5 T1l~1Ol1c Date Copyright 2012

The Rediscovery of Mission San Rafael Arcangel: An Archaeological Snapshot of the 20th California Mission

Cassidy R. DeBaker

A thesis submitted to

Sonoma State University

Rohnert Park, California

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER'S OF ARTS

Cultural Resources Management

Adrian Praetzellis, Ph.D.

laura Watt, Ph.D.

Cassidy R. DeBaker

ii AUTHORIZATION FOR REPORDUCTION OF

MASTER'S THESIS

I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in its entirety, without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provides full and proper acknowledgement of authorship.

Date: ~ Pt· ll, ?.o 1'2.-

Ill The Rediscovery of Mission San Rafael Arcangel: An Archaeological Snapshot of the 20th California Mission

Thesis by

Cassidy R. DeBaker

ABSTRACT Purpose: There has been very little written about Mission San Rafael Arcangel, especially in comparison to the other 20 California missions. Its documentary record is clouded with inconsistencies, omissions, and miscalculations, often raising more questions than answers. A very small body of primary documentation exits that describes the layout of the mission buildings, structures, and surrounding landscape during the Mission Period (1769-1834). A handful of artifacts have been recovered from within and in close proximity to the study area that can be loosely associated with the MSRA, but there has been no positive identification or attempt to locate the original buildings.

The purpose of this study is to understand the early footprint of the mission complex, to identify the possible mission-era resource types, and to assess the overall potential for archaeological sensitivity within the study area. This thesis is focused on Mission San Rafael Arcangel during the Mission Period and does not include a detailed land use history of the study area.

Methods: In order to illustrate and describe the mission complex, archival data was collected and analyzed using historical research methods and geospatial mapping techniques. Historic survey maps from the Mexican (1821-1848} and American (1848- present) periods were heavily relied upon, as there are no earlier maps, photographs, or sketches that date to the Mission Period. The archival information was compared to the overall documented history of the study area and archaeological discoveries from other California Mission sites. In order to define areas of ground disturbance, a conceptual "cut/fill map" was created by overlaying current elevation readings over an 1879 historic topographic map.

Findings: The main chapel building, cemetery, and unknown building were formerly located within the study area. Based on the results of the historical research, the mapped locations of the mission complex and associated landscape features! and the cut/fill map, most of the study area has undergone a substantial amount of modification and disturbance. However, the dearth of historical documents from the Mission Period and the absence of archaeological investigations make it difficult to reliably assess the survival of archaeological remains on the MSRA campus. In short, we do not know the

iv extent to which mission-era archaeology has survived. This uncertainty makes it imperative to ensure that important mission-era resources are not inadvertently damaged during future development projects. The discovery and analysis of mission-era archaeological materials or structural remains is crucial for archaeological inquiry because it has the ability to address many unresolved questions about the original placement of the mission complex, chronology, land use areas, and environmental changes.

Chair: Signature

MA Program: Cultural Resources Management Sonoma State University

v ''A modern survey may describe bearings and distances to a greater degree of precision using modern technology, but it can be no more precise than the original measurements that created the original lines"

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is a pleasure to thank the many people who made this thesis possible and to whom I am grateful beyond measure. Above alii would like to thank my family for their personal support and great patience at all times. To my mom, Judi, who experienced all the ups and downs of graduate school with me and without whose love, encouragement, and insight, I would not have finished this thesis. To my dad, Gary, who continued to serve as sounding board during the life of this study, and who will continue to be throughout mine. To Daryl and Lily Rose, who patiently allowed me to study at the expense of family duties and who listened to me read out loud for countless hours. To my step-mom, Susie, who loves history and people just as much as I do.

I would like to thank my thesis committee, Adrian Praetzellis, laura Watt, and Nick Tipon for their direction, dedication, and invaluable advice over these past few years. To my thesis chair Adrian Praetzellis, whose positive, understanding, and encouraging nature has been an inspiration. He has responded to all my questions and queries and coached me to speak with confidence in front of large groups. I hope to someday be able to command an audience as well as he can. I would also like to express deep appreciation to my professors Margaret Purser, John Wingard, laura Watt, and Michelle Jolly for sharing their knowledge with me.

I am deeply indebted to Barb Siskin for her continued support and encouragement. I am extremely lucky to have a friend and colleague who cares so much about my work and who deserves thanks for helping me keep things in perspective.

Completing this thesis would have been all the more difficult were it not for the support provided by my colleagues at Garcia and Associates, especially John Garcia and Carole Garcia. I am indebted to Barb Siskin, Beatrice Cox, Erica Schultz, Heather Blind, Matt Steinkamp, and Rob Aramayo for their suggestions and review of this work. Many thanks are also extended to the Anthropological Studies Center for their technical and administrative support and to Bryan Mischke for creating the GIS graphics.

Finally, I would like to thank the California Missions Foundation and the Mission San Rafael Preservation Foundation, not only for providing the funding which allowed me to undertake this research, but also for giving me the opportunity to attend conferences and meet so many interesting people. I am especially thankful to Teri Brunner, for her unwavering support and help at Mission San Rafael Arcangel.

Throughout my research I heard dozens of stories about grandparents, great-uncles, childhood friends, and gardeners, who found artifacts at the mission or recalled a memory of wandering through the mission ruins. This study is in honor of their memories.

vi CONTENTS

Chapter 1. lntroduction ...... 1

Mission San Rafael Arcangel ...... 2

California Mission Studies ...... 3

Study Area Background ...... 4

Study Area Location and Description ...... 5

Thesis Organization ...... 10

Chapter 2. Regulatory Background ...... 12

Federal Registers, Programs, and Legislation ...... 12

Religious Properties ...... 15

State Registers, Programs, and Legislation ...... 16

Local Registers, Programs, and Legislation ...... 18

Marin County Ordinances ...... 18

Protecting The Mission City ...... 18

History of Preservation Efforts at MSRA ...... 19

Chapter 3. Environmental Context ...... 23

Existing Setting of the Study Area ...... 23

Topography and Geology ...... 23

Soils and Sediments ...... 26

San Rafael Creek Watershed ...... 27

Historic Period Environmental Changes ...... 29

Chapter 4. Prehistoric Context ...... 32

Shell Mounds ...... 32

vii Prehistoric Sites Near the Study Area ...... 36

CA-MRN-84 and CA-MRN-85 ...... 37

CA-MRN-313 ...... 37

CA-MRN-647 ...... 38

Summary of Prehistoric Background ...... ! ...... 38

Chapter 5. Ethnographic Context ...... 40

Coast Miwok of Marin County ...... 40

Agustos Tarnal of San Rafael ...... 41

Settlement and Subsistence ...... 44

Contemporary Coast Miwok...... 46

Chapter 6. Historic Context ...... 48

Early Contact Period (1542- 1769) ...... 48

Spanish-Colonial Period (1769-1821} ...... , ...... 50

Founding of MSRA ...... 52

Mexican Period (1821-1848) ...... 58

Secularization ...... , ...... 59

Land Grants and Ranchos ...... 60

American Period (1850-present} ...... 63

Chapter 7. Historical Research Methods ...... 68

Finding and Assessing Historical Data ...... 68

Research Facilities and Organizations ...... 68

Research Sources and the Documentary Record ...... 70

Geospatial Mapping Methods ...... 80

viii Chapter 8. Archaeological Context ...... 82

Archaeology at Other California Mission sites ...... 82

Mission Santa Clara ...... 83

Mission San Juan Bautista ...... 86

Previous Archaeological Finds at MSRA ...... 89

Formal Cultural Resources Investigations and Known Cultural Resources Near MSRA ...... 90

Recent Archaeological Finds at MSRA ...... 92

Chapter 9. Findings ...... 95

Mission Buildings and Land Use Areas Within the Study Area ...... 96

Main Chapel Building and Cemetery ...... 96

Mission Buildings and Land Use Areas Outside the Study Area ...... 100

Neophyte Residences ...... 100

Activity Areas ...... 100

Mission-era Archaeological Property Types ...... 102

Sensitivity for Mission-era Deposits ...... 104

Sensitivity for Prehistoric Resources ...... 107

Chapter 10 Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 109

Recommendations ...... llO

References ...... 113

ix FIGURES

Figure 1. Study Area in Marin County, California ...... 7

Figure 2. Study Area on San Rafael 7.5 min USGS Topographic Map ...... 8

Figure 3. Study Area at 1104 5th Avenue, San Rafael, California ...... 9

Figure 4. 1953 San Rafael Tax Assessors Map, MSRA (arrow) ...... 19

Figure 5. MSRA as it appeared in 1831 (by General Vallejo in 1878) ...... 21

Figure 6. San Rafael Hill and Study Area, view north (Rob Aromayo 2011) ...... 25

Figure 7. San Rafael Creek Watershed, MSRA (arrow). Prepared by County of Marin

Department of Public Works (DPW 2012) ...... 27

Figure 8. Map of San Rafael Bay showing historic 1897 shoreline ...... 31

Figure 9. Archaeological Shell Mound, Miller Creek (MRN-138) ...... 33

Figure 10. Prominent Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Proximity to Study Area ...... 34

Figure 11. Coast Miwok Settlements in Marin County ...... 43

Figure 12. Disefio map, land annexed to James Miller in 1854 (adapted from original

Edward Breed 1842 map). Main chapel building (arrow), vineyard and garden (circle). 61

Figure 13. land Case Map of MSRA (George Black, 1854) (Calisphere 2012) ...... 63

Figure 14. Survey Map of MSRA (Ale many 1858). One room church constructed ...... 65

Figure 15. Gothic Church built in 1869, view to northwest ...... 66

Figure 16. Present day St. Raphael Church built in 1919, view north ...... 66

Figure 17. Gothic Church built in 1869, St. Raphael School House built in 1889, view northwest (photo taken 1912) (Marin County library 2012) ...... 67

Figure 18. Oil on canvas of MSRA (Serbaroli 1914) (Brunner 2012) ...... 71

X Figure 19. George Black Plat Map of 1854 showing some mission complex buildings and vineyard on modern aerial imagery ...... 96

Figure 20. George Black Plat Map of 1854. Note the L-shaped ...... 98

Figure 21. Main chapel building (black), cemetery (yellow), and unknown ...... 98

Figure 22. Unnamed stream trending north-south between main chapel building and vineyard (adapted from Black 1854 and Murphy 1842). Note approximate locations of spring and borrow pit ...... 102

Figure 23. 1897 USGS Mt. Tamalpais topographic map with elevation readings ...... 104

Figure 24. 2004 USGS San Rafael topographic map with elevation readings ...... 105

Figure 25. Conceptual Cut/Fill Map within the Study Area (Mischke 2012) ...... 107

TABLES

Table 1. Office of Historic Preservation Listings for California Missions ...... 14

Table 2. MSRA's Historical Designations and Identification !\lumbers ...... 22

Table 3. Mission-era Archaeological Property Types ...... 103

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Historical Documentation, Registration, and Listings Appendix B: Table of Documented Cultural Resources within 0.50 miles of Study Area

XI 1

CHAPTER l.INTRODUCTION

A little over two years ago, I attended the 190th anniversary celebration of the founding of Mission San Rafael Arcangel (MSRA). That evening, two remarkable events happened that educated and inspired both listeners and speakers. The first was when

Bishop Francis A. Quinn delivered an unexpected homily apologizing for the mistreatment of Native American peoples by Franciscan missionaries. In his sermon, he stated, "the Church this evening apologizes for trying to take Indian out of the Indian.

Let the Miwok be Miwok." Later, Greg Sarris, tribal chairman of the Federated Indians of

Graton Rancheria, publically accepted the bishop's apology and asked, "All of you who are here who are members of my tribe, would you please stand and be honored on this day? Coast Miwok people; we survived." To Bishop Quinn and all those attending, he affirmed, "Thank you for your honesty, your sincerity. And with the permission of my people, I accept your apology."

Over the course of this thesis work I would look back at that evening and the depth of understanding it evoked about the mission's past, present, and future and the people who willingly and unwillingly built its walls. Despite a tendency to view mission history as beginning and ending with Spanish colonialism, the dialogue that unfolded that evening communicated MSRA's history with a strong sense of mulitvocality. It presented a much-needed transparency to the cultural history of the site and its descendants. It is at moments like these that I am reminded that archaeology is inescapably imbedded in a social context. For archaeologists, there is no greater 2 discourse than how humans and material culture interact (Hodder 2009:9). Archaeology not only provides additional information about a site or an event, but it may, in fact, yield the only evidence of its existence.

MSRA and the general preservation trends and topics of study about California Missions

MISSION SAN RAFAEL ARCANGEL

This study takes place almost 200 years after the MSRA was established on

December 14, 1817 at the foot of today's San Rafael Hill in Marin County. Unlike the other twenty Franciscan missions in California, MSRA was first built as a hospital outstation to Mission San Francisco de Asis, and was not formally raised to mission status until1822. Clues about the location of the original cemetery, chapel, living quarters, and hospital have been estimated from oral histories, mission registers, historic maps, paintings, and photographs however the documentary record and mission grounds have never been systematically examined.

MSRA is a designated California Historical Landmark (CHL), or as State Historic

Landmark (SHL) and is listed on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

This study both acknowledges the historical designation of MSRA and the previous preservation efforts as well as the need to collect historical information about the physical layout of MSRA. 3

The Mission Period or mission-era is used throughout this thesis to describe the period oftime from 1769 to 1834, during which the Spanish-colonial and Mexican governments occupied California.

CALIFORNIA MISSION STUDIES

For nearly 70 years almost all of the twenty-one missions have been studied from an architectural, engineering, or archaeological perspective (Allen 2010: 73).

Some of the earliest studies in the 1890s were initiated by private benefactors and historians who concentrated their efforts on collecting stories about California's romantic historical past (Graham 1998: 43). It was not until the 1930s that concerns with the preservation and conservation of the California missions began to emerge, which led to the development of many heritage conservation programs aimed at saving the mission buildings and enticed people to visit the 21 missions. By this time, the

MSRA buildings had been completely destroyed; there was no original standing architecture. Furthermore, the potential for archaeological deposits at MSRA was not considered and new buildings were constructed on the former mission grounds that may have disturbed mission-era remains. A renewed interest in the California missions took place between the 1960s and 1980s in the fields of archaeology and museum conservation. During this time, many of the mission museums housed artifact and art collections and displayed historical documentation and archaeological remains, most of which highlighted mission architecture. Archaeological investigations in the late 1980s and 1990s began to focus more on the analysis of material culture from the Mission

Period than on the study of architectural remains (Graham 1998:44). By the 1990s other 4 fields began to gain attention, such as mission archaeology and ethnohistory, which put emphasis on the impacts of the colonial-mission system and its social, economic, and environmental influences on Native Californians (e.g., Lightfoot 2005; Voss 2008).

Quincy Newell, professor of religious studies states, "ethnohistorians have taken the lead in using anthropological and archaeological data to reinterpret the information

(and misinformation) provided in historical texts" (2005:64). Today California mission studies are met with different attitudes about preservation and conservation, changing anthropological theories and methodologies, inter-disciplinary fields, new regulatory standards for cultural resources, and increases in the time and cost to maintain the state's missions, many of which are designated State and National Historic landmarks.

STUDY AREA BACKGROUND

This work was made possible by the support of the California Missions

Foundation (CMF) and their efforts to conserve the cultural and architectural history of the missions. Since its creation in 1998 the CMF has funded a variety of programs aimed at bringing public awareness and conservation to the California missions. A large part of the CMF's success has been achieved by awarding hundreds of grants for restoration and research in the fields of architecture, art history, museum curation, and archaeology. In the last five years, the CMF has spearheaded a handful of mission retrofit projects aimed at strengthening, repairing, and rehabilitating Mission Period buildings and landscape features. 5

The CMF had previously awarded four grants towards artwork and artifact conservation at MSRA. In February 2011 the Mission San Rafael Preservation

Foundation teamed with the CMF to fund archaeological research with a goal to understand the early layout of MSRA and the types of archaeological resources that may be present beneath the current property's buildings, parking lots, and gardens. The

Anthropological Studies Center (ASC) at Sonoma State University was tasked with conducting this study in collaboration with Teri Brunner the mission's Museum Curator.

Under the guidance of ASC director Adrian Praetzellis, I completed all the research and reporting. Brian Mischke produced the Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data and mapped the study area. Of course, a great deal of historical research and archaeological analysis beyond the scope of the CMF grant is also included in this thesis.

Study Area Location and Description

The study area is located at 1104 5th Avenue in San Rafael, Marin County,

California and encompasses 2.62 acres (114,155 square feet) (Ziebatech 2005) (Figure

1). The property is situated at the base of San Rafael Hill in a mixed residential and business part of downtown San Rafael. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San

Francisco has owned the study area since 1855.

The study area is mapped on the San Rafael 7.5-minute, 1:24,000-scale United

States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle topographic map (1958, photo revised

1988) and is part of the original Santa Margarita, Las Gallinas, San Pedro land grant

(Figure 2). The following two Assessors Parcel Numbers (APNs) are associated with the property: 11-213-0-12 and -19 (Ziebatech 2005). 6

San Rafael is a small city located in the North Bay region of the San Francisco Bay

Area. Tucked away in a valley surrounded by hills and creeks, the city's pioneer roots began in cattle trade, which flourished in response to the Gold Rush and quickly transformed into a prominent railroad town and county seat (Levy 1976). Prior to this, the first buildings constructed in San Rafael were for MSRA (Doss 2001:4). Today more than 50,000 people live and work in San Rafael, bringing the total number of neighborhood districts to 30. The study area is part of the Fifth/Mission

Residential/Office District of the downtown area (General Plan 2004:65).

There are five main buildings within the study area: the MSRA replica, St.

Raphael Catholic Church, St. Raphael Rectory, St. Raphael School, and St. Raphael Parish

Hall and Gymnasium (Figure 3). A large and very active Hispanic, Vietnamese, Italian, and Brazilian community of parishioners and students attending preschool through gth grade, use the site daily, as well as tourists visiting the twentieth California mission site. 7

Figure 1. Study Area in Marin County, California 8

Figure 2. Study Area on San Rafael 7.5 min USGS Topographic Map 9

Figure 3. Study Area at 1104 5th Avenue, San Rafael, California 10

Thesis Organization

The rediscovery of MSRA is a culmination of research focused on the original

layout of the mission complex, the potential for mission-era archaeological deposits, the

possible property types, and the future management and treatment recommendations.

This thesis is focused on the physical layout of MSRA during the Mission Period and does

not include a detailed history of the study area.

Chapter 1 describes MSRA and the study area as well as the rationale and

organization of the study. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the various cultural

resources regulations mandated by federal, state, and local governments. This

information is relevant to understanding the current historical designation of MSRA, the

applicable CRM laws within the study area, and the future archaeological

considerations. This chapter also describes the previous preservation efforts at MSRA

beginning in the 1930s.

Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 present the background history of the study area. Primary

and secondary documentation was used to describe the environmental, prehistoric,

ethnographic, and historic contexts and provides the baseline data on which this thesis

is built.

Chapter 7 presents the research facilities and documentary sources that were

reviewed in preparation for this study. The reliability of the existing material sources is

also discussed in this chapter and brings forth key questions about working with

historical data from the Mission Period. 11

Chapter 8 presents a comparative analysis of MSRA with two other California mission sites (Santa Clara and San Juan Bautista} in an effort to fully understand the various architectural features and the possible mission-era archaeological property types. This chapter also outlines cultural resources studies and documented prehistoric and historic sites within and adjacent the study area.

Chapter 9 describes the general layout of the mission complex and the various buildings and land use areas within the study area, followed by an analysis of the archaeological sensitivity. While the prehistoric use of the study area by Coast Miwok is

discussed as background information (Chapter 4} and prehistoric resources are present

in and adjacent the study area (Chapter 8}, a detailed assessment of the sensitivity for

prehistoric resources falls beyond the scope of this work. Chapter 10 concludes with

recommendations for additional research about MSRA and management considerations

within the study area. 12

CHAPTER 2. REGULATORY BACKGROUND

This chapter provides an overview of the federal, state, and local regulatory frameworks that have been in place since the 1960s to help protect historic properties

in the United States. While this thesis work is not driven by a particular undertaking or

development project, it is beneficial to understand historic preservation legislation and cultural resources management (CRM) practices as they relate to the California Missions

and specifically for the future management options at MSRA (Chapter 10). This section concludes with a synthesis of the previous preservation efforts at MSRA beginning in the

1930s and the various individuals and studies that have contributed to its current

historical designation.

MSRA is listed on the CRHR and is designated CHL number 220. MSRA is not

listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and to date there has been no

study conducted to inventory, evaluate, or nominate, the site for NRHP listing.

FEDERAL REGISTERS, PROGRAMS, AND LEGISLATION

The NRHP "is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and

private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological

resources" (NPS 2012a}. The NRHP is administered by the National Park Service (NPS)

and was enacted by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (36 CFR Part

60). Properties that are eligible for or listed on the NRHP are defined as districts, sites,

buildings, structures, and objects that have significance to the history of the state, or

the nation. Eligible properties are listed after one or more of the National Register 13 criteria (CFR 36 Part 60.4) are met. Currently, in the United States there are more than

80,000 properties listed on the NRHP. Sixteen ofthe 21 California missions are listed on the NRHP, 11 of which are considered National Historic Landmarks {NHL) (Table 1). The

NHL program is also administered by the NPS and in accordance with the Historic Sites

Act of 1935 {36 CFR Part 65). Today there are approximately 2,300 designated NHLs throughout the United States (NPS 2012b).

A historic place listed as a NHL differs from a NRHP listing, in that the NHL designation is recognized as nationally significant and possesses a higher level of integrity in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States (NPS 2012b).

While any individual can nominate a property for either the NRHP or as a NHL, only the

Secretary of the Interior may officially designate NHLs and it is the Keeper of the

National Register who formally lists historic properties on the NRHP (Hardesty and Little

2009:10). If a historic place is designated as a NHL and it is not already listed on the

NRHP, it will be automatically listed (NPS 2012b).

Legislation regulating cultural resources requires that federal agencies inventory, evaluate, and nominate to the NRHP all significant cultural resources under their management (i.e., Section 106 of the NHPA; 36 CFR Part 800). Because MSRA is privately owned, any project, activity, or program carried out on the mission grounds is not obligated to fulfill any federal requirements of the Section 106 process, unless federal funds or permit are required. The Archdiocese has authority over MSRA and responsibility for the protection of its cultural resources. 14

Table 1. Office of Historic Preservation Listings for California Missions Mission NRHP NHL CRHR CHL No. (date founded) San Francisco X X ,/ 3 Solano (1823) San Rafael X X ,/ 220 Arcangel (1817) San Francisco de ,/ ,/ ,/ 327 Asis (1776} !---- 1 San Jose (1797) ,/ ,/ ,/ 334 Santa Clara de Asis X X ,/ 338 {1777) • Santa Cruz (1791) ,/ X ,/ 342 : San Jaun Bautista X X ,/ 195 • (1797) San Carolos de ,/ ,/ ,/ 135 Borromeo del rio Carmela (1770} : Nuestra Senora de X X ,/ 233 • La Soledad (1791) San Antonio de ,/ X ,/ 232 Padua (1771} ,/ ,/ ,/ San Miguel (1796} 326 I San Luis Obispo X X ,/ 325 i (1772) La Purisma ,/ ,/ ,/ 340 Concepcion (1787} Santa lnes (1804} ,/ ,/ ,/ 305 Santa Barbara ,/ ,/ ,/ 309 • (1786) San Buenaventura ,/ X ,/ 310 (1782)

San Fernando Rey ,/ X ,/ 157 de Espana (1797) San Gabriel (1771) ,/ X ,/ 158 SanJuan ,/ ,/ ,/ 200 Capistrano (1776) San Luis Rey de ,/ ,/ ,/ 239 Francia (1798) San Diego de ,/ ,/ ,/ 242 Alcala (1796) I x=Not Listed .I= Listed 15

The 16 missions listed on the NRHP are also privately owned but have elected to be formally recognized as historic properties, which make them eligible for grants and tax benefits supporting preservation (King 2008:89). Guidance on evaluating, documenting, and listing different types of cultural resources for both the NRHP and the

NHL program are outlined in a series of NPS bulletins (i.e., 1-42) (NPS 2012c).

Religious Properties

According to the Criteria Considerations and Expectations (36 CFR Part 60.4[a]) set forth in the NRHP, religious properties can be determined eligible for listing if they fall within certain criteria (different from National Register Criteria). Defined as

"properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes," these

historical places may be eligible "if they derive primary significance from architectural or

artistic distinction or historical significance (36 CFR Part 60.4[a])." This ensures that a

church cannot achieve a NRHP listing based on its religious affiliation and thus adhering

to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the

free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ... " Essentially this amendment

prohibits the preference of the government to favor one religion over another and

protects an individual's right to a free exercise of religion (King 2009:99).

While debate over religious or spiritual sites is not unusual in archaeology and

CRM, one can easily make the case for a church to be eligible based on its important

role for the cultural community or for its architectural style. Mission San Francisco de

Asis (Mission Dolores) is listed on the 1\IRHP as an excellent example of Spanish Mission 16

architecture, as the oldest unaltered building in San Francisco, and as a cemetery where

many historically significant individuals are buried (e.g., Don Jose Joaquin Moraga,

Captain William Richardson, William A. leidesdorff, and Don luis Antonio Arguello) (NPS

1972).

STATE REGISTERS, PROGRAMS, AND LEGISLATION

The CRHR is a listing of California's historical resources created in 1992 and

administered by the State Historical Resources Commission (SHRC) (OHP 2012a). The

CRHR encourages public recognition and protection of cultural resources within the

context of California's history, and includes all properties listed in or determined eligible

for the NRHP. Historical resources listed on the CRHR must meet criteria defined in the

California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850, which are similar to

NRHP criteria. In addition, properties designated under municipal or county ordinances

are also eligible for listing in the CRHR. The California Office of Historic Preservation

(OHP) has prepared a manual to establish guidelines regarding the kinds of resources

that merit recordation, and the different levels of documentation required (OHP 1995).

All ofthe twenty-one California missions are listed on the CRHR and are

designated as CHLs (Table 1). The CHl and the California Point of Historical Interest are

statewide programs, administered by the SRHC, and were established in the 1930s to

recognize historic places of city or county importance. A historical resource cannot be

designated as both landmark and Point, in which case the Point will be voided (OHP

2012b). 17

MSRA was designated a CHL in 1936 (CA-DPR 1976). When the CRHR was established in 1992 all CHL numbers 770 and above were automatically listed on the

CRHR. MSRA was added at this time, however since the listing was automatic and did not prompt formal SRHC action, no documentation or nomination form was prepared.

As a result, MSRA is listed on the CRHR for its significance as a California mission site; a detailed history and historic significance evaluation of the existing buildings in the study area were not prepared.

Any resource that meets the CRHR criteria is considered a historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The CEQA Statute and

Guidelines (Title 14 CCR 15064.5) outlines procedures for identifying, analyzing, and disclosing potential adverse impacts to historical resources, which include all resources listed in or determined eligible for the NRHP, the CRHR, or local programs. According to the guidelines, a public agency must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity

defined by CEQA as a "project." In sum this means that certain projects (e.g., new construction, changes in land use or division of land in the City of San Rafael) must be

subject to approval by the local planning department and may require at least some

environmental review pursuant to CEQA, unless an exemption applies (Marin County

Planning Department 2012). 18

LOCAL REGISTERS, PROGRAMS, ANO LEGISLATION

Marin County Ordinances

The Marin Countywide Plan (Hinds 2007) discusses the preservation of historical

and archaeological resources under socioeconomic polices (Historical and

Archaeological Resources Section 4.13). Marin County maintains a checklist used by

planners for all new construction, demolition, and modifications to determine if the

proposed work is located within a previously mapped archaeological site, historic

building and/or district. These review procedures ensure that proposed development

projects comply with the County's conservation policies regarding the identification and

protection of cultural resources (Hinds 2007:4-131).

Protecting The Mission City

The City of San Rafael General Plan was adopted in 2004 and outlines goals for

protecting and maintaining historic buildings and archaeological resources as well as

compliance with CEQA (Section 10: Culture and Arts Element [Goal 26:226-230]) (San

Rafael General Plan 2012). A strong emphasis is placed on the historical significance of

MSRA and the surrounding historic buildings and districts. In 2000 the San Rafael

Community Development Department collaborated with Archaeological Resources

Services to create an archaeological sensitivity database, or, the Assessor Parcel Based

Sensitivity System. This computerized system identifies a parcel number's proximity to

previously recorded sites and/or culturally sensitive areas and designates a low,

medium, or high sensitivity. Similar to the County's procedures for cultural resources, 19 the City uses this system as a screening process for planning and development projects throughout San Rafael. This system is not available for public use due to confidentiality

purposes protecting the location of cultural resources; however the General Plan does contain a National, Historic, and Local Landmarks map for San Rafael (2004:227). The reader is referred to Chapter 8 for more detailed information on the type of cultural

resources located within proximity the study area.

HISTORY OF PRESERVATION EFFORTS AT MSRA

Belle Brown, President of the Marin Historical Society (now Marin History

Museum) and Chairman of the Historical Marking Committee, recorded MSRA as a

historical place in 1935. Brown submitted an "application for registration of historical

point of interest," which included two typed pages on the history of MSRA (Appendix A).

Her work referenced an 1853 Tax Assessors map that depicted the mission in an L-shape

extending south onto Fifth Street and north onto Mission Street (Figure 4). Brown also

noted a recollection by John Murray, a local resident, who remembered playing at the

mission ruins as a young boy (Brown 1935:1-2).

Figure 4. 1953 San Rafael Tax Assessors Map, MSRA (arrow) 20

In 1936 John Adam Hussey nominated MSRA to the CHL program, resulting in the mission's formal designation as CHL number 220 (Hussey 1936). Hussey was one of many California historians who participated in the California Historical Landmarks

Project (CHLP) between 1936 and 1940. The project was sponsored by the California

Department of Parks and Recreation and produced a series of hist~rical essays about the state's important landmarks, monuments, and state parks (UCSD 2005). MSRA was included in the CHLP and Hussey was responsible for preparing the site's historical essay

(Hussey 1936). These early preservation efforts reinforced MSRA's role as central to the development of the City and sparked a renewed interest in the 20th California Mission.

Less than 10 years later, the City of San Rafael appointed a preservation committee tasked with researching the "duplication}} of the main chapel building (MCHS

Bulletin 1949:3-4). The committee consisted of Belle Brown, Florence Donnelly, George

Harlan, and William Nock, all members of the Marin Historical Society. In 1949, the

Hearst Foundation donated $85,000 for the reconstruction efforts and hired architect

Arnold Constable to design the replica (Sliney 1989). With very little supporting

evidence for the buildings architecture, Constable used a combination of oral accounts, from local residents and sketches of the mission from the late 1800s to design the

building (MCHS Bulletin 1949:4-5). For the most part, Constable used a drawing of MSRA

prepared by General Vallejo in 1878 for Edward Vischer, who wanted to use the sketch to paint a rendering of the mission. The drawing prepared by General Vallejo illustrates the mission buildings based on his recollection and time spent at MSRA in 1831 (Figure

5). 21

Figure 5. MSRA as it appeared in 1831 (by General Vallejo in 1878).

Due to limited information and spatial restriction from existing buildings, the

MSRA replica is not built in the same spot as the main chapel building, and consequently

is not oriented east-west as was the original chapel (Sliney 1989}. The 1949 replica today is best described as a reconstruction of the mission and is located within the study

area. Th e replica has not been individually evaluated for the NRHP or CRHR.

In the 1960s a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) study (HABS No. CAL

1131) was conducted of historic images of the MSRA site (Koue 1962} (Appendix A). The

property and extant buildings (i.e., 1919 St. Raphael's Catholic Church and 1949 mission

replica) were not formally surveyed or inventoried. The HABS documentation included a

collect ion of 10 historic images most of which were artistic renderings and historic maps

of the original mission buildings. 22

The first time the property was formally surveyed for cultural resources was in

1978, when the City of San Rafael conducted a Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) of the

study area. The purpose of the HRI, however, was to identify significant historical and architectural buildings and structures (Charles Hall Page and Associates, Inc., 1978:1)

and did not address archaeological resources. The mission replica and St. Raphael

Catholic Church were both recorded as historic architectural components of the mission

property (Simons 1978). The buildings were noted in "good" condition and the property

was classified as "excellent" (Charles Hall Page and Associates, Inc., 1978:14). Since that time, no other cultural resources investigations have been carried out in the study area

and no further documentation regarding the historical significance of the site or its

buildings has been prepared. No prehistoric archaeological sites have been recorded

within the study area, however a surface midden deposit adjacent to the study area was

observed (see Chapter 8: Recent Archaeological Finds at MSRA) (Appendix B).

Table 2 below is a concordance of MSRA's associated historical designations and

identification numbers. Copies of historical documentation, registration, and listings are

included in Appendix A.

Table 2. MSRA's Historical Designations and Identification Numbers

CHL/SHl No. HABS No. OHP HPD No. Primary No. Trinomial No.

220 CAL-1131 4902-0083-0000 P-21-000649 I CA-MRN-344H 23

CHAPTER 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

This chapter describes the local topography, geology, soils, and plant and animal communities within Marin County and the City of San Rafael. Emphasis is placed on the existing setting of the study area within the San Rafael Creek watershed, as well as some of the major environmental changes that have occurred within and around the study area over the last 200 years. The overall effects of colonization and the subsequent establishment of the California missions thrust the landscape into a period of rapid change (Voss 2008: 47-48). This section highlights some of those changes and sheds light on the environmental transformation of study area during the Mission Period.

EXISTING SETTING OF THE STUDY AREA

Topography and Geology

The study area is located in Marin County in the San Francisco Bay Area and is

part of the North Bay region. Marin is bound by Sonoma County to the north, San Pablo

Bay and San Francisco Bay to the east, the Golden Gate Bridge to the south, and the

Pacific Ocean to the west. Like much of California, Marin County has a Mediterranean

climate, which is characterized by cool and wet winters, and hot and dry summers

(Schoenherr 1992:264). Mount Tamalpais is the highest peak in Marin County (2,571

feet) and is part of the Marin Hills, forming much of the backdrop of the study area

when viewed from the north. 24

Marin County is situated within the central portion of the Coast Range province.

This geologic setting formed as a result of plate tectonics and the movement between the Pacific and North American plates. The San Andreas Fault divides these two plates and subsequently formed the northwest-southeast trending ridges and valleys, known

as Olema Valley, Tomales Bay, and Bolinas Lagoon (Hinds 2005:5-6). The geology and soils on either side of the San Andreas Fault is very different, with most of Marin County comprised of Franciscan rock (Le., volcanic, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock), while the Point Reyes Peninsula and coastal shoreline is composed of granite and sedimentary

rock. The Franciscan formation primarily consists of pillow basalt (greenstone), chert, greywacke sandstone, argillite, and shale (Blake et al. 1974; Rice et al. 1976; Elder 2001).

These rocks tend to be "highly fractured and disrupted and may be mixed together on a

local level to create what is called a melange" (Elder 2001: 62).

Column samples studied by the Geology Department at the College of Marin

categorized the formation of these rocks into three major geologic events: (1) ancient

sea floor rock (200-65 million years ago); (2) subduction plate collision complex (65-12

million years ago); and (3) explosive volcanism (12 million years ago) (COM 2012).

Overlaying these older formations are surficial deposits or Quaternary deposits (Le.,

softer sediments). Older Quaternary deposits generally date from 1.8 million to 10,000

years ago and consist of older marine deposits and volcanic gravel. Younger Quaternary

formations include beach sands, dune sands, alluvium, marine deposits, marsh deposits,

and artificial fill all of which were deposited within the last 10,000 years (Le., Holocene

period) (Hinds 2005:11-15).

Soils and Sediments

The Franciscan bedrock in the study area is obscured by two shallow soil types:

Tocaloma-McMullin-Urban Land Complex and Urban Land-Xerorthents, both have been

classified by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS). Approximately 60 percent of the study area is mapped as

Tocaloma-McMullin-Urban land Complex and consists of well-drained loamy soils with

slopes of 30 to 50 percent (USDA 1985:65). Tocaloma soil is the dominant type within this group and is generally described as a grayish brown loam on the surface (about 19

inches thick) with a light yellowish brown very gravelly loam subsoil (about 20 inches thick). Bedrock is encountered anywhere between 20 to 40 inches below the ground

surface. McMullin soils are derived from sandstone, typically very shallow (bedrock

reached between 10-20 inches below ground surface), and highly susceptible to soil

erosion, particularly at steep slopes. Urban land refers to areas covered by roads,

streets, buildings, and parking lots. Due to the shallow depth of the Tocaloma and

McMullin soils and exposed bedrock within the study area, extensive cutting and filling

is generally necessary to control erosion and runoff during construction development

(USDA 1985). The lower elevations within the study area including the MSRA replica, St.

Raphael's Rectory, and St. Raphael's School, are located within Xerorthents soil zones

(fill soils) (USDA 1985:65-66). 27

San Rafael Creek Watershed

Marin County contains an extensive network of water courses, lakes, estuaries, and bay shorelines, as well as a wide range of plant and animal habitats. Marin County includes 14 watersheds each comprising an area of land that drains to a particular creek, river, or bay. The study area is located within the San Rafael Creek watershed and includes 11 square miles of land and surface water (Figure 7). The San Rafael Creek extends northwest to southeast, originating in the hills above San Rafael and flowing through residential and business areas before forming the San

--- watershed Boun dary Parlts & Open Space - Road - Co unty Open Space City or Town ~ ter Di strid City Boundary State Park

0 San Rafael - National Park 0 San Anselmo

Figure 7. San Rafael Creek Watershed, MSRA (arrow). Prepared by Co unty of Marin Department of Public Works (DPW 2012). 28

Rafael Canal near Highway 101, where it enters into the San Rafael Bay at Pickleweed

Park (DPW 2012).

No creeks pass through the study area (San Rafael Creek is located to the northwest and south), although a seasonal stream flows from the south-facing slope of

San Rafael hill and into the study area where it floods the St. Raphael Church during the winter months. Erwin, Black Canyon, and Sister's creeks, intersect with San Rafael Creek in the downtown area just northeast of MSRA (Figure 7). Glenwood and Peacock Gap creeks are located in the watershed but are situated northeast and east of downtown

San Rafael near China Camp State Park and the San Pablo Bay shoreline (Figure 7).

San Rafael is considered a densely urbanized area with approximately 80% of the watershed being developed. The City of San Rafael occupies almost 90% of the watershed (DPW 2010). Many of the city's natural creeks are now channelized and large sections have been rerouted beneath streets and sidewalks. Currently, there are no anadromous fish populations within the upper San Rafael Creek. In addition there are no reported occurrences of any federally endangered, threatened, or California Species of

Special concern within the San Rafael Creek watershed (CDFG 2008).

San Rafael hill, immediately north of the study area, is predominated by annual grasslands and oak-bay woodlands. A very small number of native plant species have been identified near MRSA, however no natives are located within the study area. All of the vegetation at MSRA is ornamental, consisting of ornamental flowers, hedges, and plants. Non-native trees are scattered across the property and were likely planted during the construction of the 1949 mission replica (Le., palm). 29

Plant and animal diversity within proximity to the study area is found to the southeast and east, within the intertidal zones and mudflats of the San Rafael Bay and

San Pablo Bay shorelines. Pickleweed Park, Peacock Gap Golf Course and Country Club,

San Pablo Bay Wildlife Refuge, and the Marin Islands National Wildlife Refuge are among some of the special-status habitats (DPW 2012).

HISTORIC PERIOD ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES

Long before European explorers, American trappers, and Franciscan missionaries settled in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Coast Miwok people tended the land (Kelly

1978). While scholars have claimed that "very little is known about what impact early explorers may have had on the coastal flora and fauna" (Anderson 2005:71) it is generally accepted that significant environmental changes coincided with Spanish contact during the 1700s and 1800s. During the Mission Period some of the most extensive and damaging changes to the environment were due to livestock grazing, which transformed native habitats, increased erosion, and pushed out native ungulates

(Le., Tule elk) (Anderson 2005:76). Agricultural, hunting, and fur trapping also caused a rapid decline in marine and terrestrial mammal populations. Similarly, the destruction and limited access to, sacred places, important walking paths, and ancestral landmarks

(Le., rocks and streams) heavily affected the Coast Miwok tribal landscape (Lightfoot

2005:206-207). As a result, the establishment of MSRA would have largely redefined the environmental, spatial, and social setting of the study area. According to archaeologist Barbra Voss the examination of mission-era deposits such as walls, floors, 30 roofs, walkways, and other infrastructure enhances the study of the archaeological record, the landscape, and the people who inhabited it (Voss 2008:173-174).

During the nineteenth century (1850s-1900s) the development of new technologies, the expansion of the railroad, and the formation of property rights, lead to even more large-scale environmental impacts, such as logging, mining, farming, ranching. By the early 1900s the San Rafael Bay shoreline had been filled in (Figure 8) and San Rafael had become a well-established city and included, railroad lines, ferryboat routes, residences, businesses, cemeteries, parks, and canal systems. In less than 200 years, the landscape of San Rafael drastically changed and today stands in stark contrast to the oak-studded hills that once covered the study area (Berger 1941:361). 31

N 0 500 1,00011 I I I 0 150 300M ···~"' ~ A ,~ <,

~.. ~.. )\."_,,,..,,,.

<" ~, 0' .. ~, ~ •" c.,,.,,,""'• :

.... 'r,'•st

o~a..,..... ' ;; c ...... 4

Figure 8. Map of San Rafael Bay showing historic 1897 shoreline (USGS Mt. Tamalpais, Calif. 1897. 1:62,500. 15 minute series.). 32

CHAPTER 4. PREHISTORIC CONTEXT

No prehistoric resources have been identified within the study area, although numerous shell mounds and midden deposits have been discovered within the San

Rafael Creek watershed and in close proximity to the study area. It is important to note that many prehistoric and ethnohistoric village sites and deposits have been recorded throughout eastern Marin County and in the San Rafael region, particularly in Las

Gallinas Valley, Miller Creek, San Rafael Creek, and San Pablo Bay (Figure 7). While these sites are not described in detail here, they do provide important information about

Coast Miwok settlement and cultural practices and bring forth discussion points about the prehistory of the study area. The reader is further referred to Chapter 9 for a general discussion on the study area's sensitivity for prehistoric deposits.

SHELL MOUNDS

The presence of shell mounds along the bay shore and interior valleys of the San

Francisco Bay Area was first documented by Nels Nelson (1909) during archaeological surveys on horseback in the early 1900s (1909) (Figure 9). By the time Nelson completed his survey work, he had recorded 425 shell mounds and midden deposits throughout the Bay Area. These mounds represented "many generations of use and deposition/, by prehistoric populations, which were in use at the time of Spanish contact in the 1770s

(Lightfoot and Luby 2002: 263). Although shell mounds date as early as 5000 to 4000

Figure 10. Prominent Prehistoric Archaeological Sites in Proximity to Study Area.

This figure was removed because it identifies the locations of cultural resources, which are confidential. 35

The presence of shell mounds and midden deposits in San Rafael and throughout

Marin County underscore the role of maritime hunting and gathering, and can provide details regarding local subsistence patterns, settlement strategies, and marine shellfish, faunal, and plant exploitation (Erlandson and Yesner 1992). As city development increased during the early twentieth century, so did the destruction of the Bay Area's shell mounds. As a result, many of the mounds documented by Nelson had already been disturbed and were later completely destroyed, rendering reexamination of the sites impossible. Nelson commented in 1907, that "not a single mound of any size is left in its absolutely pristine condition" (Lightfoot 2004:17). However, Nelson successfully excavated a series of mounds: the Sausalito Mound (MRN-3), the San Rafael Foster

Mound (MRN-315), and the Greenbrae Mound (MRN-76). The subsequent study and data analysis of these three sites contributed greatly to understanding the cultural chronologies and artifact assemblages in the San Francisco Bay Area (Nelson 191Ob,

Nelson, 1910c, 1911) (Gifford 1916) (Kroeber 1925). Over the decades, remnants of shell

mounds in Marin County would continue to be studied and excavated (e.g., MRN-27,

39, -138, -196, -254, and-357) (Figure 9) forming much ofthe basis for archaeological

research in southeastern Marin County (Slaymaker 1972, 1982; Beiling 1998; King 1970,

1974; Chattan et at. 2005; Basgall et al. 2006). Most of the archaeological work on shell

mounds in the last 25 years has been conducted during CRM studies and those efforts to

document and evaluate the mounds prior to construction and development projects

(lightfoot 2004:16). 36

Comparative studies of shell mounds sites in the Bay Area suggest that "most of the large and deeply stratified bay shore sites ...appear to have been used repeatedly over hundreds or even thousands of years as ceremonial places, long-term repositories for the dead, and residential spaces" (Lightfoot and Luby 2002:263).

In a recent study of the spatial distribution of shell mounds, Byrd and Petersen

(2008) examined the differences between population density, site size, and site locality between eastern Marin and Contra Costa, and Alameda counties. Using Nelson's notes and maps on shell mounds, the data revealed greater densities of sites and clustering of large mounds along small streams in eastern Marin County. The study also demonstrated that while Contra Costa and Alameda settlements were generally larger in size, eastern Marin sites, overall, had the highest population density (Byrd 2010:17).

PREHISTORIC SITES NEAR THE STUDY AREA

Four shell mounds (MRN-84, -85, -313, and -647) are recorded in close proximity to the study area and are briefly described below (Figure 10). Nelson mapped three of these mounds (MRN-84, -85, and -313) between 1907 and 1910 and Georke and Rausch documented the other (MRN-647) in 1998. MRN-84 and MRN-85 are roughly 0.32-miles southeast ofthe study area, MRN-313 is approximately 0.34-miles south, and MRN-647 is a few hundred feet southeast. All of these sites are situated nearby San Rafael Creek and the former bay shoreline (see Figure 10). Lightfoot notes, "where streams emptied into the bay it was not unusual to find discrete mound clusters composed of four to six separate sites" (2004:16). 37

CA-MRN-84 and CA-MRN-85

Nelson recorded MRN-84 in 1907, at which time no visible evidence of the mound existed. According to local informant, Mr. Thompson, the mound contained artifacts, such as mortars, pestles, charmstones, and bone needles. Nelson's notes state that the mound "is located on the old survey maps." The mound was described as "shell heap" within San Rafael city limits and "close to but below the depot (Le., near the edge of the marsh) and probably near the creek."

Nelson also recorded MRN-85 in 1907 and noted the presence of built-up shell

material beneath an existing house in the same location. A former resident of the

property stated that the mound had reached 20 feet high and Mr. Thompson (see MRN

84) confirmed that "many artifacts and skeletons" had been removed. In 1989, during

an archaeological survey for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),

shell fragments (e.g., mussel and oyster) and midden soils were observed in a flowerbed

on Irwin Street. The shell deposit corresponded to the previously recorded location of

Nelson shell mound MRN-85 (Jones and Hayes 1998). No further archaeological work

has been conducted at either MRN-84 or MRN-85.

CA-MRN-313

Nelson recorded MRN-313 in 1910, at which time no evidence of a mound was

visible. A local informant reported that the mound was once livery large" (Nelson 1910)

however since that time the area was developed and cultural material was removed and 38 fill was brought in. No archaeological excavations have been conducted at the site and no evidence of shell midden has been formally recorded.

CA-MRN-647

Georke and Rausch conducted archaeological research at this site for College of

Marin in 1998. During personal interviews with local San Rafael residents, the location of a former shell mound was reported. According to Farrington L. Jones the shell mound was observed during his walks to school from 508 Mission Street to Mt. Tamalpais

Military Academy (now Marin Academy) (Georke and Rausch 1998). An apartment

building was constructed shortly thereafter in 1900, at which point Farrington removed

"three points." No archaeological excavations have been conducted at the site and no

evidence of shell midden has been recorded.

SUMMARY OF PREHISTORIC BACKGROUND

Based on existing setting of the study area, it's proximity to prehistoric shell

mounds and midden deposits, (MRN-84, -85, -313, and -647), and the results of previous

archaeological research on shell mound sites, we can better understand the span of

human occupation in San Rafael as well as the study area's potential for subsurface

prehistoric deposits. Archaeological research on shell mounds in Marin County

continues to provide insight about Coast Miwok settlement and subsistence, population

movements, trade, and responses to environmental change. For example, residential

and midden sites, usually contain large amounts of marine shell (and, to a lesser extent,

floral material) that can provide information on food processing and subsistence 39 strategies and how those strategies changed through time. The identification of different types of tools (Le., mortars, pestles, milling slabs, handstones) can indicate the types of vegetal resources being used (Le., acorns) and during which season. The

presence of artifactual remains from shell mound sites and associated midden, can greatly contribute to the full history of the study area and the range of uses and

activities that occurred prior to the establishment of MSRA. 40

CHAPTER 5. ETHNOGRAPHIC CONTEXT

This chapter draws on an extensive amount of archaeological, ethnographic, and ethnohistorical research about the Coast Miwok, who are the native people of Marin

County and southern Sonoma County and who occupied the study area at the time of contact with Europeans (e.g., Drake). A number of well-documented ethnographies and ethnohistoric accounts serve as a basis for understanding pre-contact period Coast

Miwok people, although extensive detail is absent from the ethnographic record. This section summarizes some of this information as it relates to Coast Miwok language, social organization, subsistence activities, settlement systems, and ceremonial practices.

This section also describes two Coast Miwok place names, Nanaguani and Awani-wi, that have been used in reference to the study area and concludes with the Coast Miwok today who continue to live within their ancestral territories in both Marin and Sonoma counties.

COAST MIWOK OF MARIN COUNTY

Scholars propose that early Utian-speaking people (ancestors to contemporary

Miwok tribes) first arrived to central California by 2000 B.C. (Moratto 1984:279-281).

Archaeological evidence suggests that sometime between 1500 and 1000 B.C. people

began to migrate into different regions, forming contiguous Miwok groups (Le., Bay,

Plains, Sierra, lake and Coast). At the time of early European contact, Coast Miwok

villages were dispersed throughout coastal and bay areas and along creeks and seasonal

drainages (Kroeber 1925:272-278; Kelly 1978; Goerke 2007; lightfoot 2002). Between 41

1783 and 1832 many Coast Miwok people were moved into Mission San Francisco de

Asis, Mission San Jose, and Mission San Rafael, more than 100 joined Russian establishments or Pomo communities (Milliken 2009) (see Chapter 6).

Marin County Coast Miwok dialects are divided into two lingual types Bodega and lVIarin, each dialect group occupying a discrete geographical location. The Bodega

Miwok inhabited western Marin County near the coast and the Marin Miwok occupied southern Marin County near the bay and inland areas (Barrett 1908:303-314).

Agustos Tarnal of San Rafael

The study area is located within the ethnographic territory of the Aguastos of the San Rafael Creek watershed (e.g., Marin Coast Miwok). Research by Milliken

(2009:71-73) suggests that the San Rafael area was inhabited by both Aguastos and

Tarnal people, and is often referred to the as the Aguastos Tarnal community. Milliken further speculates that the term Tarnal may have been imposed by the Franciscan priests and did not represent a community but rather a large area to the north near

Nicasio (2005:255; 2009:62). Regardless, the Aguastos people occupied the southern part of the San Rafael Creek watershed. To the south of the Aguastos Tarnal were the

Huimen people who were inhabited the Richardson Bay area and parts of the Corte

Madera Creek vicinity (Kelly 1978:415; Milliken 1988:17-19). The tribal boundary between these two groups was likely near the San Quentin Peninsula (Milliken 2006:27).

To the north of Aguastos Tarnal was the Omiomi group, located in present-day Novato

(Milliken 2009:69). 42

Four Aguastos village sites Awani-wi, Ewu, Puyuku, and Shotomoko-cha are documented within San Rafael (Kelly 1978:415; Milliken 2009:72)(Figure 11). Awani-wi, also referred to as awa niwI, awanmi, and ah-wan-we, was first noted as a "village at or near San Rafael" by Merriam (1907), Barrett (1908) and Kroeber (1925). Millken's ethnogeographic study on village names, using mission registers, never listed Awani-wi as a home village. However, the place name, Nanguani, was written on the title page of the MSRA baptismal register as the location where MSRA was built (Millken 2009:72;

Collier and Thalman 2003:9). Although details regarding the relationship between

Awani-wi and Nanguani remain uncertain, it is possible they may represent the same village. Moreover, Archaeologist Betty Goerke suggests that Nanaguani, "may have been part of an important trade network, since it was situated at the junction of trails from three directions" (2007:75). She explains that "From Nanguani, the Aguasto could look east and oversee who might be coming into the slough in a tule boat" (2007:75).

Historian Lucretia Little, references Nanguani as being located "below the puerto suello and down by the marsh," and there is further mention by Juan Garcia, whose father

Corporal Rafael Garcia lived at MSRA, stating, "one tribe pitched their wigwams in the willows at the foot of B Street ..." (1989:1). These two references infer that Nanaguani may have been near the San Rafael shoreline and further south of MSRA. Either way, it is likely that a village or camp sites were situated along this travel corridor near the study area and may have served as trading center for the Coast Miwok (Georke

2007:75). 43

The other three villages were located near creeks: Ewu along Gallinas Creek and

Puyuku and Shotomoko-cha along Miller Creek (Milliken 2009:72). Charles Slaymaker excavated the remains of Shotomoko-cha (also Cotom-kotca) during a series of archaeological investigations (Le., MRN-138) (Slaymaker 1977).

,..

...... \ . San- Pat.; Bay ~ .' / /

AfARINCO. ....···········.11.. ••••• awani·w' i nana-P-"'ni • sa.ta."". (Sari Rafael. (San Geronimo vaRitl·.lo.w.~ .' (FfQi$'ValltyJ bauU-n .. kapisa-Ioke . tamal-pais ...... ,.;;""...... aCh· (Mr, TamalpatsJ

"San Dolores' (MiSSlOll San Francisco de Alis)

Figure 11. Coast Miwok Settlements in Marin County (Collier and Thalman 2003:5). 44

The largest known Coast Miwok village is Olum-pali (CA-MRN-193), located about 19 miles north of the study area in Novato (Olompali Regional Park) (Figure 11).

Archaeological excavations between 1972 and 1977 recovered a broad range of

prehistoric and historic cultural material, including approximately 50,000 artifacts, remains of a large dance house and hundreds of burials (Slaymaker 1977). Based on the data gathered from the site, the village was likely occupied from at least 1000 AD (Initial

Late Period) through the Mission Period (until possibly the 1850s). According to mission records the first new neophytes baptized at MSRA in 1817 consisted of three children,

one of which came from Olompali (Milliken 2009:32). During the early years (1817

1821) of Coast Miwok baptisms at MSRA, the name Olompali would continually appear

in reference to tribal groups within the San Antonio Creek watershed, near present day

Petaluma (Milliken 2009:32).

Settlement and Subsistence

Village life was at the center of social and political organization for the Coast

Miwok. Villages were typically clustered along major waterways, with seasonal or

special-use areas dispersed away from water sources. Moieties, or kinship groups, were

affiliated with either Land (y6wa) or Water (liwa) (Parkman 2006:1). Coast Miwok

villages were composed of various structures and buildings including domestic houses,

sweathouses, and ceremonial houses. Residential buildings were conical shaped and

framed with two forked poles made of willow or driftwood and thatched with bunches

of grass, tule reeds, or rushes. A central hearth was built into the ground floor and a 45 smoke hole was constructed in the roof. Each house was designed to accommodate the nuclear family, which typically ranged from six to ten members (ref).

A sweathouse and ceremonial house were also commonly found buildings

associated with large villages. A sweathouse was a round, semi-subterranean building constructed roughly four to five feet below ground (Kelly 1978:417). The above-ground

portion was supported by wood poles and covered with brush, grass, and earthen materials. Men used the sweathouse only. Ceremonial houses, although similar in

design to the sweathouses, were much larger and shallower. The function and use of the ceremonial house was restricted to secret societies of either mixed gatherings (male

and female) or female-only ceremonies (Kelly 1978).

The male chief (hoypuh) held a non-hereditary position and was responsible for

taking care of people and offering advice, but his role " ...Iacked major responsibilities"

(Kelly 1978; Parkman 2006:2). Other leaders of the Coast Miwok included two female

leaders, hoypuh kule (.) yih (woman chief) and maien (Parkman 2006:2). Each functioned

primarily as a ceremonial leader: the hoypuh kule (,) yih presided over the Acorn Dance

and Sunwele Dance, and participated in the Bird Cult, while the maien represented the

head of the female ceremonial house and was often the wife of the shaman or hoypuh .

The position of the maien was very prominent and involved the construction of new

dance houses, hauling wood for festivals and events, supervising the preparation of

food for special proceedings, sending invitations for dances, and often selecting dance

performers (Kelly 1978:419). Overall, very little is known about the details of the maien

secret society, though it may have been a role that was passed down from mother to 46 daughter (Parkman 2006:3). Ethnographic interviews collected by Kelly during the 1930s with Coast Miwok elder Tomas Comtechal (Tom SmithL illustrate the significant role of the maien in Coast Miwok life "although giving an outward appearance of being a male dominated society, the Coast Miwok world was probably strongly influenced by its female community" (Parkman 2006:4).

Subsistence was based on both gathering and hunting resources from along the coast and bay shorelines and inland countryside. The Coast Miwok relied on a diet of marine and terrestrial resources such as salmon, eels, crab, mussels, clams, mudhens, geese, bears, elk, deer, rabbits, squirrels, wood rats, and gophers. The Coast Miwok gathered an extensive variety of plants throughout the region, which included buckeye, pepperwood, seeds, greens, acorns, tobacco, and kelp. Acorns were an important staple in Coast Miwok diet and were pulverized into mush and meal for bread (Basgall

1987).

CONTEMPORARY COAST MIWOK

The Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria (FIGR) are a federally recognized tribe representing the living Coast Miwok and Southern Porno peoples. The Coast

Miwok are from the areas of modern day Novato, Marshall, Tomales, San Rafael,

Petaluma and Bodega. An elected tribal council and several committees provide

coordination and oversight on topics such as, health management, housing, financial

advisement, cultural arts, scholarships, grants, tribal events, and sacred sites. The

Sacred Sites Protection Committee (SSPC) is responsible for working with federal, state,

and local agencies (including CRM consultants and academics) to ensure the 47 consideration and protection of sacred sites and cultural resources. Members of FIGR are also an active part of the MSRA community and regularly participate in events and

discussion panels concerning tribal history at the mission.

The Coast Miwok people continue many of their traditions such as the

Strawberry Festival, Big Time, and the Acorn Festival, and have constructed a model village Kule Loko in the Point Reyes National Seashore where visitors can experience

Coast Miwok material culture and practices. Many of the Coast Miwok and Southern

Pomo continue to live within their ancestral territory (FIGR 2012). 48

CHAPTER 6. HISTORIC CONTEXT

This chapter provides the background context for discussing the founding of

MSRA and the general construction and land-use history within the study area. This historic setting is organized into four periods: Early Contact (1542-1769), Spanish colonial (1769-1821)' Mexican (1821-1848), and American (1848-present), and emphasizes the Mission Period, spanning both the Spanish-colonial and Mexican periods.

EARLY CONTACT PERIOD (1542 -1769)

At the time of European contact the presence of Coast Miwok shell mounds throughout the San Francisco Bay Area and elsewhere would have been remarkably visible against the flat backdrop of the shoreline landscape (Lightfoot and Luby

2002:276). The earliest documented contact between Coast Miwok and Europeans occurred in 1579 when Francis Drake arrived somewhere along the Marin or Sonoma county coastlines, possibly near Bodega Bay, Drake's Bay, or Tomales Bay (Engstrand

1998:88; Russell 2008)

While the exact spot where Drake's ship, the Golden Hind, landed is uncertain, a considerable amount of evidence points towards a cove on the west side of today's

Drake's estero (Von der Porten 1963: 21; Engstrand 1998:88). The Point Reyes National

Seashore is currently in the process of designating this location as a CHL, although some opposition over Drakes's landfall contends that it was elsewhere (Johnson 2011).

Drakes five week anchorage in what is believed to have been Coast Miwok or territory, referred to as tamal-huye or present day Drake's Bay, is documented in a 49

series of narratives by Francis Fletcher, the captain of the Golden Hind. Fletcher's

accounts were published in The World Encompassed by Sir Francis Drake in 1628 (Vaux

1854; Russell 2008). He chronicled the crews interaction with the Native Americans,

who he described as submissive natives, who demonstrated "their fear and wonderment at the English" (Heizer 1947:213). Fletcher took particular note of the

liking" and all of the women and children with long hair, plumes of feathers, painted faces, baskets, and broiled fish, among other objects (Heizer 1947:169). He described a

village site roughly three-quarters of a mile from the coast, constructed of dug-out

round houses with a chimney to let out smoke (Heizer 1947: 219). Fletcher mentions the

Indians shrieking and weeping, which he attributed to an act of adoration toward the

crews. However, according to Kroeber, Heizer, and later confirmed by ethnographic

studies, the crying was a direct response to Drake's visit and the belief "that the

presence of the English was in some way associated with ghosts or the dead" (Heizer

1947:232,577). Sixteen years later the Spanish Manila galleon San Agustin wrecked in

Drake's Bay and was abandoned by Sebastian Rodriguez Cermefio and his 80-member

crew. Very little was documented in regards to the crews interactions with the Coast

Miwok people, however material rema'ins ,from Cermeiio's voyage continue to be

excavated and analyzed by the NPS cultural resources and members of FIGR (Russell

2008).

Prior to Drake's and Cermefio's visit to California, Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo sailed

along the California coast in 1542 (Engstrand 1998:85), Cabrillo departed from Spain

with the goal "to explore the remote, uncharted areas of the north Pacific" (Engstrand 50

1998:83-84) and ended up turning his ship around near San Francisco Bay_ In the years that followed, lithe California coast was looked to as a stopping place where the weak and dying galleon crews could obtain relief" (Engstrand 1998:87). However, it was not until 165 years later that Spanish, and to a lesser extent, Russian settlements, occupied the San Francisco Bay Area (Hackel 1998:113-117).

SPANISH-COLONIAL PERIOD (1769-1821)

Spanish journals from the 1770s described Alta California as being inhabited with native peoples who lived with very little possessions and who lacked a "proper civilized lifestyle" (Cronon 1983; Voss 2008:51). While these early accounts are perceived as

"one-sided and fragmentary" (Newell 2005:63), scholars have used them to gain insight into Coast Miwok culture. For example, when Father Vincente Santa Maria, arrived in

1775 to Richardson Bay (todays Sausalito, Mill Valley, Belvedere, and Tiburon), just south of the study area, he reported on the giving of a string of shells separated with black knots (Georke 2007:37), and observed "arrows stuck in the ground with three decorated rods a yard and a half high, topped with white, black, and red feathers"

(Georke 2007:39). Fearful that the feathers symbolized worship of the sun, Father Santa

Maria set them on fire. The use of feathers in Coast Miwok ceremonial offerings and dance regalia (Le. bird CUlt) was an important part of daily life and spiritual belief (Collier and Thallman 2003:409-424). In contrast, Spanish Christianity differed significantly from

Coast Miwok belief systems and lifeways. Beginning in 1769, all California Indians entering the mission system were referred to as neophytes, which according to Quincy

Newell, implies that the native converts were "interested in becoming catholic" 51

(2005:62-63). Historical archaeologist Barbra Voss further states, lithe perceived

savagery of the regions inhabitants provided religious justification for initiating the colonial policy of reduccion (literally, reduction), through which native peoples were

removed from their home villages and aggregated at missions for religious conversion"

(2008:51). Environmental historian William Preston, profoundly states that colonial

encounters, "created revolutionary environmental changes in California," that would forever disrupt the land and its inhabitants (1998:262). The debate over the

motivations and influences surrounding the movement of Coast Miwok and other tribal groups, into the San Francisco Bay Area missions continues to be topic of study. In

recent years, somewhat of a consensus has been reached that establishes a variety of

social, economic, and environmental pressures leading to "missionization" (Milliken

2005), of which some believe "was entirely due to force and others contend was due to

willful decision making during trying historical times" (Milliken 2009:6).

The construction of Spanish colonial buildings in the San Francisco Bay Area

began in 1776 with EI Presidio de San Francisco, followed by Mission San Francisco de

Asis in 1779 (Blind et al. 2004). Headed by priests and soldiers, the presidio and mission

quickly became a center for agricultural and economic productivity, while at the same

time expanding the Spanish regime and its territories (Voss 2008:59). The success of the

Spanish settlement in Alta California was largely dependent on the rapid growth of the

missions and the subsequent use of native labor for food and manufactured goods

(Hackel 1998:116). Initially, the missions only sold food to the presidios. However by

1810 they were selling a variety of items to the pueblos (Spanish civilian settlements) 52 and presidios, frequently in exchange for imported crafts, such as trade beads, fine cloth, paper, and prayer books (Hackel 1998:117). When MSRA was established in 1817, the mission system has been in effect in California for more than 50 years. Between

1810 and 1821 many civil revolts were taking place in Spain and Mexico, whiCh had significant consequences on foreign trade relations within the missions, and yet boosted the local economy within Alta California; pushing the mission's to trade with the British and Russian traders (Hackel 1998:129).

Founding of MSRA

Pablo Vincente Sola was the Spanish governor of Alta California between 1815

and 1822 (Hackel 1998:129). In 1817, Governor Sola and Father Sarria, head priest at

Mission San Francisco de Asis, decided that an asistencia or hospital outpost was

needed, as many of the neophytes at Mission San Francisco de Asis and Mission San

Jose were dying from diseases (Milliken 2009:31). This location (within the study area)

offered many advantages over San Francisco: native labor, warmer weather, thousands

of acres of land, water sources, and protection from wind and fog (Bittick 1963; Georke

2005). The fur from sea otters and seals also attracted the Franciscans, and the Russian

Americans, whose settlement in Fort Ross had begun to encroach on northern Spanish

territory (Lightfoot 2005). Years earlier, Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga had visited the study

area during a trip to Fort Ross and recommended its warm and sunny climate to

Governor Sola (Hittell 1885; Berger 1941:359-360).

Father Sarria led the blessing for the new mission, named after San Rafael

Arcangel, the patron saint of healing, on December 14, 1817 and planted a cross at the 53 foot of today's San Rafael Hill (Englehardt 1913:163). Along side Father Sarria, was

Father Gil y Taboada, Father Abella, and Father Duran, who all witnessed the first new baptisms, consisting of "two children from Petaluma, one from Olompali, and one from

Yaui," (Milliken 2009:32). Over the next two days 31 more children were baptized, most coming from the Tamales area, northwest of the study area near present day Nicasio

Creek (Figure 11). Archaeologist and ethnohistorian Randy Milliken has completed the most comprehensive examination on the Franciscan mission records for MSRA to date.

His findings reveal that most of the Coast Miwok baptisms at MSRA occurred between

1817 and 1821 (Milliken 2009:32-34). The years that followed, and prior to secularization in 1834, were dominated by Porno baptisms. This transition to more northward tribal communities, likely represented the full extent of Coast Miwok missionization. By the end of 1821, "93% of the Coast Miwok neophytes had been baptized. Only two Coast Miwok regions had significant numbers of people still living in tribal villages; Bodega Bay and Bloomfield/Cotati" (Milliken 2009:34).

The first building to be constructed within the study area was the main chapel, which was oriented northwest to southeast, with the chapel entrance facing east

(Slinely 1989:13). This first structure was not completed until October 1818 (Older

1949:279). Father Gil y Taboada would remain at MSRA during this time to oversee all of the construction efforts as well as more than 200 neophytes who came from Mission

San Francisco de Asis to build the first structure (Milliken 2009:31). Father Gil y Taboada had previously worked at Mission La Purisma Concepcion as both a priest and doctor performing cesarean sections on sick and dying women (Quinn 1981:59). He would 54 continue this work at MSRA, and wrote to Governor Sola, "with the grace of God, I am ready to sacrifice myself in the service of these poor miserable ones even to the shedding of my own blood, if necessary" (Taboada 1817).

The main chapel building was divided into two wings, one long and one short, and included approximately six separate rooms, measuring 87 feet long, 42 feet wide, and 18 feet high (Older 1949:279). Although it is not known what all of the rooms were used for initially, it is certain that the chapel, hospital, and priest living quarters constituted the first wing (i.e., short-wing) constructed in 1818. Secondary sources described the main chapel building as a two-story structure containing a justice chamber, kitchen, granary, dining room, guest room, and tule roofed corridor, but this may have been in reference to later years when a long-wing was constructed in the

1820s (Munro-Fraser 1880; Quinn 1981:62; Keegan 1987:31; Sliney 1989:5). During this time, Spanish soldiers were stationed at MSRA to protect it from possible Indian attacks, and it is likely that they would have resided within the main chapel building once it was completed (Sliney 1989:5). Three mission bells were hung on a wooden structure at the entrance of the main chapel building. The ringing of the bells occurred throughout the day and signaled morning prayer, breakfast, lunch, work, evening prayer, and dinner

(Quinn 1981:63).

Neophytes from Mission San Francisco de Asis were tasked with gathering the materials to construct the mission bricks and tiles. They lived in traditional thatched housing throughout the mission grounds and near the San Rafael Bay shoreline

(Independent Journal 1917; Quinn 1981:62). It is reported that prior to the completion 55 of the main chapel building, the priests and soldiers also lived in "pole shelters" and

"mud plastered tule roofs" (Little n.d.), while other sources suggest that separate adobe structures, "adobe huts," were constructed for the head priest during this time

(lndependentJournaI1917). An {{altar arbor" and "great redwood cross," (Little n.d.) were erected in the study area and served as a temporary place for worship and baptismal ceremonies.

The clay used to produce the adobe brick for the main chapel building was dug out by hand near the former San Rafael manufactured gas plant (less than 1,000 feet south of the study area at 999 3rd Street) and brought back to the mission by ox cart

(Independent Journal 1948; Sliney 1989:4; PG&E 2012). "The adobe was molded into bricks and baked in the sun, redwood timbers were hand-hewn into beams and rafters of suitable lengths, rough tiles were formed and fire-hardened" (Independent Journal

1948).

Father Amoros replaced Father Gil y Taboada in 1819 and was credited with a tolerant and openhearted attitude (Quinn 1981:64-65). All that is known about Father

Amoros and his character comes from priests and soldiers who visited the mission, which does not necessarily reflect the sentiments of the neophyte population. Corporal

Rafael Garcia, for instance, who helped construct the main chapel building and would return to the mission for many years, was at MSRA in 1824 when an Indian revolt occurred (San Rafael Independent Journal 1917). Father Amoros immediately made provisions for Garcia and his family to be sent back to Presidio de San Francisco. Years later, Garcia would remark on Father Amoros' kindness and his devotion to MSRA (Little 56 n.d). One cannot help but think that this sentiment reflects more of Garcia's personal appreciation towards Father Amoros and his previous efforts to help Garcia's family, than in his treatment of the neophytes. Since there are no written accounts by California

Indians at MSRA during the Mission Period, it is difficult to speculate on the nature of his interactions with neophytes. Over the course of Father Amoros' tenure visitors to the mission would later remark on the large church gatherings, "Sunday and holy days of obligation were great days at the Mission, and the Indians and their families would come from miles around and attend mass in the Mission church" (Independent Journal

1917).

Three notable Coast Miwok men, Pompino, Marino, and Quintin, are attributed the leadership of several uprisings at MSRA in the early 1820s (Georke 2005:110-119).

All three at one time or another ran away from Mission San Francisco de Asis where they had been baptized prior to staying at MSRA. Journals of foreign travellers to MSRA, and to a lesser extent the mission records, describe runaway neophytes who attempted to escape or revolt from the mission system. Otto von Kotzebue, a Russian fur trader, noted burning buildings, shackled Indians and soldiers stationed atop San Rafael Hill after an attempted Indian revolt at MSRA. Kotzebue did not actually witness the attack, but visited the mission shortly thereafter (Georke 2005-110).

Since the 1850s historians have speculated about the origin of Marin County's name-sake, some believe possibly named after Marino, also referred to as Chief Marin

(Kyle 1990:172; Georke 2005). Marino died at MSRA in 1824 and was buried in the cemetery (Georke 2005:153). 57

Father Amoros served at MSRA for 13 years (1819-1832), during time which the

mission grew and expanded significantly (Slinely 1989). The mission lands stretched from Bodega Bay on the north to Tiburon and Mill Valley on the south, and were used

primarily for livestock grazing. "Cattle which had numbered only in the hundreds in the

early years, had reached over 2,000 by 1830" and by 1836 over 5,000 cattle were

recorded in the mission records (Keegan 1981:31). Agricultural crops such as grapes,

wheat, corn, beans, and chickpeas comprised the majority of agricultural productivity. It

is estimated that MSRA overall averaged lower annual revenue compared to Mission

San Francisco de Asis but maintained a higher than average number of livestock (Lutz

2010).

New rooms were added to the main chapel building, forming a long single-story

north to south trending wing (Quinn 1981:62). One of the adjoining rooms was used as a

schoolhouse where Father Amoros held religious classes and taught crafts to the

neophytes, while other rooms served as workshops, kitchen, granary, and guest

quarters (Independent Journal 1917). At this time, a long tule-roofed corridor may have

been added, extending the full length of the main chapel building and included a row of

approximately 15 wooden posts (Sliney 1989:5). The use of tule was probably just a

temporary roof material, because by the 1790s and early 1800s the California missions

were manufacturing kiln-fired tiles (Skorownek and Wizorek 1997:61). The priests'

living quarters may have also moved from the main chapel building and into the newly

added long-wing (Independent Journal 1917). 58

Within the first five years, still operating as a hospital mission, 629 Coast Miwok were baptized and remained at MSRA, most coming from western and northern Marin and southern Sonoma counties (Milliken 2009:32-34). While numerous sources have population growth and decline estimated at MSRA during the Mission Period and following secularization, Milliken's recent work on the ethnohistory and ethnogeogrpay of the Coast Miwok, synthesizes the most accurate methods for tracking Franciscan mission records and for determining population numbers at MSRA. A total of 725 Coast

Miwok people were baptized at MSRA between 1817 and 1832 (i.e., Mission Period).

Over a period of 50 years (1783-1832) 2,282 Coast Miwok speakers were baptized into the mission system in California (2009:5).

MEXICAN PERIOD (1821-1848)

Less information is known about the physical layout of the mission complex

during the 1820s and 1830s when the mission grounds began to expand and the mission

was elevated to full mission status in 1822 after Mexico declared independence from

Spain and California became a Mexican territory (Berger 1941). Construction efforts for

permanent neophyte housing took place from 1820 to 1826 and consisted of up to nine

two-story houses, the top story serving as dormitories for up to 100 Indians and the

bottom floor held workshops (Hendry and Bowman 1940; Quinn 1989:62). Oral histories

and historic maps suggest that the these buildings were located north of the main

chapel building between present day A Street and Lincoln Ave (Bittick 1963:10). It is also

possible that men and women were separated into different buildings (Georke 2005:50). 59

A formal adobe wall was constructed to enclose the main chapel building and possibly one or two other structures during the 1820s (Hendry and Bowman 1940). The adobe walls at MSRA bore no resemblance to the quadrangle, or walled compound, that surrounded so many of the other California missions. The walls at MSRA were not considered fortification, but served to demarcate the main chapel building, and create a central open space that which defined all of the missions (Sewall 2012). Also during this time, adobe walls were constructed around the vineyard and orchard and an aqueduct was completed (Quinn 1989:62). The aqueduct which probably consisted of an earthen and rock lined canal, conveyed water from San Rafael Hill in the north, through the mission grounds to the south, and to the natural spring, which was located "under a willow tree," "at the southwest corner of A Street and 5th Avenue," less than 200 feet south of the study area (Independent Journal 1917; Millett 1934).

Secularization

The Mexican government secularized the California missions in 1832, MSRA was the first mission to be closed in 1834 (Keegan 1981:32). Father Amoros died in 1832, just prior to secularization, and was buried in the mission cemetery (Older 1945:282). He was replaced by Father Estenga of San Francisco, followed by Father Jose Maria Vasquez de Mercado in 1833, and Father Lorenzo Quijas in 1834 (Engelhardt 1913). There is no reliable list of Indian people at MSRA when the mission closed in 1834. Mission records administered by Father Mercado report only 285 neophytes living there (Milliken

2009:40). Examination of the mission records from the end of 1833, indicate that there should have been about 1,200 neophytes (Milliken 2009). 60

Milliken brings up some very important questions: had more than 700 Indian people left the mission during 1832? Had there been a massive number of deaths? Had the true numbers never been reported? He concludes, "due to the suspicion over the quality of the Mission San Rafael death records, no accurate list can be made of all the individual Indian people living at Mission San Rafael at the end of 1832, in 1833, 1834 or any subsequent year leading up to the American Period" (2009:40).

Land Grants and Ranchos

Following the secularization of the missions, representatives of the Mexican government distributed 21 very large land grants or ranchos, totaling roughly 4,400 acres in Marin County {Marschner 2000}. Between 1833 and 1846 more than 500 land grants, encompassing mission-held land, were made in California. Governer Pio Pico in

1845 further authorized for the sale and renting of former mission properties (Robinson

1948:67).

On February 14, 1844, Timothy Murphy was granted three adjoining parcels, San

Pedro, Las Gallinas, and Santa Margarita, as one land grant comprising 21,678 acres

(Munro-Fraser 1880:191). This grant included the lands surrounding the city of San

Rafael, west to Red Hill in San Anselmo, north to Terra Linda, Marinwood and Lucas

Valley, and the land east to Point San Pedro (but may have excluded the mission grounds and study area) (Munro-Fraser 1880:191). As part of the Mexican government's requirements for Murphy to obtain a land grant, a sketch map or disefio was prepared and submitted to the Governor (Figure 12). Two versions of this map appear in the land grant records; the first dates to 1842 {Breed} when the claim was first submitted {land

Groups of California Indians remained living in the mission buildings following the closure of MSRA. However, it is unclear how many individuals were present, although some accounts estimate around 100 (Georke 2005:161). During this time

Murphy was the San Rafael administrator or majordomo and was "responsible for protecting the mission property from the Indians," (Georke 2005:161) although most of the mission livestock and equipment had already been sold. According to Mexican and

American visitors at the mission in the late 1830s and early 1840s, (Le., Edwards, Father

Quijas, and Peirce) the mission grounds were extremely neglected and the main chapel building was dilapidated and nearly collapsed (Georke 2005:161).

Land claims continued to be made on mission lands stating that the very nature of the Franciscan order forbade "its members to possess property" (Robinson 1948:95).

In 1849 the U.S. Land Claims Commission recognized earlier Spanish law that allowed

"Christianized Indians to occupy and use lands needed for habitations, tillage, and pasturage of flocks" (Robinson 1948:95) however, by this time very little survived of the original mission complex. Large portions of the mission vineyard were removed by

General Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo and transplanted at his rancho in Petaluma (now

Petaluma Adobe State Historic Park) and all of the livestock had been sold to ranchos

(Kyle 1990:478-479; Georke 2005:161).

The 1848 gold discovery and subsequent Gold Rush launched a period of development in San Rafael. With California's entry into the United States in 1850, legislators created Marin County. The large cattle ranchos gave way to smaller ranches

Black surveyed and mapped all 21 California Missions between 1853 and 1854.

His work serves as some of the best representations of the surviving mission buildings, the general layout, and surrounding landscape. It is likely that the U.S land Commission and the investigation of previous Mexican land grants prompted the inventory of MSRA

(land case no. 425).

In 1855 the mission property (6.48 acres) was confirmed to Archbishop Joseph

Sodoc Alemany of the San Francisco Archdiocese (Robinson 1948:31). He was the first

Archbishop of San Francisco and filed a petition with the Board of U.S. lands

Commission in 1853 for the return of all mission-held lands. His claim (case no. 609) was supported by the Act of 1851 that regulated the separation of private and public lands

(Robinson 1948:31; Bittick 1963:15). At MSRA Archbishop Alemany would receive only the land encompassing the existing buildings, cemetery, and gardens and vineyard. In

1855 he oversaw the construction of a small one room church next to the main chapel building (Figure 14). 65

TUN - RVIW.

Figure 14. Survey Map of MSRA (Alemany 1858). One room church constructed in 1855 (arrow) (Chancery Arhives).

In 1861 Bishop Alemany sold the remains of the abandoned main chapel building and rooms to James Byers, a local carpenter in San Rafael (Sliney 1989:12). Construction of a new Gothic Church (Figure 15) was completed in 1869 and replaced the small one room church built by Archbishop Alemany.

The original mission cemetery continued to be used, until the marked graves were moved to Mount Olivet Cemetery, (2.5 miles north of the study area), between

1884 and 1885, and "those of the Indians, were left where they were" (Figure 15) (San

Francisco Monitor 1885).

CHAPTER 7. HISTORICAL RESEARCH METHODS

This chapter summarizes the methods used to find and assess the historical data.

A complete list of all the research facilities and documentary sources is not included here, however the most useful are discussed below and include: historic maps, oral accounts, early photographs, and historical society documents and articles. Due to the very small body of written evidence pertaining to the physical layout of MSRA during the

Mission Period, primary and secondary sources from the Mexican (1821-1848) and

American (1848-present) periods were heavily relied upon.

This chapter concludes with a description of the geospatial techniques used to compare the modern setting of the study area with historic maps depicting MSRA. This work was completed using historic topographic maps and survey drawings, modern survey maps, Geographic Positioning System (GPS) data, and Geographic Information

Systems (GIS) mapping software.

FINDING AND ASSESSING HISTORICAL DATA

Research Facilities and Organizations

The MSRA museum and archives provided a comprehensive collection of primary and secondary source material on the history of MSRA. A large part of the MSRA archives is accredited to historian, lucretia Hanson little, and her collection of oral histories, historic maps, and newspaper clippings about the mission. Many of the material sources used throughout this thesis came from the lucretia little files (Le., 69

Little n.d.) and provided much of the basis for the historic setting of the study area (see

Chapter 6).

Additional historical research was conducted at the Anne T. Kent California Room of the Marin County Library, San Anselmo Historical Society and Museum, the Marin

County History Museum and Archives, and the City of San Rafael Planning Department.

Other important libraries and archives included the San Francisco Archdiocese Archives,

California State Library (Sacramento), and the Mandeville Special Collections Library

(University of California [U.c.] at San Diego). Numerous online databases and digital collections also provided useful historic imagery (Le., maps and photographs), most of which was available from the Online Archives of California (OAC), such as the California

Historical Society and Bancroft Library (U.c. Berkeley), the Owen C. Coy Collection, and

David Rumsey Map Collection, Sanborn Company maps, Library of Congress, Calisphere, and the Historic Topographic Map of California and the San Francisco Bay Area (U.c.

Berkeley). It should be noted that while the Sanborn Company maps provide detailed historical information about buildings and structures within the study area, the earliest

Sanborn map for the study area dates to 1887, almost 30 years after MSRA was dismantled. A cursory review of the online Sanborn map collection was conducted but was not examined further because the information on the maps did not pertain to the original mission layout.

A records search was conducted at the California Historical Resources Information

System (CHRIS), Northwest Information Center (NWIC) in Rohnert Park, California. The

CHRIS information centers operate as repositories of information regarding cultural 70 resources in California and are administered by the California OHP. The purpose of the records search was to obtain reports, maps, and site records for previously documented prehistoric and historic archaeological sites within or adjacent to the study area. Results of the records search are described in Chapter 8 and a detailed discussion of the prominent prehistoric archaeological sites is presented in Chapter 4.

Research Sources and the Documentary Record

Primary Sources

Finding primary documentation was critical in order to accurately describe the physical layout of MSRA during the Mission Period. The types of primary material consisted of historic maps and drawings, oral histories, photographs, and newspapers and periodicals. Many of these sources have been reviewed against each other, in order to pull together a full understanding of the mission complex and to fill in any information gaps.

The reliability of sources is also discussed in this section and raises key questions about the biases and the relevancy in working with historical data. For this reason, paintings and drawings of MSRA were not used as authenticated sources of evidence in this study. Many paintings of MSRA are highly romanticized and impressionistic portraits, commissioned during the late 1800s and early 1900s, and were painted by artists who never visited the mission. For example, the San Rafael Chamber of

Commerce in 1914 commissioned Etorre Serbaroli to paint MSRA as it might have looked during the Mission Period (Figure 18). Serbaroli was teacher at Tamalpias

Military Acadamey (now Marin Academy) (Cambria 2012). His painting of MSRA was one

Historic maps are the most valuable sources for determining past land use. The use of maps in historical research allows for the opportunity to see how much change has occurred over time; as lands were settled and claims were made, new maps were drawn. There are no maps from the Mission Period which illustrate the original buildings and their placement within the study area. As a result, historic survey maps dating from the Mexican and American periods are the earliest sources for depicting mission buildings and the surrounding landscape. However, be~ause all maps are a product of a particular place and time, it is important to critically examine their contents and purpose. For example, the 1854 sketch map or diseno that was used in the Timothy

Murphy land case was likely an adaptation from an earlier land claim submitted in 1842

(Le., Breed 1842)(see Figure 12). For a period of 12 years the same map was used to illustrate the land in question, not taking into account any buildings or landscape alterations that may have occurred within the study area between 1842 and 1854. This has implications on the consistency and reliability of the map, which may not accurately reflect the study area during this time. It is important to note that it often took more than 15 years for a land claim to be approved by the U.S. District Court and therefore by the time a claimant's map was reviewed more than a decade could have passed. In addition, disefio maps were created using the metes and bounds system of surveying and land descrption. This method incorporates both a bearing and distance (Le., course) with a physical landmark (Le., creeks/roads). Metes and bounds descriptions, referred to as unsectionalized land parcels, are problematic today, beacause the quality 73 of the original measurement and description are unknown, often resulting in the misrepresentation of property boundaries, structures, objects, or environmental features during the orignial survey (Robillard et aI., 2009: 86, 91-94). In general, sketch maps were impressionistic and provided very little geographic or boundary defining details, which can also be attributed to the skill of the cartographer or map maker.

When examining early maps, it is also important to consider the underlying conditions for making such a map. For example, one requirement for all Mexican land claims was to plant fruit trees and build a residence on the property {Cambria 2012}.

According to the 1854 land case map {see Figure 12}, mission buildings and the vineyard were still present which meant that Murphy's claim to the property would have full filled the criteria, without requiring any additional cost or effort. Furthermore, it would have benefited Murphy to illustrate these features as extant, regardless of their condition. Also during this time Murphy was appointed the majordomo at MSRA and was responsible for overseeing the mission property. He would have had first-hand knowledge when MSRA was made available for public acquisition.

The George Black survey map from 1854 (see Figure 13) is the best representation of the general layout and surviving buildings at MSRA. Black's maps have been verified at other California mission sites, using the remains of building foundations and adobe walls uncovered during archaeological excavations and to predict the location of associated mission features {see Chapter 8}. Aside from the maps themselves, there is no information about Black and his employment as a surveyor or the two years he spent mapping the California missions. It is possible that the u.s. 74

District Court ordered a government survey ofthe mission lands, to settle survey questions, to have the final word in controversies over the Spanish and Mexican records, and to verify land claims involving mission property. Almost all of the mission maps prepared by Black depict buildings and structures and landscape features (I.e., pond, vineyard, garden) using the same scale, labels, and colors. Although size and orientation varied, the maps contain analogous information that could be used to generalize the condition of the mission lands and their holdings during the mid-1850s and to compare them against other claim for mission lands. Also, because these maps were likely prepared by and for the u.S. District Court they would not have been scrutinized to the same degree of review as most land claims during this time. Based on the information presented in Chapter 6, the mission residences, workshops, and vineyard were located beyond the main chapel building (outside the study area).

Consequently, Black's work did not encompass the full extent ofthe mission complex during the Mission Period and cannot be considered a complete inventory of extant mission buildings or the surrounding landscape features at this time.

Oral histories are the documentation of memories and stories about the past and grow out of firsthand knowledge and experience (Thelen and Rosenzweig 1998).

The use of oral histories is a very effective method for gathering information that may not be found in written sources, or, that may be used in collaboration with the documentary record. Historians use oral history to document individual experiences and to link cultural and historical events (Thelen and Rosenzweig 1998:20). "Although many different kinds of researchers use oral history for data collection, disciplinary 75 perspective can significantly alter the purpose or intent of an oral history project (Leavy

1975:50). The examples of oral accounts in this thesis are intended to bring additional description and explanation to the history of MSRA and to provide a collection of sources that reflect personal experiences, memories of events, and different perspectives. It is important to be mindful of the validity, reliability, and consistency when using both oral histories and written accounts.

Oral histories involve identifying and interviewing local residents who remember key facts about a given site, its previous ownership's, history, and use. In 1917, The

Independent, a weekly newspaper in San Rafael, published an interview with Juan

Garcia, the son of Corporal Rafael Garcia, who had been present at MSRA in 1817 during the construction of the main chapel building. The sequence of events, as told by Juan

Garcia, describe his fathers experiences at MSRA and his interactions with Father Sarria,

Father Amoros, and the Native Americans. Several excerpts from this interview are used as historical evidence or background context in this thesis (see Chapter 6). While it may not be possible to validate some of the claims made in oral histories, it is important to acknowledge that they are personal experiences which contain inherent biases. For example, the ability for Juan Garcia to accurately portray his father's recollections at

MSRA during the Mission Period is problematic. The natural biases of memory playa critical role in how oral histories are conveyed and interpreted. Memories are often fragmentary and lack detail that may be pertinent to capturing the topic of study. It is also important to consider when Juan Garcia's father shared these firsthand accounts with his son. Family memories are often passed down decades after an event has 76 occurred and shared again much later by those who were not directly impacted by the event (Leavy 195:199).

A final consideration is the relationship between the researcher (interviewer) and participant (interviewee) and the manner in which questions and responses are framed. This can result in a participant's unwillingness to share certain information or an exaggerated or understated account about an event or place. Early interviews were also conducted informally and transcribed as conversations, which presents challenges when later deciphering meaning or intent.

These are' also important factors to consider when using ethnographic studies that rely on oral histories. Much of the knowledge about Coast Miwok culture and traditional practices is based on ethnographic accounts by American scholars in the early 1900s (i.e., Kroeber and Kelly). In the 1930s Isabel Kelly interviewed Tom Smith and Maria Copa, Coast Miwok descendents from the Bodega Bay area, of whom both shared information about MSRA. Maria Copa's maternal grandparents were baptized at

Mission San Francisco de Asis and her grandfather later lived at MSRA (Collier and

Thalman 2003). In an interview about the mission settlement, Maria Copa stated, "they kept only men at the mission. They kept the women a long way off" (Collier and

Thalman 2003:75). Because of the unstructured nature and informal context of Kelly's interview, it is difficult to clarify this statement. Although oral history interviews are guided by a researcher's questions, it is typical for the participant lito have a big hand in creating the direction of the narrative, the topic covered, and the language used" (Leavy

2011:214). This was likely the case between Kelly and Copa, as the statement about 77

"only men at the mission" was not explored further or covered later in the interview.

During the construction of the main chapel building it was reported that only men came to MSRA from Mission San Francisco de Asis, as the women and children were too sick to travel and stayed behind. It is also believed that men and women were housed in separate residences, however it is unknown if this was prior to or after permanent neophyte housing was built.

Overall it is practical to consider the validity and reliability of both oral histories and written documents. For example, historian Bruce Miller discusses how the validity of an oral account is measured by its "degree of conformity to other primary source materials such as documents, photos, diaries, and letters/' without considering the qualities of the written documents against the oral narratives (2011:63). This presents challenges in working with ethnographic data because oral accounts often focus on different information than written sources (Miller 2011:63). This same approach can be used to further examine the news paper article about Juan Garcia's testimony of his fathers years spent at MSRA. The interview was printed in the San Rafael newspaper as part of the mission's 100th anniversary celebration. Interviews such as this, have the ability to elicit a particular response because of the newspaper's objective to celebrate

MSRA. As a result it is important to be aware of the historical attitudes during which the

th article was printed and society perception of mission history during the early 20 century (Leavy 2011:291). 78

Historic photographs are an invaluable source of primary documentation and can be used to chronicle significant and historical events. Photographs also provide visible details of a particular place that mayor may not be described in written materials. There are no photographs of MSRA during the Mission Period however several capture the study area during the late 1800s and early 1900s (see Chapter 6). While it might appear that early photographs are truthful, objective, and candid, they are also one dimensional and often cut out important information that is critical to understanding the wider context of a place or setting (Cronon 2012). For example, early photographs of the study area highlight the prominent buildings (Le., church, school house) and encompass a single vantage-point, most of which views the mission property looking north from A Street. This perspective is meant to emphasize the notable architecture in the City of San Rafael during the turn of the 20th century. At the same time, this view neglects other buildings or ephemeral structures that might be considered mediocre or insignificant, but could provide visible evidence of the former mission complex.

When assessing historical photographs inferences can be made about the purpose and context of the image {Cronan 2012}. Often photographs may appear candid but were actually composed by a commercial or professional photographer with the intent of publication. It is likely that these early images of the study area (Le., Figures

15-17) were created for the local newspaper to document the completion of a new building and promote San Rafael as the county seat. It is also necessary to be aware of the fact that many early photographs were not dated, nor were they described in detail.

Dates were often added later, after the picture was taken. 79

It is also useful to compare a series of photographs from the same location. This type of image analysis has implications on how we perceive and interpret land use patterns and construction history within the study area. Figures 15-17 depict similar vantage points over a period of 50 years (Le., 1870s, 1912, and 1920s). While it is clear that buildings in the study area have been demolished and constructed, the vegetation differences on San Rafael Hill are less obvious but reveal historic-period environmental changes. As discussed in Chapter 3 and 6 cattle grazing defined the majority of land use in Marin County during the Mission Period and well into the 1850s. Hillsides were often cleared of vegetation (Le., burning) in order to maintain open space for cattle, while at the same time grazing greatly diminished vegetation growth (Le., native grasses)

(Anderson 2005: 171, 184). Oak trees were also removed from the hillsides and used fuel and building material (Anderson 2005:82). Figure 15 was taken circa 1870s and portrays San Rafael Hill moderately barren. This picture closely resembles what the surrounding hillsides in San Rafael would have looked like during the Mission and

Mexican periods as a result of grazing and logging activities. Figures 16 and 17 date to the early 1900s and depict San Rafael Hill covered in trees and vegetation during a time in which excessive livestock grazing ceased and agriculture dominated land use. During the beginning of the 20th century many of the hillsides surrounding the City of San

Rafael would have re-vegetated but not without a significant reduction to native species. 80

Secondary Sources

The secondary material that was utilized encompasses a range of sources, from contemporary cultural resources management reports and documentation, to academic publications and general histories of San Rafael. Overall, the secondary sources provided much of the background context information and the framework for conducting research on the study area.

GEOSPATIAL MAPPING METHODS

Geospatial mapping is a technique that allows for a variety of sources to be mapped and referenced in relationship to one another. The ability to overlay historic maps onto modern survey maps and/or satellite imagery can be used to analyze changes within a particular setting overtime and can create a "snapshot" of what was once long ago. The results of the geospatial mapping are presented in Chapter 9. Bryan Mischke prepared all of the mapping for this study; the overall methods and strategies are described below.

Digital copies of historic USGS topographic quadrangle maps were clipped and georeferenced to the modern Digital Raster Graphic (DRG) mosaic for Marin County.

GPS positions were collected at MSRA for buildings and features represented on the modern survey map Topographic and Boundary Survey M.ap for st. Raphael Church

(Ziebatech 2005). After processing the GPS data, a Computer-aided Design (CAD) version of the survey map was georeferenced to known coordinates in NAD 83 UTM Zone 10

North projection. Historic drawings and maps were clipped and georeferenced to the modern survey map (Ziebatech 2005). Contour lines were digitized from the 1897 USGS 81 topographic quadrangle map and used to create a Triangulated-irregular Network (TIN) to represent the historic ground-surface within the study area. A grid coordinate system was created from spot elevations from the CAD survey points to represent the modern ground surface. A cut and fill analysis was performed over the two surfaces based on their Z-values or elevations to determine areas of excavation and fill within the study area. 82

CHAPTER 8. ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

This chapter synthesizes previous archaeological investigations and discoveries at two other California mission sites: Santa Clara de Asis and San Juan Bautista. Due to a lack of detailed information about the earliest structural configuration of MSRA, the close examination of similarities and differences between other mission sites is our main source for information on the possible archaeological property types and mission-era resources that may be present within the study area. This chapter also includes an overview of the prehistoric and historic resources within and in close proximity to the study area.

ARCHAEOLOGY AT OTHER CALIFORNIA MISSION SITES

Mission Santa Clara and Mission San Juan Bautista serve as excellent comparative examples for assessing the archaeological record and original layout of

MSRA. Like many of the other California mission sites, Santa Clara and San Juan have been studied from an archaeological perspective with a strong emphasis on the documentary and architectural history. Santa Clara and San Juan were selected as comparisons because the previous studies at these missions demonstrate: 1} the availability of extensive archaeological detail on mission-era architecture and deposits,

2} the use of historic images to plot mission-era features; 3} the use of focused archaeological planning and research on land-use and open area archaeological excavation techniques; 4} an emphasis on CRM archaeology and the development of research designs and treatment plans, and to coordinate and manage the process of 83 development and archaeology. This section summarizes relevant archaeological discoveries, methods, and techniques from sources at Santa Clara and San Juan missions and the significance of these for MSRA.

Mission Santa Clara

Mission Santa Clara (in Santa Clara County) is the eighth California mission and was founded in 1777. Over the course of its 60 years as a mission, the church was rebuilt in five different locations {Skowronek and Wizorek 1997:1}. Today remnants of the third, fourth, and fifth church and quadrangle have been found within the current Santa

Clara University campus and surrounding areas. Most of the archaeological finds have been identified during construction activities for new buildings, roads, and utilities

(Allen 2010:77). The first evidence of mission-era features was discovered in the early

1900s and consisted of historic burials, mission walls, beads, bones, and shell {Allen

2010:77}. Although these were accidental discoveries, the potential for mission-era deposits lead to formal archaeological excavations during the 1930s, 1960s, and 1980s.

Since the 1930s archaeologists working at mission Santa Clara have used historic maps, sketches, and photographs to plot mission-era features found within Santa Clara

University and the immediate vicinity (Le., Route 82) (Allen 2009:77). A map prepared by George Black in 1854 was one source used to approximate the location of the third, fourth, and fifth church complexes, including the vineyard, orchard, cemetery, and small pond. Black also surveyed MSRA and completed a similar map of the remains of the mission complex in 1854 {Figure 12}. 84

Archaeological evidence of the fourth and fifth Santa Clara mission sites date to the same time period as MSRA and provides insight regarding mission-era deposits.

Because mission tiles were often reused from a previously abandoned building site, the remaining adobe walls were left unsupported and would subsequently decompose or

"melt away" in their absence (Skowronek and Wizorek 1997:68). As a result, an adobe horizon is left in-situ. The presence of an adobe layer resulted in the identification of the former walls and alignment of the fourth church at Santa Clara and also provided evidence of the recorded demolition of the structure in 1867 (Skowronek and Wizorek

1997:68-74). In comparison, all evidence indicated that the church complex at MSRA was dismantled in the 1860s if not earlier, and was neither relocated nor rebuilt during its 17 years as a mission. If this is true, any indication of an adobe horizon within the

MSRA study area would be strong material evidence for the original mission complex, particularly when compared with the Black's 1854 map.

Other pertinent archaeological discoveries from Mission Santa Clara include the examination of various artifact deposits associated with the Mexican Period (1821

1848). This particular period is noteworthy when considering the archaeological record of the study area because MSRA was not elevated to full mission status until 1822, immediately following the Mexican Independence War in 1821. During this time the mission complex would have reached its highest population estimates and experienced an increase in agricultural and economic productivity. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the cultural material generated during the Mexican Period may constitute the majority of artifacts at MSRA. An assemblage of ceramic tableware fragments from the 85

Mexican Period was identified at Santa Clara along with tiles, cut nails, bones, and clothing. Out of 178 ceramic pieces, 88 percent of the collection consisted of plain

English-made ceramics, while the remaining 12 percent was comprised of Chinese porcelain, stoneware, Mexican-made majolica, and mission-made earthenware

(Skowronek and Wizorek 1997:74-75). As discussed earlier in Chapter 6, between 1810 and 1821 revolutionary movements were taking place in Spain and Mexico, which restricted trade to Alta California and prompted the missions to exchange with Brittan and Russia. The high proportion of English ceramics compared to Mexican-made at

Mission Santa Clara is evidence for a growing importance of European trade over internal Mexican trade during the middle of the Mission Period (Skowronek and Wizorek

1997:22).

Other important archaeological features that have been excavated at Santa Clara are adobe mixing pits and matanza or butchering areas (Allen 2010:80). These two feature types have also been found at other California mission sites and underscore the significance of open space areas that are not associated with standing mission structures or buildings. Rebecca Allen has conducted a substantial amount of research through her archaeological investigations on mission land use at Santa Clara. She suggests that living spaces at the mission were not constrained to "areas only within and nearby buildings; much of the land surrounding the surviving neophyte adobe remains an untapped archaeological resource for discovering other more temporary land use and residential areas" (2010:90). Allen's research further supports that archaeological excavations that practice "narrow trenching or smaller units," increase the potential for 86 missing the full spectrum of large usage areas. As in the case of the butchering area at

Santa Clara, 1I0nly broad expansive removal of overburden showed its extent and purpose" (Allen 2010:90). Open area archaeological excavations is a very valuable and necessary approach for MSRA, particularly in such an urban setting where the potential for archaeology beneath the existing buildings and streets is unknown. A reliance on the documentary and existing archaeological record for mission-era deposits is not feasible at MSRA, due to the lack of historical documents and the absence of previous archaeological investigations. Because we do not know the extent to which the mission era archaeological record survives intact, within the study area, the importance of defining the full spectrum of land use is paramount to understanding the original layout of the mission complex.

Lastly, a critical part of the successful archaeology and recovery of mission-era features at Santa Clara University is due to the creation and implementation of an archaeological research design and treatment plan that serves to guide all archaeological work that occurs on campus. The campus wide research plan is also linked with the sites National Historic Landmark designation and the universities' commitment IIfor avoidance and data recovery of archaeological resources prior to demolition of existing structures and construction of new facilities (Allen 2010:80).

Mission San Juan Bautista

Mission San Juan Bautista (Monterey County) is the 15th California mission and was founded in 1797. Numerous archaeological studies at San Juan identified of mission-era features and artifacts. During the last 20 years, most of the studies have 87 been focused on the original layout of the mission complex and the associated structures and features, such as the chapel, well, granary, convent, an'd quadrangle, All of the archaeological finds at San Juan have been correlated with historic images (i.e"

1854 George Black map) and primary documents. In 1995, an archaeological base map for San Juan was developed to ensure the systematic recordation of archaeological resources, which has also proven invaluable to understanding the architectural history of the mission and lithe overall site plan and its interpretation" (Mendoza 2009:35).

Historical research on the main chapel building revealed a general layout, which included Ita cloister or range building that typically shares one or more walls with the chapel proper" (Mendoza 2009:14). This configuration was commonly found at

California mission sites and also enclosed other areas such as a living quarters, kitchen, and granary. Archaeologist Ruben Mendoza further suggests that because the padres lived in the chapel, this building was maintained better than some of the other mission structures (2009:14). At San Juan, the main chapel building was reused after the convento or Franciscan friary was constructed in 1800 and later continued to be used for other purposes until 1915 (Mendoza 2009:15). In contrast, the main chapel building at

MRSA was the primary housing structure for the padres (there was no separate convento) and, as suggested by Mendoza, may have been built more soundly, and thus could explain why the vast majority of building remnants that were mapped at MSRA in the 1850s consist of the main chapel.

As discussed in Chapter 6, the surviving buildings at MSRA were sporadically occupied following secularization for over 30 years. Archaeological data recovered from 88

San Juan provided evidence for multiple periods of use, spanning from the Mission

Period, into the mid 1900s. The extent of historic disturbances at the San Juan chapel site presented numerous challenges for interpreting the archaeological record, as many of the impacts to mission-era deposits consisted of artifact deposits and burn areas dating to the 1930s (Mendoza 2009:33-34). At MSRA, archaeologists would also expect to encounter evidence of historic disturbances because the study area has been subject to various periods of construction and demolition after the Mission Period and well into the 20th century.

Archaeological discoveries of the old mission well at San Juan have further enhanced interpretations of the layout of the mission and raised questions concerning the lack of such a feature at MSRA (Mendoz 2009). Although no manuscripts or drawings reference a well at MSRA, there are documents supporting the use of a natural spring and seasonal stream that passed through the mission grounds that appears to have feed the vineyards, orchards, and gardens (see Chapter 9). At San Juan, the well was constructed of local fieldstone and adobe pavement and was situated within the center of the mission quadrangle (Mendoza 2009:29-30). As discussed earlier however,

MSRA was not configured this way. Due to the importance of access to clean water, it is likely that the location and orientation of MSRA was heavily influenced by the nearby water source, and thus a mission well may not have been needed.

A recent archaeological investigation at San Juan, triggered by the requirements of CEQA (see Chapter 2), involved the preparation of a historic resources evaluation for, in order to consider the potential effects of a new construction on Mission San Juan and 89 the known archaeological and architectural resources (Mendoza 2009). The study also examined the mission's documentary and archaeological history in order to assess the sites' sensitivity for additional mission-era deposits. As part of the future management considerations, the project resulted in the creation of an archaeological base map, which is currently used to record all of the archaeological finds at San Juan to date.

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS AT MSRA

The MSRA museum contains several archaeological items from the Mission

Period (1777-1836) that were found within the study area and/or in close proximity.

While the discovery of these artifacts provides material evidence for the potential presence of other mission-era deposits, none of these discoveries were made in the context of a methodical archaeological investigation.

The collection includes several tile fragments, three nails, and three original mission bells. Other archaeological materials may have been discovered that are currently part of private collections or other museum exhibits. An inventory of the

Marin History Museum archives is currently underway to determine the number, type, and material of mission objects within its collection. Additionally, the MSRA museum is currently seeking information about MSRA artifacts that may be housed at other

California museums. A description of the mission-era archaeological finds at MSRA is given below.

George Epperson found mission tiles on A Street (between 4th and 5th streets) in 1973, approximately 200 feet from the study area (Brunner 2012 pers. comm.). This discovery was made during construction clean-up efforts after the San Rafael Court 90

House burned in 1972. The depth and nature of the tile deposit is unknown. All of the tile pieces were examined by Or. Jack Williams at the Center for Spanish Colonial

Research and Or. Russell Skowronek at the Department of Anthroplogy at Santa Clara

University who both confirmed that the pieces were Mission Period and consisted of mostly tejas (roof tiles) and ladrillo (floor tiles). Small fragments of majolica tiles, or clay glazed with an opaque glaze, were also identified and are indicative of the mission-era.

Three nails, one large cut and two small hand-forged were found within the study area, although the exact provenience, depth, and context of the find is unknown.

The nails date from the 1770s and it is suggested that they arrived from Spain to MSRA between 1820 and 1830 (Brunner 2012 person. com.). Three ofthe original mission bells are also housed in the museum.

Other items within the MSRA museum collection include vestments, liturgical artifacts, wooden SCUlptures, paintings on canvas, manuscripts, furniture, Native

American baskets and stone tools, and textiles. Although these objects do not date to the Mission Period; they are also important representatives of MSRA history. The collection includes both organic materials (basketry, paper, textile and wood) and inorganic materials (ceramic, metal, glass, plaster, and stone) that are permanently displayed in the museum, which is housed inside the 1949 mission replica.

Formal Cultural Resources Investigations and Known Cultural Resources Near MSRA

A considerable number of cultural resources investigations have been conducted within close proximity to the study area that have resulted in the identification of prehistoric and historic sites. Some of these were discussed in Chapter 4 (Le., MRN-84, 91

85, -313, -647). Over the last 30 years, most archaeological work in downtown San

Rafael has been in response to federal, state, and local agency permitting. Between

1978 and 2012, more than 30 CRM-based projects were conducted within a 0.50-mile of

MSRA. These projects consisted of archaeological and historic buildings surveys and evaluations, archaeological monitoring during construction and development projects, and archaeological excavations. Other types of cultural resources studies include academic and scholarly publications about the prehistory and history of San Rafael, as well as early archaeological survey and excavation work by Nelson in the 1900s (see

Chapter 4).

Based on a review at the NWIC (see Chapter 7), there are 20 documented cultural resources within a 0.50-mile of the study area which include 10 prehistoric archaeological sites, nine historic buildings and structures, and one multi-component site, containing both prehistoric and historic deposits (Appendix A). For a description of the prominent prehistoric sites within close proximity to the study area see Chapter 4.

All of the historic buildings and structures near the study area date to the late 1800s,

1900s or later, and are not mission-era buildings. However, these site records and associated reports were reviewed as a part of this study and none of the reports include discussions regarding recommendations for the potential for mission era archaeological deposits.

The Boyd House is located approximately 300 feet north of the study area and was constructed in 1879. The building is listed on the NRHP and sits less than 400 feet from the footprint for the original mission complex (see Chapter 9). Furthermore, the 92 oldest building in San Rafael, built in 1849, is located at 1130 Mission Street and is known as the former residence of William T. Coleman. This house is not listed on the

NRHP, CRHR or locally, but is situated approximately 45 feet southwest of a mission building that was mapped as extant in 1852. See Chapter 9 for a complete discussion on mission buildings and land use chronology at MSRA.

RECENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS AT MSRA

Throughout this thesis work, several City projects took place very close to the study area. Two of these resulted in the inadvertent discovery of a prehistoric shell midden deposit and a historic bottle, which are described below.

On April 12, 20111 observed a shell midden deposit in an exposed area of dirt under a tree located within the sidewalk along 5th Avenue and adjacent to the St.

Raphael rectory (see Figure 3). The soil in this location had recently been disturbed and a broken clay water pipe was exposed at the surface. During this time, the City was undertaking street improvements to 5th Avenue and the crosswalk extending over 5th

Avenue from the entrance to MSRA. Evidence of the midden extended below the ground surface; however, it was not possible to investigate the depth of the depOSit.

The soil was a dark gray and included an abundance of very small shell fragments. I sifted and screened about five liters of soil, which had been piled next to the clay pipe, to establish if any diagnostic materials or artifacts were present, of which there were none. No soil or shell fragments were collected and a Department of Parks and

Recreation (DPR 523) site record form was completed and submitted to the NWIC and the City of San Rafael. The presence of this midden and several shell mounds and 93 associated deposits in the area is consistent with Coast Miwok settlement in San Rafael and along San Rafael Bay shoreline. While this deposit indicates prehistoric activity (e.g., dark midden soils, shell and faunal fragments, etc.) there have been significant modern and historic disturbances in and around the study area that have likely removed and/or re-deposited archaeological material associated with this deposit. In order to fully assess or estimate the potential for subsurface prehistoric deposits at this location or to determine whether the midden extends into the study area, further archaeological investigation will be necessary.

In March 2011, the City was replacing underground waterlines at the southeast corner of Mission Street and Court Street, approximately 200 feet from the study area.

A single trench (more than six feet deep) was excavated during this work. MSRA curator

Teri Brunner and I periodically observed this activity. An onsite construction worker discovered an intact brown bottle in the waterline trench. He was unable to provide any information regarding the exact location or depth of the bottle, but confirmed that it came from the corner of Mission Street and Court Street (see Figure 3). The bottle is currently housed in the MSRA museum and to date there has been no formal research conducted on the precise function of the bottle or its manufacture date. In general the discovery of an intact object suggests that the item was found in its original context, whereas a broken bottle or a collection of fragments indicate that the object(s) were intentionally discarded and/or disturbed by construction or development activities. It is possible that the brown bottle was found in an area that has been subject to minimal disturbances and may contain additional bottles or represent a discrete archaeological 94

deposit. However, based on the modern and historic disturbances associated with

nearby road construction and urban development the bottle may be a result of secondary deposition. A DPR 523 site record form was completed for the isolated

discovery of the historic bottle and submitted to the NWIC and the City of San Rafael.

The results of archaeolgoical investigations from other California mission sites

and the previous and recent archaeolgoical finds in and around the study area have

helped define not only the type and diversity of mission-era features and materials, but

have highlighted the potential for both prehistoric and historic deposits. 95

CHAPTER 9. FINDINGS

With the exception of a few details in letters, travel accounts, and mission reports, there is little documentation in the historical record for the physical layout of

MSRA during the Mission Period. What is known about the mission complex is based on historical accounts and historic maps associated with a small number of individuals who lived, worked, or visited the mission.

The mission complex contained numerous buildings and structures, including the main chapel building, workshops, storerooms, residential quarters, granary, and other ancillary structures (Figure 19). Landscape features and mission infrastructure consisted of a cemetery, vineyard, orchard, garden, aqueduct, corrals, stables, and walls (Figure

19). Although there are no maps from the Mission Period that show the placement of individual buildings and features within the mission complex, the main chapel building and cemetery are known to have been located within the study area.

This chapter describes the main chapel building, cemetery, and an unknown structure, using the results of the historical research and geospatial mapping. The vineyard and several landscape features and structures are located outside the study area, however, because they played a vital role in the mission complex, are briefly discussed as well.

This chapter also considers the archaeological sensitivity of the study area, the potential to encounter mission-era deposits, and the possible archaeological property types that may be expected. The sensitivity assessment is preliminary and based only on the results of the historical research, including archaeological work and findings from

97 construction history of the main chapel building suggests that the short-wing was built

in 1818 and functioned as a nave, or central part of the chapel, hospital, and priests'

quarters, and possibly a granary. A second story may have supported the short-wing.

The long-wing was added by 1820 and included approximately four additional rooms.

Mission annual reports from the 1820s and later oral histories describe these rooms as workshops, classrooms, and storage rooms. At this time, the priests likely moved from the shared space of the hospital and chapel and into a separate room in the long-wing.

A tule thatched corridor was constructed as well, which spanned the entire length of the

main chapel building; however it is likely that during the subsequent years, this grass

roof was replaced with kiln-fired tile.

The main chapel building was framed in redwood, and included adobe brick lined

walls and tile roofing. In contrast to some of the other California missions, MSRA did

not have a bell tower or well, and the layout of the main chapel building did not

conform to quadrangular complex. However, an adobe wall was constructed to enclose

this portion of the mission.

The main chapel building is located within the study area and encompasses, St.

Raphael's Rectory and parking lot to the west, and trends northeast, towards Mission

Street, across the current courtyard and St. Raphael Parish Hall and Gymnasium (Figure

20). The short-wing constructed in 1818 encompasses St. Raphael's Rectory and

portions of 5th Street. The long-wing dating to the 1820s was added to the northeastern

side of the chapel, near the intersection of A Street and 5th Avenue, where it extended

to the northeast over the current courtyard and St. Raphael Parish Hall and Gymnasium.

The mission cemetery occupied the southeastern portion .of the West America

Bank property (1141 5th Avenue) and extended south onto 5th Street (directly southwest of the hospital and chapel) (Figure 20). The boundaries of the cemetery are based on the 1854 Black map (Figure 18) and may not accurately represent the extent of the mission burial ground. Since the marked graves, were present during Black's survey in 1854, and were not formally removed from the area until 1885, it is likely that the map accounts for the marked graves only and thus excludes the unmarked Indian burials that may have extended further. Due to inconsistencies and miscalculations in the death records for MSRA, it is not known how many Native Americans were buried at the mission cemetery. To date, there has been no reported discovery of human remains within the study area.

A small wood building is located immediately east of the main chapel building.

This building is marked as a "frame house" (Figure 19) was probably built sometime in the 1820s, after the completion of the long-wing. Although the structure is called out as a wood frame, it is also probable that the building was originally constructed with adobe during the Mission Period, and later covered with wood siding. Because so very little is known about the mission buildings and their use, the structure's function within the

mission complex is undetermined. 100

MISSION BUILDINGS AND LAND USE AREAS OUTSIDE THE STUDY AREA

Neophyte Residences

Two longs adobe buildings are located northeast and southeast of the main chapel building (Figure 21). The first, is located directly behind the current St. Raphael

Gymnasium and Hall on Mission Street and the second, is located between 5th Avenue and 4th Avenue beneath the current Bank of America building (1000 4th Street). These structures likely represent the remaining neophyte houses, which at one point may have numbered more than nine. The mission tiles that are currently housed in the MSRA museum were recovered during the construction of the Bank of American building after a fire destroyed the Marin County Courthouse (1872-1971) (Keegan 1981). The location of the tile discovery correlates to the documented neophyte residences.

Activity Areas

Two central activity areas would have been vital to the overall development and sustainability of MSRA. The first is the natural spring, which was noted less than 200 feet south of the main chapel building (near the former Marin County Courthouse) (Millett

1934) and described as "under a willow tree was a spring which was used as a public washing place" (Millett 1934). Although this landscape feature is not depicted on any historic map, its location does roughly correspond with the unnamed stream that descended from San Rafael Hill and passed through the mission complex (Figure 21).

The spring would have been located just south of the neophyte residences and would have been a central activity area within the mission complex. 101

Based on the alignment of the stream as shown on Murphy's diseno (1842) and the general layout of the mission complex, it appears that the stream represented on the 1840s diseno, actually depicts portions of the former mission aqueduct, which probably manipulated the stream to feed the mission vineyard, orchard, and gardens. In addition, the presence of a spring (southeast of the study area) may provide insight as to why no well feature is noted in any of the historical documents or literature. The construction of a mission well was time consuming and labor intense (Le., soil matrix and rock content) and was often susceptible to water fluctuation and contamination.

The nearby location of the spring would have been an enormous asset to the mission system because it meant that clean water could be accessed and collected at the ground surface and with minimal effort.

The second activity area was used for extracting clay material to manufacture the mission bricks. As mentioned in Chapter 7, the clay that was used to produce the adobe brick for the main chapel building "was dug out by hand or ox cart." This reference specifies that the clay was obtained from near the former San Rafael

manufactured gas plant (less than 1,000 feet south of the study area at 999 3rd Street)

(Independent Journal 1948; Sliney 1989:4; PG&E 2010) (Figure 21). Based on

comparative research, evidence of borrow pits were encountered at Mission Santa Clara

and contributed not only to understanding the layout of the mission complex but

underscored the importance of examining activity areas not customarily associated with

structural remains.

103

Table 3. Mission-era Archaeological Property Types

Property Type Expected Features and Materials May be Present in Study Area Church Complex (padres' Adobe soil horizon, sunbaked adobe Yes resl'dences, gues t quart ers blocks, cobble foun d af Ions, fragmen ts of redwood, concentrations of kiln- fired roof (ladrillos) and floor tiles (tejas), ceramics (porcelain, stoneware, earthenware, hand- painted wares), cut nails, clothing, Neophyte Quarters Adobe soil horizon, sunbaked adobe No blocks, cobble foundations, fragments of redwood, concentrations of kiln- fired roof (/adrillos) and floor tiles (tejas), ceramics (porcelain, stoneware, earthenware, hand- painted wares), cut nails, clothing, shell jewelry (pendants, beads), bead drills, metal needles, artifact deposits Workshops (warehouse, CeramiCS, metal work, military hardware, beads, glass, Yes and stone, vats for processing and storing, granary, kiln, tanning, concentrations of kiln-fired roof blacksmith, laundry) (Iadrillos) and floor tiles (tejas), metal needles, clothing, tools Kitchen Cooking hearth, midden, botanical Yes remains, animal bone, concentrations • of kiln-fired roof (/adrillos) and floor • tiles (tejas)

Aqueduct System Irrigation, drains, sewer, canal, Yes mission well, water storage Vineyard/Orchard/Garden Adobe and stonewalls, adobe blocks, No adobe soil horizon, drains or irrigation associated with water systems, Cemetery Human remains (extended or coffin Yes I burials), gravestones, grave furniture, sunken plots, glass beads (drawn, seed, wire), shell beads, redwood boards, cut nails, tack Activity Areas ,!!orrow pits, artifact deposits Yes Additional Historic-Period Discrete, stratified refuse Yes I Structures and buildings features/deposits, structural • (non mission-era) remnants, stone/brick foundations,

106 the ground surface has remained the same are considered to be the native ground surface.

When the cut/fill map was compared to the study area, it appears that almost the entire study area has been subject to cutting, except for a small pocket of fill at the entrance St. Raphael's Catholic Church. The cutting occurred after 1897 with the majority of ground disturbance likely taking place during the construction of St.

Raphael's Catholic Church in 1919. Not only is the difference in the elevation readings after 1897 apparent (Figures 22 and 23) but a slope difference is illustrated in comparing photographs of the study area from 1912 and the 1920s (Figures 16 and 17).

Furthermore approximately 60 percent of the study area is mapped as

Tocaloma-McMullin-Urban land Complex and consists of well-drained loamy soils with slopes of 30 to 50 percent (USDA 1985). Bedrock is encountered anywhere between 20 to 40 inches below the ground surface. Due to the shallow depth of the soil development and exposed bedrock within the study area, it is likely that a combination of cutting and filling occurred in order to control erosion and runoff. The lower elevations within the study area including the MSRA replica, St. Raphael's Rectory, and

St. Raphael's School, are mapped within Xerorthents soil zones, or artificial fill soils.

108 the study area (see Chapters 4 and 8), the existing ethnographic accounts, it is likely that a village settlement, camp sites, or important Coast Miwok places (Le. gathering and fishing areas) was located within proximity to the study area, if not directly within the footprint of the original mission complex. These findings indicate a possible presence for prehistoric resources and/or deposits within the study area. Prehistoric materials can include flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, choppers) or obsidian, chert, basalt, or quartzite toolmaking debris; bone tools; culturally darkened soil (e.g. midden soil often contains heat-affected rock, ash and charcoal, shellfish remains, faunal bones, and cultural materials); and stone milling equipment (e.g. mortars, pestles, handstones).

Prehistoric sites can contain human remains. This sensitivity does not take into account the level of previous ground disturbances that may have impacted archaeological deposits, as this information is currently unknown. 109

CHAPTER 10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The goal of this study has been to conduct extensive background research to understand the original layout of MSRA within the study area and the potential for the identification of mission-era archaeological resources. Based on the results of the historical research, the mapped locations of the mission complex ~nd associated landscape features, and the cut/fill map, most of the study area has undergone a substantial amount of modification and disturbance. While it is difficult to estimate the parameters of previous disturbances, it is likely that large amounts of soil were removed from within the study area beginning in 1919, some of which may have contained artifacts and/or structural remains associated with MSRA. The extent to which these soils were relocated or reused within the study area or nearby is unknown; however,

analysis of the cut/fiJI map (Figure 25) suggests that most of the material was removed from the site. Mission-era deposits, foundations, or footings may have been left in place, and eventually obscured by new construction and development or re-deposited

in other locations within the study area. The types of soils and sediments within the

study area also indicate that both cutting and filling was often necessary to stabilize the

slope and prevent erosion. As a result, mission-era resources could be buried by fill

within the project area. There has been no new construction within the study area since

1949, when the mission replica and rectory were built.

The central and southern portions of the study area (Le., the lower elevations)

located near the base of San Rafael Hill where the main chapel building and cemetery 110 were constructed may have experienced minimal soil removal due to their relatively flat surface or terraced landform. The central and southern portions of the study area appear to have a higher level of sensitivity for mission-era cultural material or structural remains. The cut and fill map shows this is an area of mostly cut, although intact or re deposited mission deposits may exist below the ground surface or that unrecognized areas of historic fill activity have buried mission-era deposits. Because there has been no archaeological testing in these areas or throughout the study area it is necessary to rely solely on historical research without archaeological evidence to support the interpretation and configuration of the original mission complex as well as the potential survival of potential mission-era deposits.

RECOMMENDA1'IONS

This study has created a baseline collection of historical documents and images

used to plot and orient mission-era features within the MSRA property. However, the

dearth of historical documents from the Mission Period and the absence of

archaeological investigations make it difficult to reliably assess the survival of

archaeological remains on the MSRA campus. In short, we do not know the extent to

which mission-era archaeology has survived. This uncertainty makes it imperative to

ensure that important mission-era resources are not inadvertently damaged during

future development projects. The discovery and analysis of mission-era archaeological

materials or structural remains is crucial for archaeological inquiry because it has the 111 ability to address many unresolved questions about the original placement of the mission complex, chronology, land use areas, and environmen~al changes.

Recommendation 1. A research design and treatment plan should be developed to coordinate and manage the process of development and archaeology on the MSRA campus. Creating and implementing a research design and treatment plan are essential to the successful identification and recovery of surviving mission-era features at MSRA.

A research design and treatment plan would serve to guide all archaeological work that occurs in the study area, to help avoid or protect potential mission-era and prehistoric resources and to insure that any planned project complies with professional standards and laws for the treatment of archaeological resources and human remains.

Focused archaeological planning and research and open area archaeological excavation techniques can further inform management and future project planning decisions within the study area. A testing program followed by open area archaeological excavation prior the demolition or construction of new facilities will be important, particularly in this setting where the potential for archaeology beneath the existing buildings and streets is unknown.

Recommendation 2. Because construction work or landscape alterations within the study area may encounter prehistoric and historic-period archaeological deposits, a qualified archaeologist should monitor ground disturbing activities on the MSRA campus that have the potential to affect buried archaeological remains. A representative of FIGR should also be consulted and their recommendations taken into account. Archaeological testing and/or monitoring will provide an opportunity to identify the types of soils and 112 sediments mapped within the study area, to characterize the level of previous ground disturbances, to field check the cut/fill map, and observe any cultural resources, materials, and human remains associated with MSRA.

The findings of this work and any future investigations will benefit the public at large and the descendants, in both literal and spiritual senses, of those who lived and worked here. Through archaeology, publications, museum exhibits, interpretive displays, oral history projects, and public outreach programs, the cultural history and pasts of MSRA will become connected to the community's present-day sense of history and its many stories. 113

REFERENCES

Alemany, Joseph 1858 Plat of the Mission Lands of the Mission San Rafael. On file at the Chancery Archives, San Francisco Archdiocese of San Francisco, California.

Allen, Rebecca 2010 "Rethinking Mission Land Use and the Archaeological Record in California: An Example from Santa Clara," in Society for Historical Archaeology pp. 72-96 vol. 44, No.2, 2010.

Anderson, Kat 2006 Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management af California's Natural Resource. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Barrett, S.A. 1908 The Ethno-geography of the Pomo and Neighboring Indians. University of California Publications in Archaeology and Ethnology 6(1):1-332.

Basgall, M.E. 1987 Resource Intensification among Hunter-Gatherers: Acorn Economies in Prehistoric California. Research in Economic Anthropology 9:21-52.

Black, George 1854 Mission San Rafael. Online Archives of California, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, California.

Breed, Edward 1842 Diseno del tierra se soJicita de Mission de San Rafael. Online Archives of California, Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, California.

Brown, Belle 1935 California Historical Point of Interest nomination form for Mission San Rafael Arcangel. Prepared by the Marin County Historical Marking Committee, San Rafael, CA. On file at Mission San Rafael Arcangel, Lucretia Little Archives.

California Department of Parks and Recreation (CA-DPR) 1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California.

California State Library 2012 Owen C. Coy Collection, 1860-1940. On file at the California State Library, Library and Courts Building (Box 1305.) 114

Charles Hall Page and Associates, Inc. 1978 San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey: Final Inventory List ofStructures and Areas. Prepared by Charles Hall Page and Associates, Inc., and San Rafael City Staff, Cultural Affairs Department, San Rafael, California.

Collier, Mary and Sylvia Thalman 2003 Interviews with Tom Smith and Maria Copa: Isabel Kelly's Ethnographic Notes on the Coast Miwok Indians of Marin and Southern Sonoma Counties. Miwok Archaeological Preserve of Marin Occasional Papers 6. Marin Archaeological Preserve of Marin, San Rafael, California.

Elder, William P. 2001 "Geology of the Golden Gate Headlands," in Philip W. Stoffer and Leslie C. Gordon, editors, Geology and Natural History of the San Francisco Bay Area. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2188. pp.61-87. Menlo Park: California U.S.Geological Survey.

Elgelhardt, Zephyrin 1929 The Missions and Missionaries of Colifornia, Volume I. Nabu Press, Toronto.

Engstrand, Iris 1998 "Seekers of the Northern Mystery: European Exploration of California and the Pacific," in Ramon A. Gutierrez and Richard J. Orsi, editors, Contested Eden: California Before the Gold Rush. pp. 78-110. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Goerke, B. 2007 Chief Marin: Leader, Rebel, and Legend- A History of Marin County's Namesake and His People. Heyday Books, Berkeley, California.

Hackel, Steven 1998 "Land, Labor and Production: The Colonial Economy of Spanish and Mexican California," in Ramon A. Gutierrez and Richard J. Orsi, editors, Contested Eden: California Before the Gold Rush. pp. 111-146. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Hardesty, Donald and Barbara Little 2009 Assessing Site Significance: A Guide For Archaeologists And Historians. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

George Whiting Hendry, Jacob Neibert Bowman 1940 The Spanish and Mexican Adobe and Other Buildings in the Nine San Francisco Bay Counties, 1776 to about 1850. 115

Hinds, Alex 2007 Marin County Wide Plan. Prepared by the Marin County Community Development Agency, California.

Hussey, John 1936 California Historical Landmark Essay for Mission San Rafael Arcangel. On file at the University of California San Diego Special Collections Library (Box 3 Folder 32).

Keegan, Frank 1987 San Rafael: Marin's Mission City. Windsor Publications, Inc

Kelly, I. 1978 "Coast Miwok." in Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California, edited by Heizer (vol. ed.) and w.e. Sturtevant (gen. ed.), 414-425, Smithsonian Institution Washington D.e.

King, Thomas, F 2008 Cultural Resource Laws & Practices. Altimira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Koue, Lewis 1962 Historic American Buildings Survey for Mission San Rafael Arcangel (HABS No. CAL-1131). On file at the California Historic Society, San Francisco, California.

Kroeber, A. L. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Unabridged republication of 1925 Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78. Dover Publication, Inc., New York.

Kyle, D., H. Rensch, E, Rensch, and M. Hoover 2002 Historic Spots in California. Fifth edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Leavy, Patricia 2011 Oral History: Understanding Qualitative Research. Oxford University Press, Inc., New York, New York.

Lightfoot, Kent and Luby, Edward 2002 Late Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area: Temporal Trends in the Use and Abandonment of Shell Mounds in the East Bay. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J.M. Erlandson and T.L. Jones, pp. 263~281. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, California. 116

Lightfoot, Kent 2004 Shellmounds: An Archaeologist's View in News from Native California Spring 2004.

2005 Indians, Missionaries, and Merchants: The Legacy of Colonial Encounters on the California Frontiers. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Little, Lucretia n.d. Archives of Unpublished Materials. Little Collection. On file at Mission San Rafael Arcangel. On file at Mission San Rafael Archives.

Lutz, Regina 2010 An Archaeological and Historical Overview ofMission San Rafael Arcangel. Submitted in completion of the Senior Honors Thesis Program, Department of Anthroplogy, University of California, Berkeley. May 2010.

Marin History Museum 2008 Images ofAmerica: Early San Rafael. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.

Marschner, J. 2000 California 1850, A Snapshot in Time. Coleman Ranch Press, Sacramento, California.

Mason, Jack 1975 The Making ofMarin. North Shore Books, Inverness, California.

Mendoza, Ruben 2009 The Archaeology and Architectural History: Site SBN-1H, Mission San Juan Bautista, San Benito County, California an Historical Resources Assessment and Mitigation. Prepared for Reverend Edward Fitz-Henry and the City of San Juan Bautista Planning Department, San Juan Bautista, California.

Merriam, C. Hart 1905 The California Journals of C. Hart Merriam. Journal of 1905. Manuscript Division. Library of Congress. On file with C. Hart Merriam Collection, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis.

Miller, Bruce 2011 Oral History on Trial: Recognizing Aboriginal Narratives in the Courts. The University of British Columbia Press. Vancouver, British Columbia. 117

Milliken, Randall 1995 A Time of Little Choice. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, California~

1998 The Aguastos and Their Neighbors. In Archaeological Investigations at CA-MRN 254, the Dominican College Site, San Rafael, Marin County, California, edited by David G. Bieling, pp. 15-40. Holman & Associates, Archaeological Consultants, San Francisco, California. Submitted to Dominican College, San Rafael, California.

2009 Ethnohistory and Ethnogeography of the Coast Miwok and Their Neighbors, 1783-1840. Prepared by Archaeological/Historical Consultants, Oakland, California.

Milliken, Randall; Richard T. Fitzgerald, Mark G. Hylkema, Randy Groza, Tom Origer, David G. Bieling, Alan Leventhal, Randy S. Wiberg, Andrew Gottsfield, Donna Gillette, Viviana Bellifemine, Eric Strother, Robert Cartier, David A. Frederickson 2007 Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. Chapter 8 in California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Terry L. Jones and Katharine A. Klar, eds. Altamira Press, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. New York.

Moratto, M. J. 2004 California Archaeology. Second Edition Academic Press, San Diego, California.

Munro-Fraser, J.P. 1880 History ofMarin County, California. Alley, Browne & Company, San Francisco, California.

National Park Service 1995 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington D.C.

National Parks Service 1972 Mission San Francisco de Asis National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, National Register Information System No. 72000251. On file at the National Register Archives, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Nelson, Nels 1907 San Francisco Bay Mounds. University of California Archaeological Survey Manuscripts No. 349. Berkeley.

1909 Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 7, no 4. University of California Press, Berkley, California. 118

Newell, Quincy 2005 liThe Indians Generally love Their Wives and Children." Native American Marriage and Sexual Practice in Missions San Francisco, Santa Clara, and San Jose. Catholic Historical Review

Office of Historic Preservation 1995 Instructions for Recoding Historical Resources. California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacrament0, California.

Parkman, Breck 2006 The Maien: A Women's Secret Society on San Francisco Bay. Prepared by the California State Parks, Diablo Vista District, Petaluma, California. Science Notes Number 39.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) 2012 Former San Rafael Manufactured Gas Plant http://www.pge.com/about/environment/taking-responsibility/mgp/san rafael.shtml

Preston, William 1998 "Serpent in the Garden: Environmental Change in Colonial California," in Ramon A. Gutierrez and Richard J. Orsi, editors, Contested Eden: California Before the Gold Rush. pp. 260-298. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Quinn, Anthony 1981 Broken Shore: The Marin Peninsula A Perspective on History. Peregine Smith, Inc.

Robillard, Walter G; Wilson, Donald A.; and Brown, Curtis M. 2009 Brown's Boundary Control and legal Principles

Robinson, W. 1948 Land in California: The Story of Mission Lands, Ranchos, Squatters, Mining Claims, Railroad-Grants, Land Scrip, Homesteads. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Russell, Matthew 2008 The Archeology of Sixteenth-Century Cross'-Cultural Encounters in Point Reyes National Seashore. Prepared by the National Park Service, Submerged Resources Center.

Schoenherr, Allan 1992 A Natural History of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 119

Sewall, Jock 2012 California Mission Architecture. Presentation at California Mission Studies Association. February 25,2012, Mission San Rafael Arcangel, San Rafaet California.

Simons, Niki 1978 Historic Resources Survey Form for Mission San Rafael Arcangel. On file at the NWIC, Rohnert Park, California

Skowronek, Russell and Julie Wizorek 1997 Archaeology of Santa Clara de Asis: The Slow Rediscovery of a Movable Mission. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, Volume 33, No.3, Summer 1997.

Slaymaker, Charles 1977 The Material Culture of Ctomkoztca, a Coast Miwok Triblet in Marin County, California. MAPOM Occasional Papers 3, Miwok Archaeological Preserve of Marin, San Rafael, California.

1982 A Model for the Study of Coast Miwok Ethnogeography. Ph.D Dissertation in Anthropology. University of California, Davis.

Sliney, Edgar 1989 A History of Mission San Rafael, Archangel. Marin County Historical Society Magazine, vol. XV, no. 1, pp. 4-13.

Spitz, B. 2006 Marin - A History. Potrero Meadow Publishing, San Anselmo, California.

St. Raphael Newsletter 2011 The Catholic Community of St. Raphael: Stations of the Cross Paintings to be Restored, September 11, 2011. San Rafael, California.

Thelen, David and Roy Rosenzweig 1998 The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life. Columbia University Press, New York, New York.

United States Department of Agriculture 1985 Soil Survey of Marin County California. Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.

United States Geological Survey 1897 Mt. Tamalpais California Topographic Quadrangle Map 120

1958 San Rafaet California Topographic Quadrangle Map

Vallejo, Mariano 1858 General Vallejo's Drawing. Copy on file at Mission San Rafael Arcangel Archives, Mission San Rafael, San Rafael, California.

Vaux, W. S. W. 1854 The World Encompassed by Sir Francis Drake. The Hakluyt Society, London.

Von der Porten, E. P. 1963 Drakes Bay Shell Mound Archaeology: 1951-1962. Drake Navigators Guild, Point Reyes, California.

Voss/ Barbara 2008 The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Race and Sexuality In Colonial San Francisco. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Internet

Calishphere 2012 Calishphere: A World of Primary Sources and More. University of California, Berkelye, California. http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu

Cambria 2012 The Cambria History Exchange: A cooperative exchange designed to collect the history of Cambria.http://cambriahistory.org

College of Marin 2012 "To See A World Project" Geology Of Marin East of San Andreas: The Geologic Foundations of Ring Mountain. http://www.marin.edu/~jim/ring/rgeo.html

Cronon, William 2012 Learning to Do Historical Research: Sources Photographic Images. http://www.williamcronon.net/researching/images.htm

Marin County Department of Public Works 2012 San Rafael Watershed. http://www.marinwatersheds.org/san_rafael_creek.html

Marin County library 2012 Anne T. Kent California Room. Digital Collections. http://www.marinlibrary.org/research-and-Iearning/california-room/digital-collections 121

Marin County Planning Department 2012 Community Development Agency Publications: County Environmental Impact Report Guidelines. http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/pdf/planning/MARIN_COUNTY_EIR_ GUIDELlNES.pdf

National Park Service United States Department of the Interior 2012a National Register of Historic Places Program. http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/about.htm

2012b National Historic Landmarks Program. http://www.nps.gov/historY/nhl/

2012c National Register of Historic Places Program: Publications. http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/

Office of Historic Preservation 2012a California Register of Historic Places. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page id=21238

2012b California Historical Landmarks. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page id=21747 San Rafael General Plan 2004 City of San Rafael General Plan. http://acm.cityofsanrafael.org/Government/Community_Development/General _Plan_2020.htm

Online Archive of California 2012 Online Archive of California. http://www.oac.cdlib.org

University of California San Diego 2005 The Register of California Historic Landmarks Project Collection. Mandeville Special Collections Library. http://libraries.ucsd.edu/speccoll/testing/html/mss0204a.html Appendix A:

Historical Documentation, Registration, and Listings City of San Rafael Cultural Affairs Department San Rafael, California

San Rafael Historical ,j Architectural Survey Final Inventory list of . Structures'and areas

- Prepared by Charles Hall Page and Associates, Inc. and San Rafael City Staff

Janua ry 1978 Street Address Assessors Parcel No. UTH No. Pr()pehv Classi'rrcation Fourth St reet 1200-16 11-212-05 10/541400/4202800 Good

1221 11-255-26 10/541370/4202750 Good 1222 11-212.. 06 10/541370/4202800 Good 11-255-03 10/541340/4202750 Good 1225 1240 11-212-14 10/541340/4202810 Exceptional 1300 11-205-08 10/541300/4202800 Except i ona 1 1301-11 11-253-10 10/541290/4202760 Good 1310 11-205-09 10/541280/4202800 Excellent 1313-17 11-253-04 10/541280/4202770 Good 1321 11-253-03 10/541260/4202770 Except; ona 1 Exceptional 1330 11-205-11 10/541250/4202810 Exceptional 1333 11 .. 253-02 10/541240/5202780. Good 1447 11-251-01 10/541120/4202790 10/540870/4202810 Good 1553 11-242-04 Good 1850 10-291-35 10/540440/4202880 Good 2036 10-282-14 10/540140/4202980 2138 10-277-05 10/539840/4203060 Good 10/539810/4203080 Excellent 2144 10-277-04 10/539660/4203110 Good 2214 10-275-01 Fifth Avenue 10/542280/4202750 Good 526-28 14-083-14 10/542110/420'2740 Good 633 14-084-02' 10/S42090/4202740, Good 637 14-084-13 11-221-08 10/541740/4202850 Excel lent 918 Excellent 1104 11-213-12,19 10/541590/4202900 10/541'260/4202870 Good 1313 11-20~-01 1415 11-204-19 10/>41180/4292880 Good Good 1517 11-202-04 10/541020/4202910 14- Ser ______Site _____ Mo. _ Yr. _ State of Caliro.-nia - The Resources Agency C DEPARTMENT OF PARKs AND RECREATION o UTM______a _____NR ..:2.. SHl_ :c ::::I Lat______Lon _____ Erl___ Sit_ -HISTORIC RESOURCES INV'ENTORY to Qi Adm__ T2 _T3_ C81_HABS_HAER __FlcI_ ( UTM 10/541590/4202900 lOENTIFICATION 1. Common name: San Rafael !iission of the Arcangel II II 2. Historic name, if known: ______

3. Street or rural address_I_I_O_4__F_i_f...:;t:...h__A_v...:e...:;,______

City: San Ra fae I ZIP: 94901 County: Marin 4. Present owner, if known: Roman Catholic Archbjshof of S.P\ddress! ______City: ______ZIP:_____ Ownership is: Public 0 Private 0 5. Present Use: _C_h_u_r_c_h_..:.....______Original Use: ..:C::.h:.:u:..:,r..:,c:;,.h:....-______Other past uses: ____'--______--,-__

DESCRIPTION 6. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the site or slructure and describe any major alterations from its original condition:

1~49 replica of original Mission Chap~l, Spanish Colonial Revival. High central tower and flan~ing tow~rs. Entrance arch with pilasters and quatrefoil window above. Centra b'-;!ilding in a complex of compatible church and school buildings. Palms, mature trees and planting are well maintained. Grand approach. Out-buildings h~vebeen added. (

7. Locationalsketch map (draw and label site and 8. Approximate property size: surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks): Lot size (in feed Frontage:_____ . ~ NORTH Depth______·; or approX. acreage ____'

9. Condition: (check one) a. Excellent 0 b. Good ~ c. Fair 0 d. Deteriorated o e. No longer in existence 0 10. Is the feature a. Altered? Q b. Unaltered? 0 11. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) a. Open land 0 b. Scattered buildings 0 c. Densely built·up 0 d. Residential 0 ::. Commercial 0 f. Industrial 0 l .. g. 0 ther ~------Ci vic 12. Threats to site: a. None known G b. Private development 0 c. Zoning 0 d. Public Works project . 0 Northwest Information Center Resource Listing Primary No. HRINo. Trinomial Name Other IDs Reports (S.)

P-21-000642 CA-MRN-274 09752,09809,09811, 09814,09815, 12926, 16554, 17449, 18323, 33041 P-2.1-000643 CA-MRN-301 PB 235-A, Hall Site 09809,09811,09814, 09815, 16554, 18323, 33041 P-21-000644 CA-MRN-303H Fish Wharf Site 00456,09809, C9811, 09815, 16554 P-21-000645 CA-MRN-313 Nelson No. 83a P-21-000646 CA-MRN-314 Nelson No. 86b P-21-000647 CA-MRN-316 Nelson No. 86d 1'-21-000648 CA-MRN-341 09809, 09811 .i.... 1'-21-000649 CA-MRN-344H Mission San Rafael Archan OHP HPD 4902 0083-0000, OHP HPD SHl-0220-00oo 1'-21-000650 CA-MRN-345 P-21-000651 CA-MRN-358 SA. II (San Antonio 11) 02286 P-21-000652 CA-MRN-363 probably P.B. #199 P-21-000653 CA-MRN-391 02458,09809,09815, 18323,33041 P-21-000654 CA-MRN-408 1'-21-000655 CA-MRN-413 1'-21-000656 CA-MRN-441 Void, number not assigned P-21-000657 CA-MRN-444 ARS 76-13 02305 1'-21-000658 CA.-MRN-445 ARS 76-13 02305 1'-21-000659 CA-MRN-446 ARS 76-13 02305 P-21-000660 CA-MRN-447 ARS76-13 02305 P-21-000661 CA-MRN-452 Pat's Rock 20395,29655 P-21-OO0662 CA-MRN-466 VOIDED, see P-21-000138 Voided see P-21 000138 (CA-MRN 110) P-21-000663 CA-MRN-4821H Blakes landing; DOT-04 00960,24368,33511 P-21-000664 CA-MRN-495 Irma'S Site 01871,13788,19128, 29655 P-21-000665 CA-MRN-498 ARS- 79-124-1 06497, 12506, 12954 P-21-000666 CA-MRN-512 AC-44 02485 1'-21-000667 CA-MRN-517H 02491 P-21-000668 CA-MRN-535H VOIDED Voided P-21-000669 CA-MRN-555 P-21-OO0670 CA-MRN-557 VOIDED 1'-21-000671 CA-MRN-558 VOIDED P-21-000672 CA-MRN-559 VOIDED P-21-000673 CA-MRN-602 VOIDED, see P-21-000332 VOided P-21-000674 CA-MRN-607H Marconi Wireless Telegrap Station KPH, VOID 07089 TRINOMIAl- SEE HRI 4940-0003 9999, OHP HPD NPS-8900081 B 0000, OHP HPD Nat. Reg. 21-0003 P-21-000675 CA-MRN-644 MISSION AVENUE MIDD 20872,22086,26409, 31707,31737,35514 P-21-000676 CABIN NO. 3 22859 P-21-OO0677 Cabin No. 5 22859 P-21-OO0678 CA-MRN-645 HOllYHOCK SHEll MID

Page 18 of 59 121151200910:14:31 AM STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OF BEACHES AND PARKS P. o. BOX 2390 SACRAMENTO 95811

March 1, 1965

Mrs. Lucretia H. Little 40 W. B1itheda1e Avenue Mill Valley, California

Dear Mrs. Little:

The manuscript written in 1934 by Belle C. Brown of Marin County on the subject of Mission San Raphael Archangel unfortunately is not in our files. We do have one written by John Adam Hussey in 1936 as part of the California Historical Landmark Series that might serve as well.

If you wish to visit our office in the Resources Building, 9th and 0 Streets, Sacramento, we will be pleased to let you read the article, or, in the event that would be difficult, we could loan you a copy for a brief period of time.

Attached, as well, is a copy of the criteria and forms used in re questin& registration of an historical landmark. These forms are filled out by the sponsoring organization and resubmitted to this office from whence it is placed upon the agenda of the California Historical Land marks Advisory pommittee for its study and approval. 1f the request for registration is approved by the Landmarks Committee, the sponsoring agency is notified of this and the documentation utilized in preparing the his torical research supplemental to the forms is filed here. Those wishing to review any of these documents may do so by visiting the office.

If we can be of additional service. please feel free to write.

Sincerely yours,

ALLEN W. WELTS State Park Historian STATE OF CALIFORNIA-RESOURCES AGENCY EDMVND G. BROWN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION OF BEACHES AND PARKS P. O. BOX 2390 SACRAMENTO 95B11

August 4, 1966

Mrs. Lucretia R. Little 40 West Blithedale Avenue Mill Valley, California 94941

Dear Mrs. Little:

We are enclosing the rather meager information on San Rafael Mission submitted to the California Historical Landmarks Advisory Committee by Miss Belle C. Brown when applying for landmark registration of the mission in 1935.

Our files do not disclose another manuscript by Miss Brown, although Dr. Hussey's bibliography infers knowledge of one that may possibly have been lost. Perhaps Dr. Hussey could clarify this matter were you to call him at his San Francisco office, 556-0835.

Meanwhile, we shall continue our search and, if successful in finding another manuscript, we shall have a copy made for you as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Allen W. Welts State Park Historian

Ene. ------APPLICATIOH FOR REGISTRATION------OF HISTORIC!l.L POINT OF IUTEREST

LOC ATIor{.. r.~Q.+.!!fL;:!9.Y._tq._~§.s t •._on w~.!...!!LP..9.!!...~!}~.~ :;:.tY..._9J_..~g..~. RO!llap... .Q.E!~}:l_C?1-J£. Archbishop ot Sen Francisco Diocese. This property extends tro~ 6th st. on the aou.th..-t.O...5.th.....S.tr.e.at._0ll...:th.e.-IlOJ::th..._8Il.cLtac.e.a...A..s..tn.a:LiJLS.an.. . Il.a!.e.e.l,._M~r.in...c.QiJ.,n ty•

Straet._._._..ll.QQ..fi.ankl.iu_£tt.ra.e.t.._...... _...... _...... - ...--...... -..._._.._..._...... _...... _.____

HISTORY AND DESCRIPTIOtl - ----

The Mission Saint Raphael Archangel, was founded on De 0ember 18, l8l? Its life was very short for in 1635 the Missions were secularized and the Indi~~s disbanded•

. The founder was a Francisoan Priest, Father Ventrui Fortuni; the purpose behind th9 founding was a very exalted one, it was intended to be a sanitor1um tor the sick and afflicted ones among the Indians abvut the Bay. It was placed under the patronage of Saint RS:,'Inael Arohangel, the patron ot Health. Here to this mild and healthful climate, the ailing Indiens were s~nt end it is estimated that. in the seventeen yeare of the Mission's existence, about three thousand Indi9D.s were ministered to.

After the ministration of the Padres ceased, through the seoulariz3:.,ing ot the lJ1E3ions, sixty thousand Indians died in rariu a Sonoma, Solano and Naps. Counties, accorl'ling to the records of the Ulliversl ty ot California enn the History or Uarin County.

The Mission was bUilL in t!-J.e shape of' a Ca.p1 tel "L" the short side was eight:lfeet in length ar " the long side was one hundred feet. The churoh waE at the ~lg1e, teeing ~e bay. Adjoining it were the kitchen, the Justice Cha~ber a.nd the liviLg quarters ot the Padres. The Mission was built of adoba with 8 tiled roof, and wes surrounded by several smaller buildings, some of adobe and some 01" l'I'ood, which wer~ the quarters of the Indians and others. As is the cas.:: with most ot t.he :'~if;sions, Saint Raphael was most beautifully situaten on B risins eminence com:nandine a view ot San Fre11cisI!o Bey, the beautiful srise.p of the; hills south ot ....-.------HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION (Continued)

n Rafael, and over the ridge, lordly Tema.lpais. In ~ack of the Mission was 'San Rafael Hill. The Padres taught the Indians, the Jouskionnes Tribe, and ~uch of the other Indians as were physically fit, the arts of civilization to plant the vine, ihe pear tree, to raise grain and cattle and horses, to tan end carve leather and to ma.ke harness and saddles. .An orohard and vineyard extended fl'om tvhere the Pe.rochial School now is, eas t to Irwin street and south to the marsh land.

For the safety of the Mission a guard of three or four soldiers, under CO!lII!land of Corporal Rafael Garci"a, TUiS placed there. Once a hostile tribe or Indians, the Cayna~eros, ma~e a surprise attack on the Mission. When Garcia saw them coming, he sent Friar Juan AmorosQ with ~ Senora Garcia and the children u~on a balsa, a.raft made of tulea, out on the tide to safety_ Then the little band and the loyal Indians of the Mission put up such a gal~ant defense that the assailants were repulsed. At the time of the secularization of the Mission there were 1,250 Indians there. The Mission had three thousand head~ of cattle, five hundrad horses, four thousand ~4 five hundred sheep, goats and hogs, with a harvest of fifteen hundred bushels of grain. With the secularizing of the MissiOn these were supposed to go to the Indians, who. helped to provide this wealth, but instead th~ were deflected into the handa or those who had power and influence. The Indians 'STere scattered and forced to shift for themselves as helpless as children. / In a very few years the buildings fell to ruin, until now there is not left, even a trace of where this Mission, that had been founded in lo~e and an abiding and all-embracing char1ty, had onca stood in the health-giving valley 01' Saint Raphael. AdditionE',l Information SITE Oli' TH~ MISSION SAIH'],' we fHi R.APHAEL ARC!lWEL. i( . , CG i)• •••••••• I •••••• '!:\!!" ~'f ; "' I" • - .. ~ -.. ~9 35 t, - , . .. Hi .I ;' I!lap of the tm'm of San Rafael on file in the r.:ie'corder f s Office i:Q. i nafael and attached to the sale for taxeslState !mdr'Cpunty} Qf c.f/r fn lots in the tovlb)c!m Ja.n. 3,1853,shovrs the location·~of.!ihe·'i.tis·srdn i ltaphael Arca.ngel. It was located at tile hea,d of A St. on Fifth tit. rectlY in front of the present Catholic Church" at the gate Vle.y. l.t is fI:oed like 8. L with the angle extending over the north line of l!'ifth St li· running about five ft. onto the sidewa.lk. The long side extends on an ~le almost to the Parochial School and faces the bf-lY. ,John l:i:urray of rray Pe.rk ,Kentfield ,Calif. ~ffirms this as cQincid~ with his recollect l'l of the ruins of the .....ission where he played as a. boy_ This" find' settles . ong disputed question •

Respectfully Subr.1i t ted,

2e1le G. BrO''!L!1.1..-___,--~_ Chairman Historical J.. 4arking Committe Marin Co.

Appendix B:

Table of Documented Cultural Resources Within a O.SO-mile of Study Area Appendix B. Table of Documented Cultural Resources within a 0.50-mile of the Study Area.

Identification No. Type Approx. Age Historical Author/Date Designation P-21-000680 Shell mound Prehistoric None Goerke and Rausch (MRN-647) (1998) P-21-000675 Shell midden Prehistoric None Thompson (1998); (MRN-644) Bieling (2002) P-21-002560 Building Historic None Chattan (2003) P-21-002685 Building Historic (ca. 1905) Found ineligible for Painter (2009) NRHR, CRHR, or local listing

-~-~ P-21-0001026 Building Historic None NA P-21-002618 Railroad Historic Appears ineligible Hart (2004) segment and for NRHR, CRHR, or features local listing

--~ P-21-000594 Shell midden, Prehistoric/Historic None NA ~ (MRN-626/H) i:luilding -~ P-21-000645 Shell mound Prehistoric None Nelson (1910) (MRN-313)

~-~ P-21-002612 Building Historic None NA P-21-000113 Shell mound Prehistoric None Nelson (1907) ~ (MRN-84) P-21-000114 Shell midden Prehistoric None Nelson (1907); Jones (MRN-85) (1~89)

P-21-002643 Building Historic None NA I P-21-002684 Building Historic None NA I ~~~ I Identification No. Type Approx.Age Historical Author/Date Designation r---~ P-21-000295 Shell mound Prehistoric None Nelson (1910) (MRN-315) ---- P-21-000646 Shell mound Prehistoric None Nelson (1910) (MRN-314) P-21-000-647 Shell mound Prehistoric None Nelson (1910) (MRN-316) P-21-000256 Shell midden Prehistoric None Nelson (1910) (MRN-254) P-21-000115 Shell mound Prehistoric None Nelson (1910) (MRN-86)

~-~ ~-~ NRIS 74000528 Boyd Historic Listed on NRHP and OHP 1974 Gatehouse locally listed