Francis Drake and the California Indians, 1579 Part 2

Other Pomo songs used in ceremonies are given by Loeb:[109]

1. _=U =u hulai leli ha ha._

2. _He he la le ha hi hi hi, ya ya ya, hu wa!_

3. _Yo yo hale e he na gagoya =o he he!_

4. _Ho yu ko, he he, a ha a a. Hi ye ko, lai ye ko, He tsi ye._

5. _Yo ho yo ho yaho, he yo ho waha._

These examples show how generally similar are the Coast Miwok[110] and Pomo ceremonial songs of today to the song of 1579 given by Madox. Here again an exact correspondence should not be expected, since it is not known whether the song given by Madox was one a.s.sociated with a particular ceremonial occurrence, nor is it known how changeable these songs are. And again, in the time that has pa.s.sed and in the changing course of circ.u.mstances since 1579, some exactness has almost inevitably been sacrificed. Madox's statement that the natives sang "one dauncing first wh his handes up, and al ye rest after lyke ye prest and people"

verifies Fletcher's description of the singing and dancing at the time of the great ceremony of June 26.

SUPPOSED INDIAN TRADITIONS OF DRAKE'S VISIT

Professor George Davidson was the second investigator to use an Indian tradition as evidence of the Drake's Bay location of the 1579 visit.[111] The source of the tradition is in J. P. Munro-Fraser's _History of Marin County_,[112] and is stated as follows:

First of all comes an old Indian legend which comes down through the Nicasios to the effect that Drake did land at this place [Drake's Bay]. Although they have been an interior tribe ever since the occupation by the Spaniards and doubtless were at that time, it still stands to reason that they would know all about the matter. If the s.h.i.+p remained in the bay thirty-six days it is reasonable to suppose that a knowledge of its presence reached every tribe within an area of one hundred miles and that the major portion of them paid a visit to the bay to see the "envoys of the Great Spirit," as they regarded the white seamen. One of these Indians named Theognis who is reputed to have been one hundred and thirty years old when he made the statement, says that Drake presented the Indians with a dog, some young pigs, and seeds of several species of grain.... The Indians also state that some of Drake's men deserted him here, and, making their way into the country, became amalgamated with the aboriginals to such an extent that all traces of them were lost, except possibly a few names [Nicasio, Novato] which are to be found among the Indians.

Wagner feels that there is no reason or evidence to indicate that the Nicasio Indian tradition refers to Drake,[113] a conclusion with which I agree. If any early expedition did leave pigs with the Coast Miwok, it could have been the Spanish one of 1793, which attempted unsuccessfully to form a settlement at Bodega Bay. Felipe Goycoechea, in 1793 specifically mentions seeing some pigs and chickens which the Spanish had left earlier in the year with the Indians at that place.[114] With Wagner's statement that, if any credit can be given to the pig episode, Cermeno may have been the donor,[115] I cannot agree, mainly for the reason that Cermeno's crew were hungry and would not have given the Indians any pigs if they had had them. The story of the dog is interesting since neither the Pomo nor Coast Miwok had dogs in pre-Spanish times, and the evidence indicates that dogs were introduced shortly after 1800.[116] Aside from these facts, the supposed Nicasio tradition does not have a true ring--it is not the type of story that Indians are accustomed to tell.

A belief among the Coast Miwok[117] and some Pomo[118] tribes that the home of the dead is a.s.sociated with Point Reyes should perhaps be taken into account. The belief is that this seaward projection is a.s.sociated with the dead, who follow a string leading out through the surf to the land of the dead. It is barely possible that this belief, which is quite clearly of Coast Miwok origin, is a legendary reminiscence of Drake's visit which seems to have been, in part at least, interpreted by the Indians as the return of the dead. It may be superfluous to mention that no Indian has ever stated his idea of the origin of this legend,[119] or of its a.s.sociation with the visit of Drake's party; yet there remains the possibility that the occurrence made an impression so deep that Point Reyes became in this way a.s.sociated with the home of the dead in the west, from which the English were supposed to have come and gone. If this tradition were a.s.sociated with Drake, it would, of course, signify that his anchorage was behind Point Reyes in Drake's Bay. On the other hand, this remarkable point which juts far out into the ocean is a prominent feature of Coast Miwok territory, and by reason of its unique topography might have been a.s.sociated with local ceremonial beliefs.[120]

I may conclude this discussion by saying that no direct evidence of Drake's visit in 1579 is to be found in recorded local Indian traditions. In view of the long time that has intervened, no native legendary evidence is to be expected. Euhemerism is ordinarily rather an unproductive and hazardous approach for the historian.

RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION

The results of this survey can now be weighed and a solution to the problem of the location of Drake's California anchorage suggested.

It has been shown that there is not a sc.r.a.p of ethnographic evidence to suggest that Drake landed in Trinidad Bay and saw the Yurok Indians. The Hondius _Portus Novae Albionis_ might apply equally to Bodega Bay or Drake's Bay, and by itself can only rise to the level of supporting, rather than primary, evidence. Thus, in reference to the Trinidad Bay theory, the map cannot alone and unaided prove the point against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The ethnographic evidence indicates strongly, indeed almost conclusively, that Drake landed in territory occupied by Coast Miwok Indians.[121] Since Pomo culture and Coast Miwok Indian culture were so similar as to be almost indistinguishable, the culture described by Fletcher might refer to either Coast Miwok or Pomo, and no solution would be forthcoming were it not for the additional fact that _all_ the unquestionably native words (_Hioh_, _Gnaah_, _Huchee kecharo_, _Nocharo mu_, _Cheepe_) are of Coast Miwok derivation. It may therefore be concluded that Drake had contact mainly with the Coast Miwok. Any effort to prove that the customs described point expressly to the Pomo as Drake's visitors would have to deny the linguistic proofs and rest upon the unlikely a.s.sumption that Pomo and Coast Miwok culture were markedly divergent in 1579.[122] The Pomo ethnographic data cited here are therefore to be looked upon not as unique Pomo cultural traits, but as supplementary, comparative material which is at a premium for the Coast Miwok. But there are two bays in Coast Miwok territory to which Drake might have brought his s.h.i.+p. These are Drake's Bay and Bodega Bay.

No internal evidence points specifically to either Drake's or Bodega Bay--the accounts lack geographical detail,[123] the ethnographic Coast Miwok culture was in operation in both bays, and contemporary maps are so inaccurate and open to variable interpretation that nothing definite can be ascertained from their inspection. What is needed, therefore, is some hint or lead which will break this stalemate. There are two such leads. The first is the plate of bra.s.s left by Drake and recently found at Drake's Bay. Granted the authenticity of the Drake plate, it now does not rank as an isolated find, however spectacular, but rather as good supporting evidence of the conclusion based upon my ethnographic a.n.a.lysis. The second point of evidence is Fletcher's statement that "this country our generall named _Albion_, and that for two causes; the one in respect of the white bancks and cliffes, which lie toward the sea: the other, that it might have some affinity, euen in name also, with our owne country, which was sometime so called." The _Famous Voyage_ version says almost the same, except that the country was named _Nova Albion_, which agrees more closely with the wording of the Drake plate. Wagner has discussed the white cliffs,[124] but his argument is unconvincing. There is no good reason to doubt that the cliffs mentioned were at the bay, since Fletcher implies that the naming took place before the departure.[125] And it must be remembered that white cliffs which face toward the sea[126] are at Drake's Bay and _not at Bodega_.

In June, 1579, then, Drake probably landed in what is now known as Drake's Bay. He remained there for five weeks repairing his s.h.i.+p, and found the Indians the most remarkable objects of interest with which he came in contact. From a comparative a.n.a.lysis of the detailed descriptions of the native ceremonies, artifacts, and language I conclude that in the fullest authentic account, _The World Encompa.s.sed_, it is the Coast Miwok Indians that are referred to.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Alfred L. Kroeber, _Handbook of the Indians of California_, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78 (Was.h.i.+ngton, D.C., 1925).

[2] Robert F. Heizer and William W. Elmendorf, "Francis Drake's California Anchorage in the Light of the Indian Language Spoken There,"

_Pacific Historical Review_, XI (1942), 213-217.

[3] George C. Davidson, "Directory for the Pacific Coast of the United States," _Report of the Superintendent of the Coast Survey ... 1858_ (Was.h.i.+ngton, D.C., 1859). App. 44, pp. 297-458.

[4] George C. Davidson, "An Examination of Some of the Early Voyages of Discovery and Exploration on the Northwest Coast of America from 1539 to 1603," _Report of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey ... June, 1886_ (Was.h.i.+ngton, D.C., 1887), App. 7, pp. 155-253; and _Identification of Sir Francis Drake's Anchorage on the Coast of California in the Year 1579_, California Historical Society Publications (San Francisco, 1890).

[5] George C. Davidson, "Francis Drake on the Northwest Coast of America in the Year 1579. The Golden Hinde Did Not Anchor in the Bay of San Francisco," _Transactions and Proceedings of the Geographical Society of the Pacific_, ser. 2, Bull. 5.

[6] Henry R. Wagner, "George Davidson, Geographer of the Northwest Coast of America," _California Historical Society Quarterly_, XI (1932), 299-320. The idea that Drake entered San Francis...o...b..y was held by others than Davidson. See, for example, J. D. B. Stillman, "Did Drake Discover San Francis...o...b..y?" _Overland Monthly_, I (1868), 332-337. See also Henry R. Wagner, _Sir Francis Drake's Voyage around the World_ (San Francisco, 1926), chaps. vii and viii, and notes on pp. 488-499, esp.

pp. 495-496.

[7] J. W. Robertson, _The Harbor of St. Francis_ (San Francisco, 1926).

[8] Hubert Howe Bancroft, _History of California_, Vol. I: _1542-1800_ (San Francisco, 1884), pp. 81-94.

[9] Edward Everett Hale, in Justin Winsor, _Narrative and Critical History of the United States_, Vol. III, pp. 74-78.

[10] Alexander G. McAdie, "Nova Albion--1579," _Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society_, n. s., XXVIII (1918), 189-198. R. P.

Bishop, "Drake's Course in the North Pacific," _British Columbia Historical Quarterly_, III (1939), 151-182.

[11] F. P. Sprent, _Sir Francis Drake's Voyage round the World, 1577-1580, Two Contemporary Maps_ (London, 1927), pp. 10-11, map 2.

[12] Samuel A. Barrett, _The Ethno-Geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians_, Univ. Calif. Publ. Am. Arch. and Ethn., Vol. 6, No. 1 (Berkeley, 1908), pp. 28-37.

[13] _Ibid._, n. 7, pp. 36-37.

[14] Kroeber, _Handbook_, pp. 275-278.

[15] J. W. Robertson (_Francis Drake and Other Early Explorers along the Pacific Coast_, San Francisco, 1927), in discussing Kroeber's a.n.a.lysis of the Fletcher account (_op. cit._, p. 177), says: "There seems to be no proof either that Drake landed at any particular harbor, or that anything can be adduced so specific as to establish his residence on this coast." The latter part of this statement cannot be maintained seriously in the face of Kroeber's presentation of direct evidence to the contrary.

[16] Heizer and Elmendorf, "Francis Drake's California Anchorage."

[17] The words recorded by Fletcher are in _The World Encompa.s.sed_. The Madox vocabulary was printed by E. G. R. Taylor, "Francis Drake and the Pacific," _Pacific Historical Review_, I (1932), 360-369. Madox's account has been further discussed by Wagner in the _California Historical Society Quarterly_, XI (1932), 309-311.

[18] See Barrett, _Ethno-Geography_, map facing p. 332, and Kroeber, _Handbook_, fig. 22, p. 274, for the area held by the Coast Miwok.

[19] For details see _California Historical Society Quarterly_, XVI (1937), 192.

[20] For particulars see _Drake's Plate of Bra.s.s: Evidence of His Visit to California in 1579_, California Historical Society, Special Publication No. 13 (San Francisco, 1937).

[21] See R. B. Haselden, "Is the Drake Plate of Bra.s.s Genuine?"

_California Historical Society Quarterly_, XVI (1937), 271-274.

Haselden's queries have been answered already. W. Hume-Rotherby (review of _Drake's Plate of Bra.s.s Authenticated_, in _Geographical Journal_, CXIV [1939], 54-55) points out that the letters engraved on the plate (B, N, M) are not paralleled by other sixteenth-century inscriptions, and that the form of the numeral 5 is suspect. These and other problems which he poses have the effect of creating a smokescreen of doubt without contributing anything new. Wagner is skeptical of the date on the plate (June 17) and of the fact that the plate is of bra.s.s rather than lead ("Creation of Rights of Sovereignty through Symbolic Acts,"

_Pacific Historical Review_, VII [1938], 297-326).

[22] Allen L. Chickering, "Some Notes with Regard to Drake's Plate of Bra.s.s," _California Historical Society Quarterly_, XVI (1937), 275-281, and "Further Notes on the Drake Plate," _ibid._, XVIII (1939), 251-253.

[23] Herbert E. Bolton, "Francis Drake's Plate of Bra.s.s," in _Drake's Plate of Bra.s.s_, California Historical Society, Special Publication No.

13 (San Francisco, 1937).

[24] C. G. Fink and E. P. Polushkin, _Drake's Plate of Bra.s.s Authenticated_ ... California Historical Society, Special Publication No. 14 (San Francisco, 1938).