At the stroke of noon we raised the island of California bearing south-southeastward five leagues, causing me to realize I am 338 leagues farther east or ahead of the vessel [than my reckoning] according to a Dutch map we have on board." Being seriously off course, Frondat recorded that since "only the Spanish navigate this passage, and they do not publish their records, the charts [we have on board] may be partly mistaken." The phrase "partly mistaken" was quite the understatement.

Frondat and his crew saw what seems to have been one of the channel islands, "We bore away to southward, and recognized the island of Saint Clement [San Clemente Island, though it's unclear which island exactly] from offshore. We noticed a patch of breakers towards shore, which we avoided; I took bearings upon both and found it lie east-southeast-west-northwestward from the aforesaid island, distant 3.5 leagues. Saint Clement is a sandy island, with a breaking bank three-fourths of a league off from it; otherwise, it seems fairly safe. It may be eight leagues in circuit, though the maps show it as much larger. I found it to lie in 33 degrees north latitude; the maps, nonetheless, place it in 32 degrees 20 minutes." The size of the island and its latitude suggest it was more probably San Nicholas Island. Although they apparently sailed towards shore looking for a port, no mention is made of seeing any of the other channel islands and two days later they were far down the coast into Baja California. It's possible that Frondat's limited descriptions of the area were due to the fact that much of the crew was seriously ill by the time they reached California. Their story prompts the question of whether or not California had yet other "off course" visitors during this era. (Brown, Pg. 25-27)

In the 1740s, the British Navy Commodore George Anson spent time in and around South America attempting to attack Spanish outposts. He was unsuccessful but did capture a Spanish treasure ship in 1743. On board was a map that showed the Spanish knowledge of the land masses in the Americas. The map of California shown here was printed in France in 1750, but was originally sourced from the Spanish map seized by Anson. There are numerous errors, but the general layout of the coast is presented with the names of geographical features given by the Vizcaino expedition in 1602-1603. 

As the decades passed by, most Spanish galleons elected to stand out from the coast to reduce the probability that they would wreck on land. At times, it seems this was also true even before the Vizcaino expedition of 1602. While in the vicinity of the Channel Islands, Father Ascension of the Vizcaino Expedition wrote that when "those who came from China [Manila galleons] passed in view of these islands [the Channel Islands], they never thought them to be islands, because they were so close together, and therefore they kept away from them. We passed between them and the mainland [in the Santa Barbara Channel] as I have stated" (Wagner, Pg. 239).

But throughout the 250 years these galleons sailed the Pacific, it seems some galleons bore close to the coast of California. Jose Gonzalez Cabrera Bueno, a senior Spanish pilot, wrote a sailing guide in 1734 that described one of the galleon routes south from Point Concepcion as being through the Santa Barbara Channel (between Santa Barbara and the Channel Islands) and then southward between Santa Catalina Island and the mainland and onward to Acapulco. In other words, right along the coast of what is now Orange County. Cabrera Bueno even indicated that along this stretch of the "wooded coast [only where fresh water creeks flowed into the ocean]...an extra spar could be cut if there were need" (Schurz, Pg. 110). Although seemingly unlikely, it's certainly possible that a Manila galleon anchored in San Juan Bay to cut a spar from the trees along San Juan Creek.

Of the particular region now occupied by Orange County, Cabrera Bueno wrote that, from San Pedro, [a rough translation] "the coast runs Northeast, Southeast, until altitude of 34 degrees where the land is full of beaches, and some steep ravines, this coast is very secure and clean and low, and here a hill in this low land, [San Joaquin Hills or the Santa Ana Mountains?] and bald, that measures a league [?] from northwest to southeast if viewed from the coast. From a distance it resembles an island. If standing from east to west it is four leagues full of valleys." The article "The Manila Galleon and California" by William Schurz cites a letter from 1769 (Pg. 110) that states that much of Cabrera Bueno's source material for this stretch of coast were the Vizcaino expedition reports.

If there's one thing people are good at, it's blurring the line between what we can imagine and what exists in reality. Over the years, numerous stories of wrecked Manila galleons have worked their way into the maritime lore of Californians, especially among treasure hunters. These include the supposed wrecks of Spanish galleons such as the Santa Marta off the coast of Santa Catalina Island in about 1582 and the Nuestra Senorda de Ayuda also off the coast of Santa Catalina Island in about 1642. There's also the British "pirate" George Compton who supposedly chased the Manila galleon San Sebastian through the Santa Barbara Channel before it ran aground on Santa Catalina or San Clemente Island in 1753 or 1754. It is also said that George Compton repeated the same attack off the coast of Southern California a year later, but this time it wrecked the Manila galleon Santa Ana. If you look up any of these stories on the internet, you're bound to find them printed in articles and in books.

As alluring as these stories are, current research suggests they're pretty unlikely. Out of the the four galleons which supposedly wrecked off the coast of Southern California, only the Santa Ana shows up on the most complete lists of Manila galleon names. The only problem is that this Santa Ana on record didn't sink in the 1750s, but in 1620 when it was attacked by a Dutch fleet in the San Bernardino Straight in the Philippines. Records do not contain any other evidence of wrecks in the other years these supposed wrecks occurred - 1582, 1642, 1753, 1754. As cited earlier in this post, consult this website for a list of all of the known Manila galleons.

But do we have any hard evidence of a Manila galleon wrecking off the coast of California? Possibly. Vizcaino recorded in his journal that an Indian woman on Santa Catalina Island "brought him two pieces of figured China silk, in fragments, telling him that they had got them from people like ourselves, who had negroes [sic]; that they had come on the ship which was driven by a strong wind to the coast and wrecked, and that it was farther on. The general endeavored to take two or three Indians with him, that they might tell him where the ship had been lost, promising to give them clothes. The Indians consented and went with him to the captain's ship, but as we were weighing anchor preparatory to leaving the Indians said they wished to go ahead in their canoe, and that they did not wish to go aboard the ship, fearing that we would abduct them, and the general, in order not to excite them said: 'Very well.'" They set sail but immediately hit a strong head-wind which "prevented our going where the Indians indicated; therefore we stood out to sea and the Indians returned to their pueblo. This attempt was given up because we did not have the launch, which had gone to reconnoitre [sic] another island, apparently belonging to the mainland, and because the admiral's ship was absent, as it could not make the said port, and because the fog was so very dense that we could not see each other, and also because there seemed to be many islands, keys, and shoals, among which in such weather, the pilots did not dare take the flagship; and so we continued our voyage" (Vizcaino, Pg. 85-86)

It is true that some Manila galleons were lost on their way back to Acapulco and have yet to be found. But of the three lost galleons this other could find in this category, only one of them was lost before the Vizcaino expedition:

1578 - San Juanillo - Now known to be the wrecked galleon on the coast of Baja California in Vizcaino Bay (See the recently published Ghost Galleon by Edward Von der Porten)
1603 - San Antonio
1693 - Santo Christo de Burgos - now known to be the "Beeswax Wreck" near Manzanita Oregon. Timbers from the ship were recently removed for preservation from a cave along the coast.
1705 - San Francisco Xavier

 This presents somewhat of a mystery as to the origins of the Chinese silk in possession of the Indian woman on Santa Catalina Island. It's possible that the silk was obtained from the crew of the San Agustin as they sailed in their cobbled-together boat through the area in 1595 on their way to Acapulco. Or perhaps Chinese silk from the San Agustin (1595), Unamuno (1587), Drake (1579), Cabrillo (1542) or some Manila galleon that anchored in the area, was passed along the extensive trade network of California Indians. The fact that Vizcaino indicated that the Indians described the ship as a "wreck" implies that the most likely explanation is that the silk "fragments" came from the San Agustin. Then again, did the Indians really expect to row their canoes all the way up to the vicinity of Drake's Bay in Northern California to show Vizcaino where the wrecked ship was located? It seems highly unlikely. We just don't know. Such is the source of the mystery of the sea.

 Over the years, artifacts have also been found along the coast of Southern California which came from Spanish ships. In the 1870s, archaeological research was conducted by Paul Schumacher on Santa Catalina Island that yielded Spanish colonial items such as a sword, tools, tack, a coin dated to 1719 and a medal possibly dated to 1725. These artifacts are currently preserved at Harvard University in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. In recent years, researcher Marla Daily of the Santa Cruz Island Foundation examined the artifacts and determined that they were most likely from the packet-boat San Jose, which was lost while attempting to reach San Diego Bay to supply the first Spanish colonists in Alta California under Gaspar de Portolá in 1769 (a future blog post). Given the age of the coins, Daily's conclusion makes sense. But does this mean that a ship wrecked on Santa Catalina Island? Daily points out that the burial site where the Spanish colonial items were found (on the western end of the island) is the only to yield metal objects such as these on any of the islands off the coast of Southern California. Of course, Indians on the island of Santa Catalina were constantly trading with Indians on the mainland, so perhaps they simply obtained Spanish colonial items through trade.

These are some of the Spanish colonial artifacts collected on Santa Catalina Island. The dates on the coin and medal indicate that they probably didn't come from a Manila galleon, but were rather traded or came from the San Jose supply ship of 1769.

In 1958 a storm washed ashore a 30 foot long by 6 foot wide portion of a ship onto Solana Beach, north of San Diego, that may have been a part of a Spanish ship. Apparently, this portion of ship was handcrafted with hand made nails, indicating it was very old. Without a thorough examination by experts, it's difficult to tell what kind of ship it was a part of, but it is speculated to be either a part of a Manila galleon or the aforementioned San Jose supply ship from 1769.

It's certainly possible that the San Jose could have wrecked north of San Diego on or near Santa Catalina Island or Solana Beach. The logs of the ships supplying the Portolá expedition indicate that their crews utilized old records for navigation sourced from the Vizcaino expedition which located San Diego Bay, where the supply ships were to rendezvous, further north than it actually is. The error was also indicated in a letter written in San Diego in 1769 by Father Junipero Serra (Pg. 74-75), the Franciscan head of the Spanish colonization effort in 1769, who wrote that he and his fellow Spaniards were under the false impression that San Diego Bay was located between the latitude of 33 and 34 degrees. The portion of California between these two degrees of latitude roughly stretches from Solana Beach northward to Santa Monica, while San Diego sits further south at about 32.7 degrees. Had the crew of the San Jose attempted to locate San Diego between 33 and 34 degrees, any number of factors could have contributed to the loss of the ship. Its crew may have become lost, run too low on supplies to continue, and/or suffered from sickness and disease, as had disastrously occurred on another of the supply ships, the San Carlos. Perhaps too the crew mutinied. Whatever the case, it seems that at present, the most plausible source of the Spanish artifacts on Catalina Islands and the portion of vessel that washed up on Solana Beach was the lost supply ship from the Portolá expedition, the San Jose.

The portion of ship that washed ashore on Solana Beach. Its origin is unknown, but could be from the 1769 supply ship San Jose. It could also be a portion of a Manila galleon or even a later vessel. The Bowers Museum in Santa Ana currently has in its collection two wooden fragments from this portion of ship.

 Though not hard evidence, the historical record has also given some indication that hitherto unknown European contact indeed occurred sometime in the 18th century, prior to Spanish colonization efforts in California. The members of the Portolá Expedition in 1769 collected ample evidence of prior European contact throughout their march. Just a week after marching north from San Diego, the official journalist of the expedition, Father Juan Crespí, wrote that "We have seen beads, Castilian ones, being worn around their necks; whether they will may [sic] have been preserved by them since General Vizcaino's time [167 years earlier], or whether there may be some nation further up that has given them to them, we cannot tell." A couple days later, the Indians in today's Orange County indicated that people like the Spanish were somewhere up to the north, a point which gained considerable legitimacy just days later when the Indians in the village of Hutuknga on the Santa Ana River showed the Spaniards worn metal swords and spikes crafted by blacksmiths. As the expedition continued north, the Indians continuously indicated that people like the Spanish were somewhere northward, even after the expedition reached points north of Point Conception, where they also found more European beads among the Indians (Crespi, Pg. 287, 357-359, 445).

 Perhaps the most striking evidence of earlier European contact was encountered by the Portolá Expedition on December 9th, 1769, while the expedition was camped on Monterey Bay (though they didn't recognize it as Monterey Bay). According to the journals, "[A] storm lasted all day until night, when it cleared up. The [Baja] California Indians who are with the expedition found on the beach an iron hoop, very large and much worn, which, when it was new, must have weighed several arrobas. It is thought it must have come from some ship's mast" (Palou, Pg. 236). This information was so sensitive to Spanish authorities that they removed any mention of it from the journals of the expedition. Such was the degree to which the Spanish desired to protect their precious trade with Asia. If the hoop was indeed found washed ashore, one cannot help but wonder if it could have been carried by the ocean currents from a ship on some distant Asian shore, as so many interesting objects travel the world today. Then again, perhaps it really was hard evidence that a ship had earlier visited Monterey.
Jesuit Father, Ignacio Tirsch, made a series of watercolors during his tenure as a missionary in Baja California from 1762-1768. In this image, a Manila ship is anchored off of Cabo San Lucas. During Tirsch's time in Baja California, the only ships from Manila which arrived in Acapulco from Manila were the Nuestra Senora del Rosario, y San Juan Bautista (a patache that sailed in 1762), the Santa Rosa (a frigate that sailed in 1766) and the San Carlos Borromeo (a frigate that sailed in 1767). The ship shown in the image has three masts, which apparently rejects the possibility that it's the Nuestra Senora del Rasario, y San Juan Bautista because it was a patache, a ship type with only two masts. This then, is the closest to an identifiable image of a Manila ship this author could find, being either the Santa Rosa of 1766 or the San Carlos Borromeo of 1767. The ship appears to have a very high stern castle, a design feature that was fast going out of usage in the 18th century, but perhaps still necessary given a high tonnage of goods being transported. The image apparently shows a launch from the ship arriving at the beach near the mission, where there may even be a sailor (with hat) exchanging goods with a Baja California Indian. Other Indians seem to be preparing goods for trade. The implication is that the crews aboard these ships would at times anchor in the California to secure goods such as food or water. Perhaps the same occurred in Alta California with the Indians before Spanish colonization as well.

 Further mention of mysterious European visitors predating the Portolá Expedition in 1769 was recorded by Captain Juan Bautista de Anza, who led two overland expeditions to California in 1774 and 1775-1776. During a visit to Mission San Carlos Borromeo on April 20th, 1774, Anza wrote that "A few days before my arrival here the mast of a ship was stranded on the nearby beach, whose construction and wood of which it is made are unknown to those of our people who live here, but they believe it was broken two-thirds off. It is entirely run through with very strong nails with long heads, and with two points which do not pass through to be clinched. Their iron has not rusted at all nor are the points blunt which projected where it was broken. From these last two circumstances the few persons who are experienced in the matter of vessels infer that it cannot be very long ago that the vessel from which this mast came was wrecked. At the first opportunity that offers it will be taken to the port of San Blas in order that it may be carefully examined." Similar to the hoop found in Monterey, perhaps this piece also washed ashore from some distant place.

 More significantly, two years later Anza made a report concerning a possible shipwreck decades earlier near Mission San Luis Obispo. Reporting on April 23rd, 1776, Anza wrote "Mention should be made of a report which a week ago they [the Indians] gave to Father Juan Figuer, one of the ministers of the mission San Luis [Obispo], who is versed in the language of this region. Once when he went to the ocean beach they showed him some rocks some distance out to sea, telling him that twenty three winters or years ago twelve persons like us in whiteness, clothing, weapons, and other things they see, were shipwrecked and perished on those rocks. Before this misfortune they had disembarked from their launch, landed, and made the natives presents of glass beads, large knives, and pocket knives, there being the ones which our expedition found the first time they traveled through these regions [seeming to refer to the Portolá expedition on the Santa Ana River, mentioned above]. The father asked them if they saw another and larger vessel out at sea. They said 'No,' but there is no doubt that the vessel which they told of was wrecked, for besides the things given to them by the persons who were managing the vessel, they took advantage of its fragments, which they collected in the bats which they use, or of what the tide washed up on shore. Who these people might be I leave to be discussed by somebody who may be better informed than I." The year the Indians seemed to indicate that this event occurred was 1753, when the ship Santisima Trinidad y Nuestra Senora del Buen Fin set sail from Manila on July 28th and, after a normal length journey across the Pacific, arrived in Acapulco on January 2nd, 1754. Perhaps the ship anchored in Morro Bay and sent a party ashore to trade for supplies, or perhaps something occurred during the journey which led to a launch being separated from the vessel. Without further information, we can only guess.

 In one case, an Indian at Mission San Carlos Borromeo was even known to have remembered when ships from Manila anchored in Monterey, long before Spanish colonization. His name was Pechipechi from the village of Sargentaruc. Father Matías de Santa Catalina Noriega baptized Pechipechi on October 4th, 1783 and recorded as a note, "he says he is old enough to remember when the Chinese Ships [Manila ships] dealt with his people and that they gave them abolonis [perhaps instead albalorios, or beads?] for otter skins and on one occasion left a pipe or barrel on the Point of Cyprus [just south of the Point of Pines], which the Indians took advantage of in using the iron from it for many years. He had the signs of being highly venerated." Though his age is given as "mas que un siglo (more than a century old)," it's safe to say that it's more likely that he would have been in his 70s or 80s, stretching his memory into the early decades of the 18th century. He died in the "rigors of the cold and snow" in the winter of 1787.

After the colonization of California by the Spanish starting in 1769, Manila galleons (or by this time, frigates) did put into port in California. The first was the San Jose (unrelated to the 1769 supply ship that was lost) which anchored in Monterey in 1779. The San Felipe also put into Monterey on October 10, 1784, where it stayed for about a month. The San Jose stopped in Monterey again in 1785, "storm-wracked and pest-ridden" (Schurz, Pg. 125). In 1795, two galleons put in at Monterey, possibly the San Fernando (Magallanes) and the NS Concepcion. In 1797, another anchored in Monterey while a separate ship anchored in Santa Barbara, possibly El Activo (a bergantin) and Fama (a frigate). Still, most were in a hurry to reach Acapulco and passed right by California. Despite efforts by the Spanish government to require ships coming from Manila to stop in California, both for the benefit of the ship and the new settlements in California, most of them elected to pass (Schurz, Pg. 124). The age of the Manila galleon trade ended in 1815 during the war of Mexican independence.

In the end, it's neither the possibility of treasure nor the insignificance of California in the Manila galleon trade that is the most important part of this story. Instead, the most important part of this story are the human experiences that went along with it. It's amazing to imagine what Indians living and travelling on the hills above the shores of California's coast must have thought while looking out across the sea into the expansive deep blue marble of the ocean, covered with streaks of light and dark shades of grey overcast which so often obscured the offshore islands, only to see the bold sails and tall masts of a Spanish galleon sailing silently into the unknown. The enduring mystery of its origins and destination, as well as the nature of its occupants, surely affected the wonder and conversations of Indians returning back to their villages, perhaps filling their imaginations with wonder while falling asleep beneath a sparkling sky on a moonlit night. So too the sailor aboard the galleon, who after months on the perilous ocean with a very high probability of being lost to the ages at sea, contemplated in wonder (and hunger) at the sight of the browns dotted with green along the folded coastline of California, brightly lit against the blue sky through the windows of cold misty coastal fog. We know these thoughts and feelings to some degree because we too experience them while living here.

A depiction of a galleon off the west coast of New Spain on a map printed in Antwerp in 1592. The last of their kind, though different in design than the one shown here, arrived in Acapulco in 1815. Six years later Mexico achieved independence from Spain.

So much of the discipline of history is working to determine the facts to tell a story. But there's another important side to history; imagining what may have been. Did a galleon anchor in San Juan Bay to obtain fresh water or supplies at some point in the 250 years they sailed along the coast of California? We'll probably never know. But to know for certain may only spoil the produce of our imaginations anyway. In this case, we know just enough to legitimately let our minds wonder freely. And so too for the millions that call California home; who swim in its beaches in the summertime, watch the sunset over the ocean from its hills and drive along the dotted lights of its coastal highways in the evening, it's good to know that at one time those galleons sailed along the same coastline. For their stories give us perspective on our own. They serve as stimulants to our imaginations while simultaneously enriching our appreciation of the landscapes and rich history that surround us in this place we call home. Thanks for reading.

Sources are either linked above or listed below:
Brown, Alan K. (2001). A Description of Distant Roads: Original Journals of the First Expedition 
             into California, 1769-1770. San Diego State University Press.

 Palou, Francisco. (1926). Historical Memoirs of New California, Vol. 2. University of California Press.

Wagner, H. R. (1966). Spanish Voyages to the Northwest Coast of America in the Sixteenth Century. Amsterdam: N. Israel.

Please see the following links for more on the San Juan Capistrano Visitor Series:

Part 5: The Otter Trade and the First U.S. Citizens in Orange County
Part 6: The Great Stone Church (A future post)
Part 9: Secularization and End of the Mission Era in Capistrano (A future post)
Part 10: Richard Henry Dana at Dana Point

Please see the following links for Mission San Juan Capistrano - Dating the Artifacts Series: