Did Pedro de Unamuno Really Land in Morro Bay in 1587?  Probably Not!

Few of us question the validity of reported key events in Morro Bay's history:

After Cabrillo's 1542 voyage, several expeditions were underwritten to further explore the California coast.  Popular opinion is that (1) Cabrillo did not land in Morro Bay in 1542, and (2) that the first party to actually land was Unamuno, in 1587, 45 years after Juan Cabrillo sighted Morro Rock.  I believe that both of these opinions are incorrect.

According to Myron Angel's History of San Luis Obispo County, 1883, p.14 (Ref.), Cabrillo "Sailing northward from Point San Luis... discovered a deep indentation..."Los Esteros," and in the bay the high conical rock "El Moro."  There Cabrillo supplied his ships with wood and fresh water."  Therefore, is appears that Cabrillo might indeed have landed in or near Morro Bay in 1542.  In any case, this paper is more about the second opinion -- that Unamuno landed in Morro Bay in 1587.  Pedro Unamuno is reported to have landed on a beach here and gone about his business of "fending off native Indian attacks from a nearby hillside."  There seems to be little public doubt about this -- and there is even a plaque posted at Coleman Park in Morro Bay, commemorating this landing.  

The thesis of this article is that Unamuno's  reported landing did not occur in Morro Bay.  The "Puerto de San Lucas" that Unamuno discovered would not appear in nautical charts -- and it almost surely was not present day Morro Bay.  However, it could well have been near Avila 15 miles to the south.

The remainder of this article is based largely on an account by historian Hector Santos (Ref.)  -- published at http://www.bibingka.com/sst/esperanza/morrobay.htm

The popular conclusion that Pedro de Unamuno landed in Morro Bay is based almost entirely on 1929 conclusions by one Henry R. Wagner (Ref.).    Wagner presumably knew about the topography of Morro Bay, Morro Rock, the sand spit as it existed in 1929, and the harbor's difficult entrance at the time... but chose to ignore the lack of any mention of these features by Unamuno.  Instead, Wagner relied as his main evidence the computation of the latitude by the ship’s pilot, Alonso Gomez.  Unamuno said, “While thus anchored, about two harquebus-shots off the beach, we observed the sun between eleven and twelve o’clock noon, and found the port to be in full 35½º.” Morro Bay happens to be at latitude 35º 22', almost exactly what Unamuno reported.  We should note that the accuracy of mechanical astrolabes used in the 16th century leaves a lot to be desired. [24 Aug 2009 Update:  see note at page bottom by Bob Graham]

Here is a photo astrolabes.org.jpg (45499 bytes) of a typical primitive astrolabe of the day.  These are hardly devices worthy of computing latitude to a fraction of a degree.  Unamuno stated that they made their observation between 11:00 am and 12:00 noon. It was not a more accurate night observation of  the north star Polaris.  It was also not made exactly at noon and would have required the interpolation of values in their charts, adding to errors already built in. 

Wagner actually suspected  that Unamuno might have landed in Avila's San Luis Bay 15 miles to the south, but dismissed that possibility... preferring instead to reply solely on the latitude computation.  Unamuno probably made his way to the vicinity of present day San Luis Obispo.  And, there is some evidence that the Indians in San Luis Obispo Bay displayed an acquaintance with Mexicans eight years later... supporting an argument that Unamuno landed there instead.

Here is an expansion of the arguments suggesting that the Unamuno landing never occurred at present day Morro Bay:

Firstly, no mention was ever made of the existence of Morro Rock.  Obviously, Morro Rock existed in 1587, and it would have been hard to miss during a two-day stay.  How could anyone have made such a historic landing, lasting several days, and not have mentioned Morro Rock?  Trying to rationalize their account... did they perhaps land on the beach north of the Rock in Estero Bay (where there are no hillsides near the coast ,as chronicled); or, did they enter the nascent Morro Bay harbor, where there was no "beach" per se (only mudflats, salt marsh, and an outer sand spit), navigating the then shallow channels and treacherous currents (and not mention such a configuration?). 

Secondly, Unamuno made no mention of the presence of a sand spit.   Wagner, who translated and interpreted Unamuno's handwritten journal, personally believed that the sand spit did not exist in 1587 and that the bay was wide open at the time.  We know today that the sand spit existed in 1587.  Archeological data chronicle native sites on the northern end of the sand spit, dating to 4000 years ago."  Here is a map of the Morro Bay area as envisioned 3000 - 5500 years ago , and the sand spit is shown to exist even back then.  (from http://www.farwestern.com/morrobay/morro.htm ).   Portola apparently recognized the sand spit in his reports from 1769 (although there is some controversy as to whether or not  the south end of the bay -- Shark Inlet -- might have been open to the sea at that time).  The following quote from Paloú (Ref.) is about all we know about this: "[From the mouth of Chorro Creek]... To the south an estuary of immense size enters this valley, so large that it looked like a harbor to us;  its mouth open to the southwest, and we noticed that it is covered by reefs which cause a furious surf.  At a short distance from it, to the north, we saw a great rock in the form of a morro, which, at high tide, is isolated and separated from the coast by a little less than a gunshot."

It appears that Wagner simply chose to "reason away" vast conflicting topological evidence in favor of one inaccurate latitude measurement.

Here is a topographical map of Morro Bay from 1897 300dpi_plus51b_plus18c_638x814gl_20pc.jpg (53954 bytes) (view smaller 638x814 map; print larger 2550x3255 map). where the sand spit continues to assume its basic form enclosing the bay.

There are many photos of the Morro Bay harbor from around 1900 (well before the Rock was connected to the mainland, and the channel dredged) (e.g., see http://morro-bay.com/photos-maps/ ).  The description of a simple "beach" landing (with no mention from Unamuno of the Morro Rock, the harbor mudflats, the harbor salt marsh, the harbor entry surf and currents, the all-encompassing sand spit...) does not seem at all consistent with what we know about Morro Bay harbor from 100 years ago.  

A third weaker argument is that It was stated that the Unamuno party camped for the night under great oak trees near a river.  This is possible, but not highly likely near Morro Bay.  Of the several small creeks entering, or near, Morro Bay (Morro Creek, Chorro Creek, and Los Osos Creek furthest to the south), the first two of these creeks do not harbor great oak trees today.  We know that the general area of Morro Bay was almost treeless before Franklin Riley promoted them in the new settlement in 1864.  The Avila Beach, Port San Luis area 15 miles to the south, however, possibly harbors a more sizeable river with correspondingly larger surrounding giant oak trees.

So, why do we think that Pedro de Unamuno landed in Morro Bay in 1587?

Pedro Unamuno's claim is reflected in the text of a plaque, which is located off Coleman Drive, near the corner of Embarcadero Road, in Coleman Park next to the playground.  Here is a map to its location.  Here is a photo of the plaque, and a transcription of what it says:

Historic Site

During the Manila-Acapulco Galleon Trade era from 1565 to 1815 Spanish galleons crossed the pacific between the Philippines and Mexico. On October 18, 1587, the Manila Galleon Nuestra Senora de Esperanza commanded by Pedro de Unamuno entered Morro Bay near here. A landing party was sent to shore which included Luzon Indios, marking the first landing of Filipinos in the continental United States. The landing party took official possession of the area for Spain by putting up a cross made of branches. The group was attacked by native Indians two days later, and one of the Filipinos was killed. Unamuno and his crew gave up further exploration of this part of the coast.

Historical Landmark Declared by the
Filipino American National Historical Society
California Central Coast Chapter
Dedicated October 21, 1995

Unamuno's 1587 landing is briefly chronicled by the Filipino American National Historical Society (Ref.), and the Amerasia Journal  (Ref.) reports the landing in substantial detail:

Here is a 1900 Map of California, (showing that the town of Morro Bay was called simply "Morro,") and illustrating where a more likely landing site could have been, such as in Port Harford (now called Port San Luis near Avila Beach) about 15 miles to the south.

The Filipino community (see Americans of Filipino Descent 
http://personal.anderson.ucla.edu/eloisa.borah/filfaqs.htm#history and
http://personal.anderson.ucla.edu/eloisa.borah/chronology.pdf ) is rightfully proud to want to document Unamuno's reported landing, in which Luzones Indios appear to have been the first explorers to have landed in Central California in 1587.  Whether or not that landing was in Morro Bay is open to interpretation.  Let's indeed celebrate the landing -- but let's also do our best to pinpoint its most likely location (which most likely was not Morro Bay).

The truth may never be known.  More historical information about Morro Bay can be found at http://morro-bay.com/historical/  


References:

This page is published at http://morro-bay.com/docents/mike-baird/nature-notes/unamuno-1587/ and contains hyperlinks to more information.  Here are some of the embedded hyperlinks.


[Update 24 Aug 2009]
Many thanks to a fascinating fellow named Bob Graham http://www.longcamp.com/bob.html of Sacramento, CA, for the following keen observations. Bob Graham calls himself a "pear grower" and has developed a fascination with the history of John C. Frémont including his Sierra crossing in 1844, which includes trails Bob was familiar with when hiking, fishing, and birding in the Sierras as a kid with his grandfather. That interest led to an interest in navigation (and astrolabes of course) that resulted in a lot of published work that is now referenced and linked to from many academic sources. So, Bob Graham is an historian by self-training, and is the author of "The Crossing" bobgraham [at} longcamp d o t com, http://www.longcamp.com/ (all about Tracking the Frémont Expeditions). I just love how the Internet exposed new ideas, facilitates meeting others, and helps complete research. Bob wrote the following clarification: "We should note that the accuracy of mechanical astrolabes used in the 16th century leaves a lot to be desired...These are hardly devices worthy of computing latitude to a fraction of a degree. Here is a photo of a typical astrolabe of the day..." You picture an astrolabe, but it is not a mariner's astrolabe--rather one of those compendiums for reading angles and calculating feast days. The mariner's astrolabe is compared: http://www.longcamp.com/gifs/astcompare.jpg . They are actually very capable of measuring to a half a degree, and estimates to about 1/4 degree. I would note that English astrolabes of the period averaged about 7-9" in diameter, while the Spanish and Portuguese astrolabes were commonly only 5" diameter. Picture of me using one at Bodega Bay: http://www.longcamp.com/gifs/sighting2.jpg . "...Unamuno stated that they made their observation between 11:00 am and 12:00 noon. It was not a more accurate night observation of the north star Polaris. It was also not made exactly at noon and would have required the interpolation of values in their charts, adding to errors already built in." As to the "11 a.m. and 12:00 noon," it is necessary to begin tracking well before the noon transit. Because one cannot know when in time the transit occurs except by calculating back when one had determined that the sun is declining. However, for fine determinations in the mathematical reduction of the observation of the altitude of the sun at transit to a position of latitude, it is necessary to know a close approximation of one's longitude. This because Tables of Solar Declination were calculated for somewhere in Europe, and in this instance, on the west coast of North America, the navigator would have traveled 8 hours into the next day, and interpolation for those hours west is necessary. But difficult math in 16C. Without this correction for longitude, the determination will only be nearly correct right on the two equinoxes, and the error will change +/- for every particular day of the year, the error being greatest near the solstices. Here are declination Tables as published in England based on those of Cortes. And below, an example of tedious interpolation without the benefit of niceties like multiplication, long division, or = sign. In the Unamuno case, October would contain some error in the published solar declinations. "It was not a more accurate night observation of the north star Polaris." Probably worse. Back then Polaris was about 3 degrees from the celestial pole. But there was no agreement among astronomers on that angular distance. Some put it at 4 1/2 degrees. So depending on the hour of observation, the error might be +/- that error. If one can wait to make the observation when Ursa minor and Cassiopeia in the correct alignment, this error can be reduced. http://www.longcamp.com/polaris.html . I did a very detailed study of Drake's latitude determination on the coast of CA in 1579 for Brian Kelleher. Drake's determined N38 30, in the June/July (old calendar) date range of his sojourn, could only have been determined at N38 19 on our coast. Campbell Cove under Bodega Head. http://www.longcamp.com/nav.html "Obviously, Morro Rock existed in 1587, and it would have been hard to miss during a two-day stay." For an estimated 23 million years. Morro Rock is a volcanic neck, or tombolo." Best, Bob Graham, Sacramento http://www.longcamp.com

morro-bay.com Revised Monday, February 18, 2008 01:24:23 PM


Below is a short version submitted to CCNHA Nature Notes 11-02 -- Mike Baird  revised 02/18/2008

Did Pedro de Unamuno and the Filipinos Really Land in Morro Bay in 1587?  Probably Not!

By Mike Baird -- morro-bay.com

Lee Sutter's article in The Tribune on 10-17-02 entitled "When 'Hope' came ashore" described the Filipinos' first visit to Morro Bay, or at least to some section of the Central Coast, in 1587.  The Filipino community is rightfully proud to want to document Captain Unamuno's landing, in which Filipino Luzones Indios appear to have been the first explorers to have landed in Central California in 1587.  Whether or not that landing was here in Morro Bay, or somewhere else, is what is open to interpretation.  Let's celebrate the landing -- but let's also do our best to pinpoint its most likely location.

Much of my article here is based on an account by historian Hector Santos -- published only on the Internet at http://www.bibingka.com/sst/esperanza/morrobay.htm.   

I have also published a full-length version of this article at http://morro-bay.com/1587/  which contains many more related links, references, photos, and maps... describing in much more detail the hypothesis, the theories, and the possible conclusions.

The Filipino community's claim is reflected in the text of a plaque, which is located off Coleman Drive, near the corner of Embarcadero Road, in Coleman Park next to the playground.   Here is what is says.

Historic Site
During the Manila-Acapulco Galleon Trade era from 1565 to 1815 Spanish galleons crossed the pacific between the Philippines and Mexico. On October 18, 1587, the Manila Galleon Nuestra Senora de Esperanza commanded by Pedro de Unamuno entered Morro Bay near here. A landing party was sent to shore which included Luzon Indios, marking the first landing of Filipinos in the continental United States. The landing party took official possession of the area for Spain by putting up a cross made of branches. The group was attacked by native Indians two days later, and one of the Filipinos was killed. Unamuno and his crew gave up further exploration of this part of the coast.

Historical Landmark Declared by the
Filipino American National Historical Society
California Central Coast Chapter
Dedicated October 21, 1995

Below, I can summarize just a few of the salient points.  Popular history says that in:

After Cabrillo's 1542 voyage, several expeditions were underwritten to explore the California coast.  Popular opinion is that (1) Cabrillo himself did not land in Morro Bay in 1542, and (2) that the first party to actually land was Unamuno, in 1587, 45 years after Juan Cabrillo sighted Morro Rock.  I believe that possibly both of these opinions are incorrect.

According to Myron Angel's History of San Luis Obispo County, 1883, Cabrillo "Sailing northward from Point San Luis... discovered a deep indentation..."Los Esteros," and in the bay the high conical rock "El Moro."  There Cabrillo supplied his ships with wood and fresh water."  Therefore, is appears that Cabrillo might indeed have landed in or near Morro Bay in 1542.  In any case, this article is more about the second opinion -- that Unamuno landed in Morro Bay in 1587.  Pedro Unamuno is reported to have landed on a beach here and gone about his business of "fending off native Indian attacks from a nearby hillside."

The thesis of this article is that Unamuno's  reported landing did not occur in Morro Bay.  The "Puerto de San Lucas" that Unamuno discovered would not appear in nautical charts -- and it almost surely was not present day Morro Bay.  However, it could well have been near Avila 15 miles to the south, or elsewhere nearby.

The popular conclusion that Pedro de Unamuno landed in Morro Bay is based almost entirely on 1929 conclusions by one Henry R. Wagner.  Wagner presumably knew about the topography of Morro Bay, Morro Rock, the sand spit as it existed in 1929, and the harbor's difficult entrance at the time... but he chose to ignore the lack of any mention of these features by Unamuno.  Instead, Wagner relied as his main evidence the computation of the latitude by the ship’s pilot, Alonso Gomez.  Unamuno said, “While thus anchored, about two harquebus-shots off the beach, we observed the sun between eleven and twelve o’clock noon, and found the port to be in full 35½º.” Morro Bay happens to be at latitude 35º 22', almost exactly what Unamuno reported.  We should note that the accuracy of mechanical astrolabes used in the 16th century, during day, and not exactly at noon, leaves a lot to be desired.

Wagner actually suspected  that Unamuno might have landed in Avila's San Luis Bay 15 miles to the south, but dismissed that possibility... preferring instead to reply solely on the latitude computation.  Further, Unamuno probably did make his way, from wherever he landed, to the vicinity of present day San Luis Obispo.  There is some evidence that the Indians in San Luis Obispo Bay displayed an acquaintance with Mexicans eight years later... supporting an argument that Unamuno landed in Avila.

Here is an expansion of some arguments suggesting that the Unamuno landing never occurred at present day Morro Bay:

Firstly, no mention was ever made of the existence of Morro Rock.  Obviously, Morro Rock existed in 1587, and it would have been hard to miss during a two-day stay.  How could anyone have made such an historic landing, lasting several days, and not have mentioned Morro Rock?  Trying to rationalize their account... did they perhaps land on the beach north of the Rock in Estero Bay (where there are no hillsides near the coast ,as chronicled); or, did they enter the nascent Morro Bay harbor, where there was no "beach" per se (only mudflats, salt marsh, and an outer sand spit), navigating the then shallow channels and treacherous currents (and not mention such a configuration?). 

Secondly, Unamuno made no mention of the presence of a sand spit.   Wagner, who translated and interpreted Unamuno's handwritten journal, personally believed that the sand spit did not exist in 1587 and that the bay was wide open at the time.  We know today that the sand spit did exist in 1587.  Archeological data chronicle native sites on the northern end of the sand spit, dating to 4000 years ago."  Even Portola apparently recognized the sand spit (he called it a reef) in his reports from 1769.  It appears that Wagner simply chose to "reason away" vast conflicting topological evidence in favor of one inaccurate latitude measurement.

There are many photos of the Morro Bay harbor from around 1900 (well before the Rock was connected to the mainland, and the channel dredged).  The description of a simple "beach" landing (with no mention from Unamuno of the Morro Rock, the harbor mudflats, the harbor salt marsh, the harbor entry surf and currents, the all-encompassing sand spit...) does not seem at all consistent with what we know about Morro Bay harbor.  

A third weaker argument is that It was stated that the Unamuno party camped for the night under great oak trees near a river.  This is possible, but not highly likely near Morro Bay.  Of the several small creeks entering, or near, Morro Bay (Morro Creek, Chorro Creek, and Los Osos Creek furthest to the south), the first two of these creeks do not harbor great oak trees today.  We know that the general area of Morro Bay was almost treeless before Franklin Riley promoted them in the new settlement in 1864.  The Avila Beach, Port San Luis area 15 miles to the south, however, possibly harbors a more sizeable river with correspondingly larger surrounding giant oak trees.

So, why do we think that Pedro de Unamuno landed in Morro Bay in 1587?  A plaque commemorating the Filipinos' landing certainly deserves to be placed on the Central Coast, and here in Morro Bay is as lovely a memorial as any for the occasion -- I only wish that for history's sake, the declaration might have been made a little less precise in terms of location.

The truth may never be known.  More proud historical information about Morro Bay can be found at http://morro-bay.com/historical/  


Mike Baird mike@[remove]mikebaird.com http://mikebaird.com  http://morro-bay.com   http://morro-bay.com/1587/  
Morro Bay, CA  phone (805) 704-2064; Volunteer Docent, California State Parks


Here is a much shorter version of the above (July 20, 2003)

So, Pedro de Unamuno Landed in Morro Bay in 1587?

Few question the key events reflecting Morro Bay's history:  In 1542, Cabrillo named Morro Rock, which he saw from the ocean.  Pedro de Unamuno, in 1587, was the first to enter Morro Bay.  Portola’s 1769 overland party, on their way north from San Diego, camped near Morro Bay.  Much of what is written here is based on Hector Santos’ http://www.bibingka.com/sst/esperanza/morrobay.htmA longer version of this article is at http://morro-bay.com/1587/.  The text of a plaque, which is located in Morro Bay off Coleman Drive, near the corner of Embarcadero Road, in Coleman Park next to the playground says:

Historic Site.  During the Manila-Acapulco Galleon Trade era from 1565 to 1815 Spanish galleons crossed the pacific between the Philippines and Mexico. On October 18, 1587, the Manila Galleon Nuestra Senora de Esperanza commanded by Pedro de Unamuno entered Morro Bay near here. A landing party was sent to shore which included Luzon Indios, marking the first landing of Filipinos in the continental United States. The landing party took official possession of the area for Spain by putting up a cross made of branches. The group was attacked by native Indians two days later, and one of the Filipinos was killed. Unamuno and his crew gave up further exploration of this part of the coast.  Historical Landmark Declared by the Filipino American National Historical Society, California Central Coast Chapter, Dedicated October 21, 1995.

The thesis of this article is that Unamuno's reported landing did not occur in Morro Bay.  The "Puerto de San Lucas" that Unamuno discovered would not appear in nautical charts -- and it almost surely was not present day Morro Bay.  However, it could well have been near Avila 15 miles to the south, or elsewhere nearby.

The popular conclusion that Pedro de Unamuno landed in Morro Bay is based on 1929 conclusions by Henry R. Wagner.  Wagner knew about the topography of Morro Bay, Morro Rock, the sand spit, and the harbor's difficult entrance... but he chose to ignore the lack of any mention of these features by Unamuno.  Instead, Wagner relied as his main evidence the computation of the latitude by the ship’s pilot, Alonso Gomez.  The accuracy of mechanical astrolabes used in the 16th century leaves a lot to be desired.  Wagner suspected that Unamuno might have landed in Avila's San Luis Bay 15 miles to the south, but dismissed that possibility.  No mention was made by Unamuno of the existence of Morro Rock, which would have been hard to miss during a two-day stay.  Unamuno made no mention of the sand spit.  Wagner, who translated and interpreted Unamuno's handwritten journal, erroneously believed that the sand spit did not exist in 1587 and that the bay was wide open at the time.  We know today that the sand spit did exist in 1587 (it may have been open to the south).  It appears that Wagner chose to "reason away" vast conflicting topological evidence in favor of one inaccurate latitude measurement.  So, why would anyone think that Pedro de Unamuno actually landed in Morro Bay in 1587?  The plaque commemorating the Filipinos' landing certainly deserves to be placed on the Central Coast, and here in Morro Bay is as lovely a memorial as any for the occasion -- but for history's sake, the declaration might have been made a little less precise in terms of location.  More historical information about Morro Bay can be found at http://morro-bay.com/historical/ .   Mike Baird mike@[remove]mikebaird.com


Revision 7-21-05.   Reader John Silvester kindly makes the following observation:

From: jsilvest@[remove]usc.edu [mailto:jsilvest@[remove]usc.edu] On Behalf Of John Silvester
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:22 PM
To: Baird, Michael
Subject: Morro-bay.com feedback, keyword = ignorefilters (this keyword phrase will guarantee that I will see your e-mail) delete the [remove] spam blocker in address

In the web page there is some "random research": in the derivation of the name Morro Bay. [ref. this page]

Morro is Portuguese for a hill - often one made out of a large boulder or rock  - like the one at Morro Bay


It is claimed that the rock was named by Juan Cabrillo (Note that he wouldn't have named the rock, he would have named the bay after the rock - Morro Rock makes no sense) which adds to the debate about whether Cabrillo was Spanish or Portuguese [João Rodrigues Cabrilho] .  (Morro in Spanish, at least in my dictionary, translates to nose, but of course there may be other older usages.)

I have not investigated the etymology of morro in Portuguese. I expect many others more knowledgeable that I have looked into this topic.
--  John Silvester
 

Revision 10-16-09. This article adds greatly to the understanding of the activities at this time and localion!

422 years ago” By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.net First Posted 09:52:00 10/15/2009 Filed Under: history, Migration 

United States—Historical records do not cite the names of any of the “Luzon Indios” aboard the Nuestra Senora de Buena Esperanza when it landed in Morro Bay, California on October 18, 1587. (more at http://globalnation.inquirer.net/columns/columns/view/20091015-230155/422-years-ago )

Says in part:

CALIFORNIA, United

States—Historical records do not cite the names of any of the “Luzon Indios” aboard the Nuestra Senora de Buena Esperanza when it landed in Morro Bay, California on October 18, 1587. ...