i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans), in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration, California Division ( FHWA), and the California State Historic Preservation
Officer ( SHPO), prepared this thematic study to assist with evaluating the information potential
of archaeological properties found in current and former towns in California, that is, for their eli-gibility
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D or the California
Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 4. To be eligible under Criterion D, National
Register guidance states that a property must have, or have had, information to contribute to our
understanding of history or prehistory, and the information must be considered important. An in-tegral
part of this study is the development of a research design. The archaeological research de-sign
explicitly demonstrates the connection between the information a property contains and im-portant
research issues or questions associated with a particular property.
Although this document provides a framework for evaluating most types of townsite properties
found in California, it is not a comprehensive history of the state nor does it satisfy the require-ments
of site- specific research. This study is intended to serve as both an analytical tool and a
methodological framework to interpret and evaluate properties associated with the townsite theme
in terms of their ability to yield important information. Researchers should also consider carefully
whether additional National Register criteria may apply to individual sites, although those other
possible values are not discussed in this study. Other National Register criteria consist of A ( im-portant
events), B ( important people), and C ( architecture and engineering achievements).
The historic context presented here is a broad overview that addresses the major themes of town-site
development in California during the period from statehood in 1850 to circa 1920, or roughly
the end of the Progressive Era. Future researchers are encouraged to use this context as a starting
point when assessing the National Register values of townsites, particularly in California.
Archaeological evidence collected during previous studies suggests that townsite properties have
the potential to address the following research themes within a contextual or interpretive approach:
Structure of a Community: Townsite Establishment and Evolution and Infrastructure Development;
Industry: Social and Technological Implications; Commercial Behavior: Service Industries and
Mercantilism; and Domestic Behavior: Townsite Residents. Research is not necessarily limited
to these themes, however, and individual researchers may follow other theoretical approaches or
find alternative research themes relevant to specific sites. In addition, this document includes an
implementation plan that advocates specific methods to follow when assessing the information
value of townsite properties, in an effort to improve consistency and thereby facilitate better in-tersite
comparisons.
Any questions or comments on this study should be directed to the Chief, Cultural Studies Office,
Division of Environmental Analysis, MS 27, P. O. Box 942874, Sacramento, CA 94274- 0001.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
An interdisciplinary team of consultants prepared the initial draft of this document. The Anthro-pological
Studies Center ( ASC) at Sonoma State University was the coordinating institution, with
Mary Praetzellis acting as the project manager. The principal authors of this volume were ( in al-phabetical
order) Anmarie Medin ( Caltrans), Adrian Praetzellis ( ASC), Mary Praetzellis ( ASC),
and Stephen Wee of JRP Historical Consulting Services, LLC ( JRP). Thad Van Bueren and Judith
D. Tordoff, both of Caltrans, provided much useful advice along the way. The study was prepared
under the overall direction of Greg King, former Chief of the Caltrans Cultural and Community
Studies Office, with Anmarie Medin acting as the project manager.
Because the contracted scope of work limited the breadth of the study, Caltrans staff augmented
the consultant- prepared report. Primary authors for Caltrans included Dana Supernowicz and An-marie
Medin, with assistance from Julia Huddleson and Kimberly Wooten. Maya Bineli, Ed Car-roll,
and Nathan Wilson, Sacramento State Public History program graduate students, contributed
to the historic context. Michael D. Meyer and Adrian Praetzellis of the ASC provided additional
content. Peer review of the second draft was provided by Judy Tordoff, Mark Walker ( ASC), Ste-ven
Wee ( JRP), and Thad Van Bueren. Further peer review was provided by Marlesa Gray, Karen
Swope, and Scott Thompson of Statistical Research, Inc. Caltrans staff reviewing this study in-cluded
Dicken Everson, Blossom Hamusek, Julia Huddleson, Anmarie Medin, Wendy Nettles,
Dana Supernowicz, Tom Wheeler, and Kimberly Wooten.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preser­vation
( 48 FR 44716) state that historic contexts should be constructed by an interdisciplinary
process that considers the comments of the interested public and scholars. To facilitate public
comment and peer input, the authors presented their approach in symposia at the 2006 annual
conference of the California Council for the Promotion of History. A similar presentation was
made at the Society for California Archaeology’s 2006 northern data- sharing meeting. A review
draft was posted online, and comments were received from professionals in the cultural resources
field. The townsites study was also discussed in a session on thematic studies at the 2008 Society
for Historical Archaeology conference.
This townsites study is the third in the Caltrans historical archaeology thematic studies series;
the first discusses agricultural properties, and the second discusses mining properties. At FHWA,
Stephanie Stoermer oversaw the first efforts to establish this thematic studies series and Gary
Sweeten continued to provide management perspective. At the Office of Historic Preservation
( OHP), former Deputy SHPO Steve Mikesell was involved from the project’s inception, and staff
members of the project review unit have provided valuable input throughout the process of com-piling
this set of thematic studies.
iii
Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................................... 1
Research Design Series.............................................................................................................. 2
The National Register Evaluation Process under Criterion D................................................... 2
The California Register of Historical Resources....................................................................... 4
Research Designs in Urban Archaeology.................................................................................. 4
Using this Document for Section 106 Consultation.................................................................. 5
Index to Studies........................................................................................................................ 5
Chapter 2: Historic Context............................................................................................................. 9
Settlement and the Formation of Towns.................................................................................. 11
Geomorphic Regions and the Settlement of Towns........................................................... 14
Land Acquisition, the Formation of Local Governments, and the Settlement of Towns.. 17
Settlement History by Region ........................................................................................... 19
Northern Province........................................................................................................ 20
Sierra Nevada............................................................................................................... 21
North Coast Ranges and San Francisco Bay Area....................................................... 24
Central Coast Ranges................................................................................................... 28
Sacramento Valley....................................................................................................... 30
San Joaquin Valley....................................................................................................... 33
South Coast.................................................................................................................. 35
South Desert................................................................................................................. 37
Great Basin Desert....................................................................................................... 39
The Infrastructure of California Towns................................................................................... 41
Transportation................................................................................................................. .. 41
Rail Transportation...................................................................................................... 45
Electric Railroads And Interurban Trains.................................................................... 49
Highways..................................................................................................................... 51
Public Health and Sanitation............................................................................................. 55
Public Health............................................................................................................... 55
Sanitation .................................................................................................................... 62
Water Systems............................................................................................................. 67
Utilities...................................................................................................................... ....... 68
Architecture ( Municipal Buildings and Structures)........................................................... 69
The Socioeconomic Character of Towns................................................................................. 72
Education .......................................................................................................................... 81
Parks, Recreation, and Leisure Time................................................................................. 83
Religious and Fraternal Organizations.............................................................................. 85
Case Studies in Four California Towns................................................................................... 88
Ethnic and Cultural History of Towns..................................................................................... 95
African Americans............................................................................................................. 98
Californios and Latin Americans ...................................................................................... 99
Chinese........................................................................................................................ ... 101
Japanese .......................................................................................................................... 103
Sikhs.......................................................................................................................... ..... 104
Filipinos...................................................................................................................... .... 105
Northern Europeans......................................................................................................... 106
Swedish...................................................................................................................... 106
TABLE OF Contents
iv
Finnish....................................................................................................................... 106
Eastern Europeans........................................................................................................... 107
Serbians...................................................................................................................... 107
Croatians.................................................................................................................... 107
Armenians ................................................................................................................. 108
Russians..................................................................................................................... 108
Polish......................................................................................................................... 109
Western Europeans.......................................................................................................... 109
Cornish ...................................................................................................................... 109
Irish ........................................................................................................................... 109
Germans..................................................................................................................... 110
Southern Europeans......................................................................................................... 111
Basque ....................................................................................................................... 111
Spanish/ Portuguese.................................................................................................... 111
Italians/ Italian- Swiss/ Swiss....................................................................................... 112
Summary........................................................................................................................ ....... 113
Chapter 3: Archaeological Property Types.................................................................................. 115
Archaeological Formation Processes and Survival............................................................... 115
What is an Archaeological Property Type?............................................................................ 115
What is an Archaeological Feature System?......................................................................... 117
Townsite Property Types....................................................................................................... 117
Townsite Establishment and Evolution........................................................................... 117
Infrastructure Development: Utilities.............................................................................. 118
Infrastructure Development: Transportation.................................................................... 120
Infrastructure Development: Municipal Facilities........................................................... 121
Industry....................................................................................................................... .... 124
Commercial Behavior: Service Industries....................................................................... 126
Commercial Behavior: Mercantile.................................................................................. 128
Domestic Behavior: Townsite Residents ........................................................................ 129
Chapter 4: Research in Towns..................................................................................................... 133
Small Towns in America ....................................................................................................... 133
The “ New Urban History” and the “ New Western History”: An Overview of
Historiographical Trends, 1970– 2000............................................................................. 134
The “ New Urban History”............................................................................................... 134
The “ New Western History”............................................................................................ 136
Stages of Urban Growth........................................................................................................ 136
The Progressive Movement and City Charters...................................................................... 138
Proposed Theoretical Orientation: Contextual Archaeology................................................. 138
Archaeological Research Domains and Research Questions................................................ 140
Townsite Research Themes .................................................................................................. 141
Organization of Research Questions .................................................................................... 141
Structure of a Community: Townsite Establishment and Evolution and Infrastructure
Development.................................................................................................................... 142
Townsite Establishment and Evolution .......................................................................... 142
Infrastructure Development............................................................................................. 147
Utilities: Public Health and Sanitation...................................................................... 147
Municipal Facilities................................................................................................... 152
Industry: Social and Technological Implications ............................................................ 157
v
Commercial Behavior: Service Industries and Mercantilism.......................................... 164
Service Industries....................................................................................................... 164
Mercantilism ............................................................................................................. 172
Domestic Behavior: Townsite Residents......................................................................... 179
Data Requirements for Townsite Research Themes ............................................................. 191
Archaeological Data Sets................................................................................................. 192
Documentary Data Sets................................................................................................... 193
Chapter 5: Implementation Plan.................................................................................................. 195
How to Assess Research Potential......................................................................................... 195
Data Requirements................................................................................................................. 195
What are data sets and data requirements?...................................................................... 195
Aims- R Model................................................................................................................. 196
Applying the Five- Step Process............................................................................................. 197
Step 1: Determine the Property’s Structure, Content, and Classes of Data..................... 197
Step 2: Identify the Appropriate Historic Context........................................................... 199
Step 3: Identify Important Research Themes and Questions........................................... 204
Step 4: Assess Quality of the Data................................................................................... 208
Step 5: Identify the Important Information a Property Contains..................................... 208
Methodological consistency.................................................................................................. 209
Archival/ Contextual Research......................................................................................... 209
Archaeological Research: Fieldwork............................................................................... 210
Archaeological Research: Laboratory Work.................................................................... 212
Cleaning and Labeling............................................................................................... 212
Cataloging.................................................................................................................. 214
Functional Categories................................................................................................ 214
Minimum Number of Individuals ( mni).................................................................... 216
Dating........................................................................................................................ 217
Databases and Data Entry.......................................................................................... 218
Generating Tables...................................................................................................... 219
Curation..................................................................................................................... 220
Dissemination of Research Results................................................................................. 220
Conclusions.................................................................................................................... ....... 221
Thresholds and Redundancy: How much is enough?...................................................... 221
Qualitative and Quantitative Data............................................................................. 221
Sampling and Comparing Artifact Deposits.............................................................. 222
Final Thoughts................................................................................................................. 223
Bibliography................................................................................................................... ............ 225
vi
TABLES
Table 1. Index to Property Types in Thematic Studies................................................................... 6
Table 2. Populations of Four California Towns, 1884– 1907........................................................ 89
Table 3. Pacific Coast Directory Statistics.................................................................................... 89
Table 4. Sampling of Ethnic Communities in California............................................................. 96
Table 5. Property Types in Townsites.......................................................................................... 116
Table 6. Research Questions for Townsite Establishment and Evolution.................................. 146
Table 7. Research Questions for Townsite Infrastructure Development.................................... 154
Table 8. Research Questions for Townsite Industry................................................................... 162
Table 9. Research Questions for Townsite Commercial Behavior: Service Industries.............. 171
Table 10. Research Questions for Townsite Commercial Behavior: Mercantilism.................... 178
Table 11. Research Questions for Domestic Behavior: Townsite Residents.............................. 190
Table 12. Aspects of Integrity..................................................................................................... 208
Table 13. Artifact Catalog Categories......................................................................................... 215
Table 14. Artifact Database Categories...................................................................................... 219
FIGURES
Figure 1. Looking northeast at Volcano, Amador County, 1866.................................................. 10
Figure 2. Map of California and Nevada, 1874............................................................................ 12
Figure 3. Tulare in the late 1870s................................................................................................. 13
Figure 4. Yorba Linda Hardware Store and Red Crown Gas Station, 1918................................. 14
Figure 5. Geomorphic Regions of California............................................................................... 15
Figure 6. Early view of San Francisco, 1849................................................................................ 18
Figure 7. View looking north at the town of Mariposa, circa 1860.............................................. 19
Figure 8. Town of Shasta, 1860.................................................................................................... 21
Figure 9. Dutch Flat, Placer County, 1866................................................................................... 23
Figure 10. Noyo River at Fort Bragg, 1866.................................................................................. 25
Figure 11. Bird’s Eye View of Oakland, 1893.............................................................................. 27
Figure 12. Monterey, circa 1849................................................................................................... 29
Figure 13. View of downtown Marysville, circa 1880s................................................................ 31
Figure 14. 1879 Illustration of Woodland’s downtown commercial storefronts.......................... 32
Figure 15. Main Street Visalia, 1863............................................................................................ 34
Figure 16. Rio Vista, 1919............................................................................................................ 34
Figure 17. Lithograph of Ontario, H. S. Crocker Company, 1890............................................... 36
Figure 18. South Pasadena, 1890.................................................................................................. 37
Figure 19. View of Calico, 1931................................................................................................... 39
Figure 20. Front Street along the Sacramento River Waterfront, 1866 ....................................... 41
Figure 21. Britton & Rey lithograph entitled “ Past & Present in California,” 1856.................... 42
Figure 22. This early view of Cisco, circa 1866, depicts the expansion of trade and wagon
traffic along the Donner Summit Route during the 1860s and the town’s importance as
a supply center during the construction of the Central Pacific Railroad................................ 43
Figure 23. Placerville looking east from the balcony of the Cary House, 1866........................... 44
Figure 24. Folsom, circa 1866...................................................................................................... 46
Figure 25. Southern Pacific Depot and freight shed, Anaheim, 1895........................................... 48
vii
Figure 26. Pacific Electric railway car at Santa Monica Station, 1919........................................ 49
Figure 27. Southern Pacific Company Map of Railroads in California, 1901.............................. 50
Figure 28. An image of tent camping from the back of a car indicates the growing
popularity of auto touring....................................................................................................... 52
Figure 29. East Chapman Avenue Bridge, Orange, California, threatened by Santa Ana
River floodwater, 1916........................................................................................................... 53
Figure 30. View of downtown Mariposa, looking north on State Highway 49, 1930.................. 54
Figure 31. View looking south down State Highway 49 in downtown Mariposa, 1940.............. 55
Figure 32. Glendale Sanitarium, Glendale, circa 1900................................................................. 57
Figure 33. Chula Vista Public Hospital, circa 1915...................................................................... 58
Figure 34. Artesian Well, Lower San Joaquin Valley near Bakersfield........................................ 59
Figure 35. Whittier Sanitary Dairy Building, 1925...................................................................... 60
Figure 36. Cartoon from The Wasp entitled “ Better Remove the Carcas.”.................................. 61
Figure 37. Backyards of a suburban neighborhood, Santa Clara, California, circa 1910............ 65
Figure 38. Los Angeles neighborhood from the 1900s depicting a privy still in use in the
1940s and the burning of trash in an open steel barrel in the rear yard.................................. 65
Figure 39. Los Angeles City dump near 26th Street and the Los Angeles River......................... 66
Figure 40. Garbage dump wagon San Francisco, circa 1920s...................................................... 66
Figure 41. Anaheim municipal waterworks concrete tower under construction, 1907................ 67
Figure 42. The city of Santa Clara city municipal gas and waterworks plant, 1905.................... 68
Figure 43. Brick commercial buildings, Whittier, 1893............................................................... 70
Figure 44. Ruins of the Higuera Adobe, Milpitas, 1947............................................................... 70
Figure 45. Earthquake damage to a reinforced stone- masonry building in Santa Rosa, 1906..... 71
Figure 46. Boardinghouse in Tulare offering “ Meals and Rooms,” 1880s.................................. 74
Figure 47. Mrs. Wenzinger’s Boardinghouse, probably Marysville, Yuba County, circa 1880... 74
Figure 48. Interior view of the Santa Clara Brewery, 1895.......................................................... 76
Figure 49. Street Fair in Orange, circa 1910................................................................................ 80
Figure 50. Arcadia’s first schoolhouse, a packing shed, 1904...................................................... 81
Figure 51. Anaheim City Park with designed recreation facilities, circa 1920............................ 83
Figure 52. St. Raymond’s Church, Dublin, Alameda County, circa 1915.................................... 85
Figure 53. Masonic Temple ( on second floor) and drugstore ( on first floor), Yorba Linda,
California, circa 1910............................................................................................................. 87
Figure 54. 1884 Black Diamond Sanborn Map ........................................................................... 90
Figure 55. 1907 Black Diamond Sanborn Map............................................................................ 90
Figure 56. 1888 Santa Paula Sanborn Map.................................................................................. 91
Figure 57. 1907 Santa Paula Sanborn Map.................................................................................. 91
Figure 58. 1884 Lockeford Sanborn Map..................................................................................... 92
Figure 59. 1912 Lockeford Sanborn Map..................................................................................... 93
Figure 60. 1885 Yreka Sanborn Map............................................................................................ 93
Figure 61. 1908 Yreka Sanborn Map............................................................................................ 94
Figure 62. Chilean miner, circa 1850............................................................................................ 96
Figure 63. Chinese New Year parade, Oroville, circa 1900......................................................... 97
Figure 64. Jim Williams, circa 1905............................................................................................. 98
Figure 65. Pioneer Mexican Americans at the “ old Log Cabin,” San Bernardino, circa 1890.. 100
Figure 66. Chinese Funeral, Colma, 1903.................................................................................. 101
Figure 67. Chinese Joss House or Temple, Weaverville............................................................. 102
Figure 68. Japanese baseball team, Vacaville, circa 1920.......................................................... 104
Figure 69. Sikh family in Sutter County, circa 1930.................................................................. 104
viii
Figure 70. Filipino Club, Susanville........................................................................................... 105
Figure 71. Swedish baseball team, Turlock................................................................................ 106
Figure 72. Serbian Church, Angels Camp, 1940........................................................................ 107
Figure 73. Armenian immigrant in front of his grocery store in San Bernardino, circa 1940.... 108
Figure 74. Polish- born Shakespearean actress Helen Modjeska from Anaheim, circa 1880....... 109
Figure 75. Irish- American Hall, San Francisco Bay Area, circa 1880s....................................... 110
Figure 76. St. Frances Hotel, Susanville, Lassen County............................................................ 111
Figure 77. The Portuguese family of P. J. Sarmento at their home in Hanford, in Central
California..................................................................................................................... ......... 112
Figure 78. Italian- owned ferriers, Oakland, circa 1907............................................................... 112
Figure 79. Building platform, Feather River, Butte County........................................................ 118
Figure 80. Filled- in creek channel to make buildable land, Stockton, circa 1890...................... 118
Figure 81. Levee road, Oroville vicinity..................................................................................... 119
Figure 82. Brick vault and stoneware sewer pipe, Woolen Mills Chinatown, San Jose,
circa 1887........................................................................................................................... ... 119
Figure 83. Redwood box drain, Woolen Mills Chinatown, San Jose, circa 1887...................... 120
Figure 84. Cut- and- fill landscape features created by railroad construction, Butte County....... 121
Figure 85. Ringbolts associated with a ferry landing are sunk into bedrock, Feather River
near Oroville, circa 1880...................................................................................................... 121
Figure 86. Brick and concrete remains of the Merchant Marine Hospital, San Francisco
Presidio, 1875....................................................................................................................... 122
Figure 87. Park landscaping, Alum Rock Park, Santa Clara County, circa 1920s..................... 123
Figure 88. Hamilton Cemetery, Butte County............................................................................ 123
Figure 89. Engine Foundations, Stockton................................................................................... 124
Figure 90. Ad hoc refuse dump, Empire Mine, Nevada County................................................ 125
Figure 91. Shallow trench filled with sediment and artifacts ( both domestic and commercial) ... 126
Figure 92. Brick furnace, Stockton’s Sing Lee Laundry, operated 1890s– 1930s....................... 126
Figure 93. Refuse pits, Golden Eagle Hotel, Sacramento........................................................... 127
Figure 94. Redwood drains, Heinlenville, Santa Clara County, circa 1880s.............................. 128
Figure 95. Square brick piers supported the wooden floor joists of commercial buildings....... 129
Figure 96. Ceramic stock of a Chinese merchant, circa 1860s................................................... 129
Figure 97. Distribution of burned barrel hoops, Warren’s store, Sacramento, 1852.................. 129
Figure 98. Chinese wok stoves, Los Angeles............................................................................. 130
Figure 99. Fence post– marked boundary, Oakland.................................................................... 131
Figure 100. Refuse- filled privy, Oakland, after excavation........................................................ 131
Figure 101. Artifact- filled well, Los Angeles............................................................................. 131
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Research Themes and Questions for Townsites
Appendix B. References for the Historical Archaeology Lab
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
The purpose of this research design is to provide general guidance for evaluating the data po-tential
of historic- era archaeological features associated with former and current townsites, in-cluding
towns that are currently encompassed by large metropolitan areas. It includes an his-toric
con­text
outlining significant themes in California history, identification of property types, and
impor­tant
archaeological research themes and questions relevant to townsites.
This volume covers townsites for the period from 1850 to circa 1920. Statehood was chosen as
the beginning point because of the massive influx of people and resources and a divergence from
the settlement patterns of the Mexican era. The close of the Progressive Era, circa 1920, was
chosen as the ending point because of significant changes in personal and municipal behaviors
that altered living conditions and lifestyles and thus influenced archaeological formation pro-cesses
( e. g., muni­cipal
trash collection, enforcement of sanitation codes, etc.) and the questions
researchers might pose. The context does not include company or corporately owned towns be-cause
they were established for markedly different economic reasons.
According to Webster’s New World Dictionary ( 3rd ed.), a town is a distinct location with a place-name,
compactly settled as opposed to the surrounding countryside, larger than a village but
smaller than a city, and of an urban character when contrasted with its rural environment. A city is,
by definition, larger, more diverse, and more economically important than its surrounding towns.
Thus, the definitions are relative to each other, and the status of towns and cities shift in time and
place according to criteria of size and importance. Both, however, are clearly urban as opposed
to rural places. U. S. Bureau of the Census ( 1975) defines “ urban” as a place containing 2,500 in-habitants
or more. In California in 1885, fully one- half of the state’s population lived in cities and
towns by these definitions. It was a highly “ urbanized” state in comparison with other west-ern
states.
This document is divided into five chapters:
• Chapter 1 consists of this introduction, which outlines the document’s purpose, authorship,
structure, and orientation.
• Chapter 2 contains the historic context: a broad study of towns in California providing in-formation
on the varying themes of California history.
• Chapter 3 describes archaeological property types created by the processes presented in
Chapter 2. These are the features that archaeologists encounter in the field.
• Chapter 4 consists of a generalized archaeological research design for the property types
presented in Chapter 3. It begins with a brief historiography of towns. Research themes for
the property types are then presented from the perspective of history and archaeology. Per
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines ( 48 FR 44716– 44742), this cross-disciplinary
review of current scholarship informs the archaeological research themes and
questions that follow.
• Chapter 5 offers an implementation plan that presents standardized methods that will en-hance
comparative research and guide evaluation under Criterion D of the National Reg-ister
of Historic Places ( NRHP) without hampering the intellectual process. It concludes
with suggestions for future research and an admonition that this document requires regular
reconsideration.
2
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 1. Introduction
Research Design Series
This study is third in a series of statewide, thematic archaeological research designs developed by
the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans). Its purpose is to help archaeologists as-sess
the importance of historic- era archaeological sites commonly encountered on Caltrans proj-ects.
Caltrans has produced, or is producing, other volumes in this series, cited throughout this
study as the agriculture, mining sites, and work camps thematic studies. The agriculture study was
finalized in 2007 and the mining study was finished in 2008. Both are posted on the Caltrans Di­vision
of Environmental Analysis Web site ( www. dot. ca. gov/ ser/ guidance. htm# agstudy). The work
camps study is currently in draft form and is being finalized by Caltrans. Table 1 at the end of
this chapter contains a list of historic- era archaeological features and indicates in which volume
each is addressed.
The series grew out of Caltrans’ long- term efforts to improve the process of site- specific research
and evaluation as well as the California State Historic Preservation Officer’s ( SHPO) recommen-dation
that the agency improve how historical archaeology is conducted in the context of Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act ( NHPA). This statute requires that federal agencies
take into account the effects of their undertakings on properties listed in or eligible for listing in
the NRHP.
The National Register Evaluation Proces under
Criterion D
To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a property must be significant in American history, archi­tecture,
engineering, or culture and possess integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship,
feeling, setting, and association. In addition, the property must meet one or more of the four NRHP
criteria ( 36 CFR 60.4):
A. be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history; or
B. be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represent a
significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
or
D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
This document concerns itself solely with eligibility under Criterion D; however, researchers
should consider which of the other NRHP criteria might be applicable to the property they are
evaluating.
National Register Bulletin 15 provides important guidance on applying Criterion D, which has
two requirements that must both be met for a property to qualify: “ the property must have, or
have had, information to contribute to our understanding of human history or prehistory, and the
infor­ma­tion
must be considered important” ( National Park Service [ NPS] 1991: 21). An integral
part of this study is a research design that explicitly demonstrates the connection between the in-formation
and the property and helps define whether the information that a property contains is
3
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 1. Introduction
important or not. A good research design “ specifies not only the questions to be asked, but also
the types of data needed to supply the answers” ( NPS 1991: 22).
Little and Seibert ( 2000: 29) define five basic steps necessary to evaluate properties under Crite-rion
D:
1. Determine site structure, content, and classes of data it may contain
2. Identify the appropriate historic context by which to evaluate it
3. Identify important research themes and questions that the data it contains may be able to
address
4. Considering the property’s integrity, structure, and content, assess whether the data it con-tains
are of sufficient quality to address these important research issues
5. Identify the important information that the property is likely to contain
Archaeological properties are evaluated within an appropriate historic context defined by theme,
place, and period. Chapter 2 presents an historic context for townsites in California between state­­hood
( 1850) and circa 1920, roughly the end of the Progressive Era in California. It can provide
the basis of a context statement for evaluation, but it must be supplemented by property- specific
research to provide the relevant focus. The NPS revised thematic framework, History in the Na­tional
Park Service: Themes and Concepts, offers eight themes and many subthemes that are use­ful
for developing historic contexts for specific properties ( NPS 1996). The historic context is
linked to an individual property by property types— groupings of individual properties that have
shared physical characteristics or associations. Property types are discussed in Chapter 3. To make
the connection between specific archaeological resources and the property types identified in the
historic context, Donald Hardesty ( 1988) developed the concept of “ feature system,” a cluster of
archaeological features that are the products of an identifiable process or activity. This approach
focuses the evaluation effort on historically significant units.
To be eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D, a property must contain information that can
contribute to our understanding of some aspect of human history and the information must be con­sidered
important. Chapter 4 contains research themes and associated questions that can be ap­plied
to specific property types. The importance of a good research design and interdisciplinary
research cannot be overstated. The need for integrated and holistic approaches to site- specific re-search
has proven to be a key tool in reaching defensible arguments regarding eligibility.
Archaeological facts are not intrinsically valuable; they achieve importance in relation to their
ability to advance our understanding of human history. We can define what constitutes important
information by reviewing current scholarship in disciplines such as history, geography, anthropol­ogy,
and archaeology. As change in research orientation is a normal part of social science, impor-tant
issues are moving targets that must be frequently reassessed. We recommend that historical
archaeologists consider both the scientific and humanistic contributions of the discipline as they
design and conduct their work. Some questions have definitive answers, such as those designed
to gather baseline information about the structure, content, and integrity of a property. Some ques­tions
will have less conclusive or quantifiable answers, as they are designed to help incrementally
reveal large- scale historical and cultural processes significant or important in our history. Individ-ual
properties often contribute by illustrating how a diversity of processes played out in specific
contexts, deepening our understanding of their effects on Californians in the past.
4
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 1. Introduction
Furthermore, an archaeological site must be able to convey its significance to those for whom it
has value. In the case of Criterion D, these are scholars and others who may seek to use the infor-mation
the site contains. The ability of a property to convey this information is measured by as-sessing
its integrity. The appraisal of integrity accompanies an assessment of significance: signif-icance
+ integrity = eligibility. This topic is discussed in Chapter 5.
Applying the NRHP criteria for evaluation is a complex undertaking. It requires that researchers
follow a set process and understand certain professional standards and practices. The National
Register Bulletin series is an essential reference. Of particular importance are Bulletin 15 How
to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation ( NPS 1991) and Bulletin 36 Guidelines
for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties ( Little and Siebert 2000). Bulletin 42
Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering Historic Mining Properties offers addi-tional
useful information ( Noble and Spude 1997). All are available online at http:// www. cr. nps.
gov/ nr. Donald Hardesty and Barbara Little’s book Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Ar­chaeologists
and Historians ( 2000) offers practical advice and many informative case studies.
The California Register of Historical Resources
The eligibility criteria for the California Register of Historical Resources ( CRHR) closely fol-low
those of the NRHP ( e. g., NRHP Criterion A = CRHR Criterion 1 and so forth), although some
properties that are ineligible for listing in the NRHP may qualify for the CRHR ( Office of His­toric
Preservation [ OHP] 2001: ii). The Caltrans series of research designs may be used to help
evaluate properties’ eligibility to the CRHR for the purposes of complying with the Cali­fornia
Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) within the requirements of the CRHR’s implementing regu-lations
at California Code of Regulation ( CCR) Section 4850 et seq. Again, this research design
focuses on assessing information value, which corresponds to CRHR Criterion 4.
Research Designs in Urban Archaeology
Many of the research questions developed for cities apply equally well to towns because both are
occupied by people living in domestic units. An important area of study for historical archaeolo-gists
is, in fact, assessing the differences in material culture between residents of the country-side,
towns, and cities. There is a great deal of overlap between the agriculture, townsites, min-ing
sites, and work camps research designs in the areas of domestic remains and the archaeology
of infrastructure. Table 1 at the end of this chapter guides the reader to the research design that is
most relevant for their property type. Not all property types or contexts are covered in this series.
There have been several attempts to encourage the creation of integrated historical archaeological
research designs for American towns and cities. The most significant was the NPS Resource Pro-tection
Planning Process ( RP3). Devised in response to the rate of urban renewal in the 1970s, RP3
encouraged state and federal agencies to organize cultural resource information into a frame­work
that advanced both scholarly research and addressed the concerns of urban planners. Nation­ally,
RP3 lead to the construction of research designs for several cities including Alex­an­dria,
Vir­ginia;
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Charleston, West Virginia. In 1979, the city of Sac­ramento
worked
with archaeologist Peter Schulz and historian Marvin Brienes to create a series of research de-signs
for redevelopment blocks in the city’s downtown ( Brienes et al. 1981) based on the archi-val
research of a team of historians led by Joseph McGowan ( McGowan et al. 1979). Later, in
5
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 1. Introduction
the early 1980s as part of the RP3 process, the California OHP sponsored a series of workshops
with the goal of developing statewide and regional research designs or research priorities. Never-theless,
in California there were few practical outcomes of the RP3 planning effort.
Historical archaeological research designs continued to be oriented toward individual sites rather
than urban areas in general. Exceptions tended to concern larger undertakings such as the con-struction
of reservoirs, for example, Lake Sonoma ( Greenwood et al. 1980), and urban renewal
projects from San Diego to Sacramento. In 1986, the Society for Historical Archaeology’s Com-mittee
for City Archaeology commissioned a survey of the status of urban archaeology. Thirty-three
towns and cities across the United States and Canada were represented ( Cressey et al. 1986).
After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, research designs were written in connection with the re-placement
of the freeway system in San Francisco ( Praetzellis and Praetzellis 1993) and Oakland
( Praetzellis 1994).
These early research designs anticipated that historical archaeology would develop a continuity
of approach and that the RP3 process would assist the evolution of cultural resource management
( CRM) practice from a series of ad hoc undertakings into an articulated system whereby practi-tioners
would investigate important issues and create products of lasting public benefit. This doc-ument
is a step in that direction.
Using this Document for Section 106 Consultation
Caltrans’ ultimate goal in producing this document is to streamline eligibility determination con-sultations
with the SHPO under Section 106. To that end, researchers are encouraged to cite rel-evant
sections of this document and apply specific research questions that relate to the townsite
property being evaluated.
California SHPO staff reviewed early drafts of this study, commented on its fundamental scope,
and find it provides useful guidance when assessing information values of townsite historical ar-chaeological
sites. However, as with all guidance, the SHPO staff will review individual submit-tals
for appropriate application of research questions and recommended methods. The researcher
must explain how the selected research questions apply to the site being evaluated, that is, what
information is contained within the individual site and why it is important. Other theoretical ori-entations,
research issues, or individual research questions not discussed herein may be identi-fied
as relevant to the site under study. If so, they would require further development for SHPO
consultation.
Index to Studies
Table 1 provides an index to many of the property types that appear in the thematic studies series
Caltrans is producing. A “ 1” in the table indicates the thematic study or studies where this prop-erty
type is primarily discussed and the appropriate volume to turn to for research. A “ 2” indicates
a secondary discourse, where a property type is discussed but perhaps to a lesser degree. As of
the publishing of this townsites study, the work camps thematic study is in draft form.
6
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 1. Introduction
Table 1. Index to Property Types in Thematic Studies.
Property Type Category Property Subtype Agriculture Mining Townsites Work
Camps
Residential structure house ( e. g., basement, cellar) 1 2 1 2
boardinghouse – 2 1 –
hotel – 2 1 –
bunkhouse 1 2 – 1
lean- to/ tent – 2 – 1
improvised ( e. g., boxcar,
dugout)
– 2 – 1
Vertical interfaces, hollow- filled
features: artifact caches ( domes-tic,
business, industrial)
privy, pit, well 1 2 1 2
Horizontal interfaces, fill layers:
artifact accumulation ( domestic,
business, industrial)
sheet refuse 1 2 1 1
Gardens, yards, landscapes
( private)
1 1 1 2
Activity buildings/ structures line camp – – – 1
shed 1 2 – 1
blacksmith shop 1 2 1 2
barn 1 – 2 1
corral 1 2 2 1
stable 1 2 2 –
bake oven/ outdoor kitchen 1 1 – 2
Placer tailing piles – 1 – –
Cut banks, channels, tailings – 1 – –
River diversions – 1 – –
Dredge tailings – 1 – –
Equipment mounts/ foundations – 1 – 2
Head frames ( collapsed) – 1 – –
Adits and tailings – 1 – –
Retaining walls/ platforms – 1 2 2
Tramways/ tracks – 1 – 2
Prospect pits and surface vein
working
– 1 – –
Waste rock piles – 1 – –
Shafts and adits – 1 – –
Underground workings – 1 – –
Open pit mines – 1 – –
Ore processing industrial
structures/ buildings
arrastra, foundation, pad, ma-chine
mount
– 1 – –
Ore processing tailings – 1 – –
Transportation, private ( activity
specific)
road, trail, railway – 2 2 2
Transportation, intra- site road, trail, railway – 2 2 2
Transportation, extra- site – 2 2 2
Water conveyance systems,
intra- site
ditch, drain, containment – 1 – 2
Electrical utilities generation and transmission
feature
– 2 – 2
7
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 1. Introduction
Property Type Category Property Subtype Agriculture Mining Townsites Work
Camps
Public infrastructure building school, church, hospital – – 1 2
office, dining hall, cookhouse,
showers, bunkhouse
2 2 2 1
Refuse dumps ( municipal, not
household/ activity specific)
– – 1 1
Townsite creation features fill, levee, terrace, waterway – – 1 –
Townsite infrastructure features sewer, water, electricity, natu-ral
gas
– – 1 –
Industrial buildings/ structures forge, casting floor – 1 1 2
Industrial processes by- products waster, raw materials, refuse – 2 1 2
Mercantile building store, shop, warehouse – 2 1 –
Mercantile activities merchandise/ stock – 2 1 –
Service business building/ structure laundry boiler/ drying rack – – 1 –
( Note: 1 indicates the highest applicability of a study to a property type; 2 indicates secondary applicability of a
study to a property type).
8
9
Chapter 2: Historic Context
From the founding of this nation until the present, towns have been central to the formation of
a democratic society. The creation of towns was fundamental to the establishment of California
as a state in 1850 and to fostering a civil society. Not everyone benefited from the creation of
towns, particularly Native Americans and Mexican land grantees, but towns provided jobs, edu-cation,
social and religious institutions, and housing. California’s early settlements were, in part,
products of capitalism and resource exploitation, many created during the halcyon years of the
California gold rush. The state’s rapid population and economic expansion would not have been
possible without the gold rush, the discovery of silver on the Comstock Lode, offers of cheap land,
and later exploitation of forest resources, fisheries, oil, and cultivation of agricultural products
( Walker 2001a).
Given the number and diversity of towns spread across California’s vast landscape, discussing in
detail each town would be impractical. The intent of this historic context is to define important
themes in the development of California towns, to help foster a better understanding of the char-acteristics
that shaped many of these communities, and provide the basis in which to pose mean-ingful
research questions based upon town- related historical archaeological properties.
The definition of a town is perhaps less important than the characteristics that shape its identity.
Over time, however, the definition of what constitutes a town has changed. Used more generally
in the 19th century, authors applied the term “ town” to areas of various size and population and
later to incorporated areas with various population concentrations ( Figure 1). California’s origi-nal
1850 incorporation law defined towns as settlements of over 200 citizens, and 2,000 residents
or more represented a city ( Quebedeaux 1992: 15– 16). A simple, current definition of a town is
“ an urban area with a fixed boundary that is smaller than a city” ( Cognitive Science Laboratory
2008) 1. Townships, not to be confused with towns, are administrative boundaries or divisions of
a county. For the purposes of this historic context, towns are synonymous with communities, cit-ies,
and in some cases metropolitan areas, but only in the abstract in that cities or metropolitan
areas may once have begun as towns. Communities, on the other hand, reflect the interaction be-tween
cultures, events, and infrastructure integral to towns, cities, and metropolitan areas. Where
differences exist, this study has attempted to explain those differences, particularly as they relate
to culture, politics, economy, and infrastructure.
Prior to and after the establishment of statehood, many viewed California as a “ frontier,” ripe for
expansion and colonization. As the cultural landscape evolved over time and as human activity
changed, towns gained complexity and acquired certain characteristics or layers of meaning that
can be interpreted through historical, archaeological, geographical, and sociological study. Towns
are, foremost, living landscapes that evolve as the culture, climate, economy, and natural sur-roundings
change within and around them. The character of a town thus reflects the values
1 A town has also been defined as those “ people living in a municipality smaller than a city” ( Cognitive Science Lab­oratory
2008), and Webster’s Dictionary defines a town as “ any collection of houses larger than a village and not
incorporated as a city” ( C. & G. Merriam Co. 2008). The U. S. Bureau of the Census currently defines a town as
a “ place,” consisting of “ a concentration of population either legally bounded as an incorporated place or delineated
for statistical purposes as a census designated place.” Furthermore, the U. S. Bureau of the Census defines an “ incor-porated
place” as a type of governmental unit, incorporated under state law as a city, city and borough, municipality,
town, or village that has legally prescribed limits, powers, and functions ( Redistricting U. S. Census 2000- Glossary,
http:// www. census. gov/ dmd/ www/ glossary. html ( accessed 5/ 24/ 2010).
10
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
shared by the occupants who have
shaped it and those who continue to
reside within it. Whether formally or
informally, towns can expand or con-tract
as do populations living within
them.
Each town has its own sense of place
or identity. Defining that sense of
place may be both physical and meta-physical,
as human experience tends
to shape a person’s frame of mind.
In essence, measuring degrees of
adaptation, acculturation, assimila-tion,
and social change is in large part
based upon human experience rather
than statistical data. John B. Jack-son
( 1984: xxi) argued that the com-monplace
aspects of the historic or
contemporary landscape, “ the streets,
houses, fields and places of work, can
tell us a great deal about history and
society; about how we see ourselves
and how we relate to the world.”
Towns reflect migration and settlement patterns, cultural diversity, creative arts, and cultural ex-pression.
While not all towns are composed of similar populations or share a common heritage,
each town has its own identity expressed most often in its architecture and culture.
Historical literature and photographs indicate that California’s towns share many common ele-ments
that give a community its own particular character. In the past, most towns included a city
or town hall, post office, hotel, various retail stores or businesses, a residential district, and mu-nicipal
services, such as police, fire, roads, sewer, and water. Collectively, these elements created
a sense of community and provided services necessary for commerce, trade, safety, and public
health.
The architectural heritage of towns is particularly compelling. Commercial downtowns, or busi-ness
districts, and residential neighborhoods may reveal levels of prosperity and also class sta-tus
and ethnicity. Because commercial downtown districts evolve, often expanding but sometimes
contracting over time, understanding the causal events that led to these changes is essential in
exploring a town’s historic context and formulating research questions that have substance and
merit. Similarly, residential districts may reveal class status, changes in aesthetics and taste, and per-haps
ethnicity. Additions or alterations to buildings, structures, and objects often reveal changes
in popular culture, the availability of new products, and the prevailing economic conditions over
time.
California’s towns as a whole largely reflect two different schemes. The first is a designed com-munity
or designed landscape that includes parks and streets generally formed by even grids. The
second is an organic or vernacular landscape defined by the local environment, social, and eco-nomic
imperatives. For example, many towns in California’s relatively flat Central Valley reflect
Figure 1. Looking northeast at Volcano, Amador County, 1866.
Note how the gold placer mines surround the gold rush– era town
and intrude along its borders ( Thomas Houseworth Stereoview, Li­brary
of Congress, Washington, D. C.).
11
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
designed landscapes having uniform grids and standard lot sizes. In contrast, foothill or moun-tainous
communities relied upon the natural environment or topography for the town’s layout,
and towns were often created through a singular event, such as the discovery of gold or other
precious metals.
The study of cultural landscapes and geography is useful for interpreting the history of towns.
According to Wagner and Mikesell ( 1962) in Readings in Cultural Geography, the discipline of
cultural geography has five interconnected themes: culture, culture area, cultural landscape, cul-ture
history, and culture ecology. The themes focus on features imposed upon or created from
the natural landscape that assist in the investigation of human communities, in this case towns
( Figure 2). The theme of cultural landscapes, in particular, focuses on the appearance of areas,
assemblages of objects, and the areas themselves ( Wagner and Mikesell 1962; Johnston et al.
1994). Cultural landscapes may be divided into sublandscapes that may include ethnic zones.
For example, the “ Doctrine of First Effective Settlement,” in general, posits that the first ethnic
group to sustain a viable self- perpetuating settlement in an area establishes characteristics of cru-cial
significance for the later social and cultural geography of the area or community ( Conzen
1994: 245). This principle seems to have held from the post– gold rush era through the mid- 20th
century; however, since World War II, demographic shifts have occurred in many metropolitan areas
across California, and none so abruptly as the Los Angeles Basin. Ethnic zones may be commu-nities
within a larger city, as demonstrated by “ Chinatowns” or “ Japantowns.” In other situations,
they may constitute ethnic enclaves or neighborhoods surrounded by other groups, as is the case
of Chicanos in the barrios of Los Angeles.
During the California gold rush, the wide variety of cultural groups and mixed classes created a
more fluid society where racial status did not always dictate success. As historian Daniel Corn­ford
( 1995: 2) aptly noted, California’s “ working people who were hidden from history were not
merely victims of inexorable forces, but were important actors who found various ways of exert-ing
countervailing power to protect their interests— and in doing so profoundly shaped the his-tory
of California.” Whether in cities or farms, how working- class Californians achieved finan-cial
independence, shaped the character of communities, and established political alliances are
critical to understanding the history of towns.
There is no singular publication that summarizes the evolution of California’s diverse towns, but
there are numerous published and unpublished studies that document the evolution of particular
towns or provide information needed to interpret the causal agents that led to the development of
multiple towns or regions.
Setlement and the Formation of Towns
There were many determinants for the creation and sustained development of towns in California.
Besides economics, sociocultural values, military fortifications, and transportation, topography,
climate, and geology were critical factors in town development. Many of the towns that formed
during the mid- to- late- 19th century in California remained small through the early- 20th century,
but ultimately many grew into major metropolitan areas such as Los Angeles, Riverside, San
Bernardino, Fresno, Bakersfield, and San Jose owing to a combination of diversified economies,
access to transportation facilities, and progressive local governments.
12
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
While some towns expanded, others remained stagnant, declined, or disappeared altogether.
Calico, for instance, was never able to reinvent itself and overcome the waning mining indus-try
in south­ern
California. Similarly, mining communities such as Coloma in El Dorado County
and Colum­bia
in Tuolumne County diminished in population and political importance but sur-vived
with a small population ( Coke 1968). Similar contractions occurred in the San Joaquin Val-ley
because of declining markets for agricultural products. Indeed, the decline of the mining
industry signaled the end of many communities— particularly in the principal mining districts
in California. In California’s Central Valley, towns stagnated or declined in population, while
Figure 2. Map of California and Nevada, 1874. This early geological/ topographical map clearly depicts
the state’s diverse geomorphology and settlement patterns ( Courtesy of David Rumsey Historical Map
Collection).
13
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
others, such as Tulare ( Figure 3) emerged with the construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad.
To the south, Bakersfield established itself as an agricultural center and the gateway between
the San Joaquin Valley and southern California, adding to its consumer base ( Bailey 1984). Still
other towns found themselves bypassed by that most vital 19th- century town- building factor, the
railroad. In the San Joaquin Valley, for instance, Knight’s Ferry was the seat of Stanislaus County
until the Central Pacific established a depot at Modesto and that became the county seat ( Tin-kham
1921: 91– 94; Elias 1924: 44– 45).
The advent of the automobile and the development of tourism in the late- 19th and early- 20th cen-turies
revived the fortunes of a few towns and resulted in the creation of new towns, as was the
case throughout much of southern California ( Figure 4). To the north, towns like Redding bene-fited
from tourism with the crea­tion
of Lassen Volcanic National Park in 1914 and, in later years,
with the open­ing
of Shasta Dam and Reservoir. The town was en route to the park and was there-fore
ideally located to receive, house, and feed overnight travelers. Its tourism economy received
a further boost with the development of Shasta Lake ( Lawson 1986: 99– 102). Communities along the
Sacramento- San Joaquin River Delta likewise experienced a resurgence linked to the growth of
auto- tourism. The Delta had long been a popular destination for steamboat travelers on the river.
Once automobiles became more prevalent and roads were improved, the Delta could be visited
for the afternoon or for weekend camping. Places such as Rio Vista clearly benefited from this
traffic in the 1910s, attracting visitors to its Annual Horse Show and Water Carnival. In south-ern
California, the automobile was a particularly important and pervasive seed of change. The
Southern California Automobile Association frequently sponsored road improvements, auto- tour
events, and promoted local and regional growth.
Electrification improved the overall quality of life for residents, making the nighttime streets
safer, facilitating the development of evening social activities, as well as providing the means
for more intra- urban travel.
Similarly, improved commu-nication
through the telegraph
and later the telephone revolu-tionized
the way people com-municated
with one another.
These technological and eco-nomic
changes at the turn of
the 20th century had politi-cal
ramifications as the mid-dle
class— the group that in
many ways had benefited from
urban growth— led the way
in reshaping how cities func-tioned
politically and how
they served their residents.
From the 1890s onward, many
towns became more progres-sive
in an effort to address
growing concerns for crime,
sanitation, and fire ( Chudacoff
2005: 176– 201).
Figure 3. Tulare in the late 1870s. Looking west at the new town towards
the Southern Pacific Valley Railroad Depot. Note the flat landscape, uni­formly
gridded streets, newly constructed buildings, and numerous platted
vacant lots ( Courtesy of San Joaquin Valley Library System).
14
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
During the early 1900s, communities sought political incorporation as a means of obtaining state
monies to create an urban infrastructure that could provide a more amenable environment for
commercial and residential development. Towns that secured this political status and made in-vestments
in their infrastructure often continued to grow into the 20th century.
Geomorphic Regions and the Setlement of Towns
For the purposes of this study, geomorphology refers to the study of landforms, their classifica-tion,
origin, development, and history. California has a wide variety of landforms that make up
a particular region or province, such as the San Joaquin and Sacramento valleys. Geomorphic
provinces have unique but oftentimes overlapping features due to hydrologic systems that cross
regional boundaries and mountain ranges that span large sections of the state. Notwithstand-ing
the role of gold and other natural resources in the establishment of towns, climate, soils, and
proximity to water played an equally important role as much of California’s late- 19th- century
economy centered on agriculture.
As previously noted, geomorphology played an important part in the formation of towns, the sur-vival
of towns, and the types of industries associated with towns. For the purposes of this study,
California has been divided into nine broadly defined geomorphic provinces ( Figure 5):
• Northern Province ( encompassing the Klamath and Cascade mountains)
• Sierra Nevada
• Central Coast Ranges
• North Coast Ranges
Figure 4. Yorba Linda Hardware Store and Red Crown Gas Station, 1918. Early- day gas stations like the
one in this photograph provided a valuable service to local communities as well as visitors en route to vari­ous
destinations. Note the combination gas station and hardware store ( Courtesy of Yorba Linda Public Li­brary,
Yorba Linda).
15
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
Figure 5. Geomorphic Regions of California ( Compiled by Caltrans from Beck and Haase 1974; Schoenherr
1992; and Johnston 2003).
16
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
• Sacramento Valley
• San Joaquin Valley ( includes the Delta region)
• South Coast ( encompassing the Transverse and Peninsular ranges)
• South Desert ( encompassing the Mojave and Colorado deserts)
• Great Basin Desert ( encompassing the Modoc Plateau and Basin and Range Province)
A Mediterranean climate with wet winters and long dry summers generally characterizes Cali-fornia.
The various mountain ranges influence weather patterns with as much as 80 inches of
rain falling on the western slope and considerably less on the eastern slope; a “ rain shadow” af-fects
the entire eastern slope and contributes to the conditions that created the Great Basin. Much
of California is arid and meets the technical definition of desert, receiving less than 10 inches of
rain per year ( Schoenherr et al. 1999). Those portions of the state lying east of the Cascades, Si-erra
Nevada, Transverse, and Peninsular ranges, as well as the southern end of the San Joaquin
Valley, meet this definition.
A wide variety of geomorphologic characteristics defines California’s diverse landscape. Geog-rapher
Allen R. Eigenheer ( 1976) theorized that settlers used the following criteria to judge the
relative value of a particular area and whether the area was suitable for settlement, principally for
agricultural purposes:
• Physical features of the landscape
• The adaptability of crops to an unfamiliar climate
• The availability of free or cheap land
• Accessibility of the area to potential markets for commerce and trade
• Availability of a reliable supply of water
Soils and landforms were important factors in deciding the locations of towns ( see Figure 5).
Town development was associated with physical and visual characteristics, particularly the per-ceived
similarity of certain provinces in California to a particular homeland, such as Italy, the
Azores, or Mexico. For example, the northern Coast Range in Sonoma County shared many
characteristics with northern Italy, hence Italians from the provinces of Genoa and Tuscany set-tled
in Sonoma County. Similarly, Azoreans settled in large numbers along the central coast,
particularly in the Monterey region, and Armenians settled in the Fresno area ( Santos 1995).
This pattern of selective settlement does not pertain to every immigrant group that settled in
California. For many, friends and family members encouraged settlement in a particular locale
or region. In other cases, investors purchased large tracts of land and made unrealistic predic-tions
of natural conditions. In order to attract developers and home seekers, local governments
through their chambers of commerce frequently embellished the advantages of their respective
communities.
The formation of towns was also dependent upon a reliable source of domestic water, whether
through rainfall, internal sources within the town such as natural aquifers, wells, or holding
tanks, or through external means such as water conveyance systems. In order to provide a con-sistent
supply of water, elevated water towers and water impoundments, such as dams and reser-voirs,
were constructed. Passage of the Wright Act in 1887, enabled the formation of local water
districts, and by the first two decades of the 20th century, most communities throughout much of
17
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
California’s Central and Imperial valleys were receiving water ( JRP Historical Consulting Ser-vices
and Caltrans ( 2000: 14). In 1913, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power diverted
the lower Owens River to the Los Angeles aqueduct, creating one of California’s most impor-tant
and controversial water enterprises: the Owens Valley Irrigation Project. The ensuing Owens
Valley– Los Angeles Aqueduct undertakings resulted in the distribution of water to southern Cali-fornia,
including the city of Los Angeles. The net result of these major water projects was to fos-ter
both agricultural and townsite development after 1920.
In summary, California’s diverse geomorphology influenced the establishment and location of
towns in California. Topography, climate, soils, and hydrologic systems together played a part in
determining the layout of towns and ultimately their role in the state’s economy. Similarly, envi-ronmental
factors influenced public health issues. For example, low- lying areas with sustained
summer heat attracted mosquitoes and led to outbreaks of malaria, particularly in the southern
San Joaquin Valley. Ironically, the state’s natural resources that once appeared to be unlimited
under certain conditions had real limitations. Droughts, floods, changing groundwater tables, and
human intervention such as the construction of dams, canals, and reservoirs, all affected the scale
and character of California’s towns.
Land Acquisition, the Formation of Local Governments, and the
Setlement of Towns
Colonization of California came quickly following the discovery of gold in 1848. The process to
create towns was ambiguous because land laws relating to townsite creation were vague. Most
gold rush– era towns were created through preemptive settlement on lands in the public domain.
During the latter half of the 19th century, towns developed around existing industries, were ac-quired
by direct purchase from private parties, donation, or through the variety of land- disposal
methods established by the state and federal government.
Until 1858, California had no state- administered land sales because local governments generally
handled land transactions. Conflicts often arose when the state granted applicants lands through
warrants on lands not surveyed. Due to these conflicts this method was declared illegal in 1863,
and the old system of granting title to lands was nullified. After 1866, federal law deemed that
land titles were granted following formal surveys and verification that the land in question was
not already under title. This policy, declared illegal in 1863, along with an 1866 federal law,
averted the problem that confirmed titles granted by the state in cases of dual grants ( Liebman
1983: 21). The most corrupt sales were associated with swamp and school lieu lands, which the
office of the State Surveyor General poorly administered. In many cases, unscrupulous attorneys
used dummy buyers to help them in acquiring large tracts of land. The fact that 516 individu-als,
including companies and corporations, had holdings over 5,000 acres in size, which covered
roughly 8.7 million acres by the 1870s, attests to the dramatic land monopolization that occurred
during the mid- 19th century in California ( Liebman 1983: 22).
California had eight primary methods of federal land disposal during the latter part of the 19th and
first half of the 20th century. They included cash land sales, homesteads, Desert Land Act entries,
Timber and Stone Act entries, scrip or lieu, mineral entries, Timber Culture Act entries, and rail-road
grants. The Preemption Act of 1841, enacted for the settlement of western lands, allowed
for cash sales and became the primary method of land acquisition during the 19th century. Scrip
and lieu included military bounty warrants, such as those issued after the Civil War, agricultural
18
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
college scrip, Valentine scrip, Sioux Indian scrip, etc. Through military bounty bills, assignable
warrants could be provided to any soldier, or his heirs, who had served a minimum of 9 days in
any war after 1790 or in the Revolutionary War. Speculators later purchased many of the war-rants
and used them to acquire land in the West. Exploiting various types of scrip to acquire land
in California also occurred, while the Forest Lieu Land Act of 1897 assisted in the privatization
of the state’s valuable timberland ( Coggins et al. 1993). In private hands, timberlands could be
later subdivided and, if desired, towns could be platted.
The federal government enacted a number of laws granting lands to aid railroad construction be­tween
1850 and 1871. The allocated sections were alternating, odd- numbered, and within 20 miles
of the side of a road. In addition, the grant generally exempted all previously disposed of land.
Selling excess land occurred within 3 years after the construction of the Transcontinental Rail­road.
By 1958, California had disposed of 38,784,000 acres of federal land ( Liebman 1983: 30).
In the case of towns and cities, there was minimal governmental or legal guidance for subdivi-sion
and town lot sales in California from the mid- 19th century to the early- 20th century. Federal
law, embodied in the Townsite Act of 1867 ( 14 Stat. 541), established some rules and direction
for filing surveys and town plats with the General Land Office and the subsequent subdivision
and sale of town lots. These, however, applied only to federal ( public) land. Holders of rancho
grants ( private lands) interested in creating unincorporated towns ( i. e., not chartered by the state
legislature) were bound by no laws. The first statewide law dealing with subdivision maps and
city and town plats for land sales was enacted in 1893 ( California Stats. 1893, ch. 80). In 1927,
the legislature adopted the first Planning Act, authorizing cities and counties to develop mas-ter
plans ( California Stats. 1927, ch. 874). As a consequence of the act, there was wide variation
in how towns prior to 1893 were laid out and how land and land use were defined within towns
prior to 1927. In addition to platting townsites, towns were granted specific authorities through
fed­eral
and state laws. Those laws governed a town’s authority to construct, maintain, and oper-ate
businesses and industries ( Figure 6). Act 2335 ( approved March 28, 1868, Stats. 1867– 1868,
p. 487; amended 1871– 1872) gave municipal governments and incorporated towns the authority
Figure 6. Early view of San Francisco, 1849 ( Courtesy of The Bancroft Library, University of Califor­nia,
Berkeley).
19
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
to execute certain trusts in relationship to town lands ( Deering 1909: 648), which led to the estab-lishment
of official townsites enabling municipalities to collect taxes, develop infrastructure, and
establish laws and regulations that benefited the community. A similar act in 1891, Act 2337, al-lowed
towns and cities to acquire by purchase, gift, or condemnation, water, water rights, reser-voir
sites, etc. ( Deering 1909: 648). In the next few years, other acts provided for cities or towns
to let contracts for lighting streets, planting and caring for shade ( street) trees, constructing mu-nicipal
hospitals, and licensing bicycles, etc. ( Deering 1909: 649). Today, a combination of laws,
regulations, and authorities forms a city’s municipal codes and guides the city manager in mak-ing
decisions that influence virtually every aspect of the daily life of its citizens.
While most of the following discus-sion
has focused on towns, county gov-ernment
was sometimes intermingled
with local government. One example
is Mariposa County, where there are
no incorporated towns. Mariposa is
the county seat and the county admin-isters
the affairs of the community of
Mariposa, as they do other towns in
the county ( Figure 7). Mariposa is also
unique in that the land where the town
was platted was once owned by a single
individual, namely John C. Frémont.
Frémont acquired the land where the
townsite is located through a Mexican
land grant. Legal title or fee simple ti-tle
to lots did not occur until years after
Mariposa was settled and developed.
Setlement History by Region
California’s settlement patterns leading to the creation of towns were as much a product of natu-ral
forces as politics, laws, regulations, and cultural influences. From the first decade of the 17th
century until almost the middle of the 19th century, the Spanish and Mexican governments pur-sued
a policy of town development in the northern borderlands of the Spanish colonial empire in
the New World. The Spanish colonial government planted the first nucleus of European Ameri-can
settlement in San Diego in 1769, and over the next six decades established 20 more missions
to colonize the native population. Their efforts laid the foundations for some of the largest cities
in California— Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Jose. Smaller historically important frontier
communities, such as Monterey and Sonoma, came into existence when groups of settlers near the
presidios and pueblos sought recognition for town settlements that remained under military juris-diction.
The Spanish and Mexican provincial governments introduced the pattern of grid streets
with main buildings facing a central plaza and reservation of common land around the town— a
pattern that had already governed Spanish colonial urban design for more than 400 years. Other
California towns began when the missions were secularized and former mission properties were
redesigned with gridded streets and blocks, such as San Luis Rey, San Juan Capistrano, San Luis
Obispo, Santa Clara, and others ( Weber 1982; Cruz 1988; Cutter and Engstrand 1996).
Figure 7. View looking north at the town of Mariposa, circa
1860 ( Courtesy of San Joaquin Valley Library System).
20
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
From San Diego in the south to Sonoma in the north, the great mission trail known as El Ca­mino
Real laid the cornerstone for Hispanic civic communities and solidified Spanish control
over most of California’s shoreline. Monterey and Los Angeles were the cultural centers, and San
Francisco, then known as Yerba Buena, was only a small hamlet of a few hundred people. In the
1830s, inland from the string of coastal settle­ments,
were vast open stretches of Native Amer­ican
lands. Various Native American tribal groups still controlled the lower Sacramento Valley and
adjacent foothills and mountains to the east, but their world had been fragmented by Mexican,
British, and American influences and their control weakened by diseases and invasion of foreign
plants, animals, and trade goods. Sutter’s Fort, a provisioning point for American explorers and
settlers, constituted the first interior townsite in Mexican California ( Hurtado 1988: 14– 37; White
1994: 97– 106; Eifler 2002: 19– 32).
Northern Province
The Northern Province includes the Klamath and Cascade mountains, and the Modoc Plateau
is part of the Great Basin Desert. The Klamath Mountains in the northwest corner of the state
have peaks ranging from 5,000 to 7,000 feet in elevation, cut by the Smith, Klamath, and Trinity
rivers. Rainfall averages 140 inches per year along the coast, contributing to the large and sce-nic
river systems. Dense stands of Douglas fir, as well as a wide variety of other economically
valuable tree species, dominate the landscape. The Cascades lie farther to the east and form the
southernmost extension of the range running from Washington though Oregon. Active volcanoes,
Shasta and Lassen, are prominent peaks in this mountain chain ( Schoenherr 1992: 5– 6).
Trappers had explored the northern reaches of the state, and settlers had passed through on their
way to Oregon, however, there were no Euroamerican towns in the Northern Province prior to the
gold rush. Pierson B. Reading’s discovery of gold in the Trinity Mountains in 1849 resulted in an
influx of miners. The economic draw of gold and then lumber created a need for towns to support
northern California’s growing population ( Moehring 2004: 1– 5). Because most of the far- flung
northern California towns rose instantly as a by- product of gold rush booms, there was a corre-spondingly
large failure rate when the bust cycle followed.
In 1850, the California state legislature apportioned the state into 27 counties. The legislature
made the northern section of the state— east of the summit of the Coast Range and north of Col­usa
and Butte counties— into one immense territorial division, known as Shasta County. The
sheer size of the local governmental unit made it unmanageable and of little utility to the citizens
residing therein. Shasta County eventually became five California counties: Siskiyou, Tehama,
Lassen, Modoc, and Shasta. Smaller counties brought legal structure and stability to the frag-mented
region and their county seats— Yreka ( 1851) 2; Shasta ( 1850) and later Redding ( 1872);
Tehama ( 1850) and soon thereafter Red Bluff ( 1850); Susanville ( 1853); and Alturas ( 1874),
respectively— benefited. These communities became centers of trade, finance, and business for
their region, as they were often located near waterways and overland transportation routes ( Wells
1881: 64– 67; Coy 1923: 250– 252).
As in other areas of the state, the rush of miners provided the first great impetus towards devel-opment
of roads, the growth of freighting and express companies, and the emergence of stage-coach
systems and the wayside stations, stables, hotels, blacksmith shops, grain and hay farms,
and other service industries that supported such transportation networks ( Figure 8). Settlements
2 Number in parentheses following town indicates year of founding.
21
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
established at the crossroads of major trade routes with a diversified hinterland were the most likely
survivors, and several of these places became the most successful towns of the region. The devel-opment
of interregional transportation routes, from the northern Sacramento Valley fanning out
to the north coast of California, southern Oregon, and east to the Modoc Plateau and upper Kla-math
River country, solidified the permanence of towns along these routes of travel and commerce.
A second, but more sustained resource of the Northern Province was lumber. Demand for lumber
for mining, town construction, and building the city of San Fran­cisco
resulted in the development
of sawmills and oftentimes towns that surrounded the mill. The tim­ber
industry quickly became the
top manufacturing industry in the region. California lumber easily competed with imported white
pine from the East Coast, and by 1860, Siskiyou County alone had 30 sawmills, although most of
their product was used locally. Throughout this broad expanse of northern California, Sacramento
and San Francisco remained fundamental to the creation of trade networks, and local towns and
communities provided jobs, social interaction, and basic services for residents living in closer
physical proximity to specific industries, such as mining and logging.
Unlike the rest of the state, urbanization occurred slowly in extreme northern California because
there were fewer people and more circuitous roads and steep mountainous terrain. Many of the
small towns established by miners along the Trinity and Klamath rivers were transitory, lack-ing
the resources to survive the decline of mining. Yreka survived the decline in mining after the
mid- 1850s, and because of its strategic location, it became the center of trade between the upper
Sac­ramento
Valley and Oregon ( Wells 1881: 196– 200).
Sierra Nevada
Schoenherr ( 1992: 1) described the Sierra Nevada as “ the most conspicuous geographic feature
of the state of California.” This north- south- trending mountain range consists of granite blocks
Figure 8. Town of Shasta, 1860. Note the dirt street and swale to divert water from the
businesses, most of which appear to be brick and wood- frame with false fronts ( Courtesy
of The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley).
22
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
that have been uplifted by tectonic activity. The western side of the Sierra forms a gradually up-lifting
slope cut by many rivers, and a steep vertical drop of nearly 2 miles into the Owens Valley
characterizes the eastern side. The mountain range contributes to the “ rain shadow” effect that in-fluences
the entire state. The range includes 13 peaks that are higher than 14,000 feet, as well as
the Mother Lode region known for its gold mining. Higher elevations support coniferous forests
and alpine meadows that ranchers used for seasonal grazing and pasturage.
Gold mining in the Sierra Nevada had profound human and environmental impacts. Gold invested
the Sierra Nevada with a monetary value and meaning for capitalists, and the subsequent coloni-zation
of the mountains and foothills with mines, mining camps, and towns dispossessed the na-tive
population and reshaped the natural landscape. In just a few years, mining, logging, farming,
water development, and the town building that supported these industries brought American capi-talism
and industry to the region. Mining also brought together people of different ethnic back-grounds,
gave some their start to fame and fortune, and bankrupted many more. The generation
and distribution of mining capital stimulated growth and development but also contributed to the
exploitation of the environment by despoiling streams with mining debris, denuding the land-scape,
and leaving a legacy of toxic residue. The mining and logging industries, supported by
wealthy and powerful business interests in San Francisco, Sacramento, and other towns that ac-tively
promoted large- scale, capital- intensive economic development, relied upon the large immi-grant
workforce that was in the state by the 1860s. The gold rush era also laid the foundation for
the region’s modern economy, today relying heavily on tourism.
Virtually all the gold rush– era towns in the Sierra Nevada were configured around the natural to-pography.
Unlike valley towns that were gridded, towns in the Sierra Nevada were often built
along the banks of rivers, creeks, and gulches. The physiographic context of these towns is im-portant
to interpreting their cultural development.
Most of the towns of the Sierra Nevada began as fledgling mining camps during the gold rush
( circa 1848– 1855), characterized by hastily built log, tent, and frame cabins erected in an ad hoc
fashion. Many argonauts came to mine gold, but some realized that fortunes could be made by
supplying the miners with foodstuffs and provisions. Entrepreneurs built and operated boarding-houses,
saloons, hotels, or restaurants and provided entertainment and other goods and services
( Borthwick 1917). Standing buildings or structures associated with the first waves of miners are
few because almost every gold- mining town was destroyed by fire at some point in its early his-tory,
or in later years, the hastily built makeshift buildings were replaced with more substantial
structures, many built of brick and stone which were considered fireproof.
Each town had to develop its own commercial linkages and infrastructure to stock its merchants
and grocers and support the distribution of goods to mining camps while meeting the varied social
and economic needs of the district’s diverse mining population ( Figure 9). Remote mining towns,
such as Downieville along the Yuba River and mining camps along the Feather River, relied upon
muleteers and teamsters ferrying provisions to and from the region. Nonperishable products, such
as canned salmon, oysters, and corned beef, may have been more common in the remote mining
camps and show up more frequently in the archaeological record.
Mining supported an extensive list of non- mining occupations that included merchants, grocers,
livery- stable operators, blacksmiths, teamsters, carpenters, mechanics, woodcutters, assayers, sa-loon
and hotel or boardinghouse keepers, and usually a doctor, dentist, and attorney. Dance houses,
23
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
gambling saloons, and places of sexual commerce were commonplace in the towns of the gold-mining
districts. In the haste to build a town, many gold rush towns were laid out with narrow,
circuitous streets ( see Figure 9) that resulted in mini- firestorms when flames leaped from one
shake roof to another, oftentimes destroying entire business districts.
In the economic realm, mining towns were the meeting place for two streams of gold rush partic-ipants
with different orientations— miners, and merchants or speculators. Each was in search of
wealth, but the methods chosen to achieve it were quite different— one based on mineral resource
extraction, the other on acquiring these precious metals in exchange for food, mining equipment,
and a wide variety of consumer goods. Thus, town society was compelled to be responsive to the
miners’ ways and their diverse cultural and ethnic heritage, and miners largely shaped the cul-tural
and physical environment of gold rush communities ( Chan 1986: 389; Rohr­bough
1997: 152;
Johnson 2000).
The transition from individual to industrial mining created new demands. Mining claims were
absorbed into larger and better- capitalized industrial operations. Major hard rock and hydraulic
mines accounted for a greater percentage of gold production, but smaller mining operations still
contributed to the local economy. In addition to agents selling products such as mine machinery
directly from San Francisco factories to corporate mines, local merchants also sold basic mining
equipment along with foodstuffs, clothing, and other merchandise to local miners. The demand
for mining technology spurred the growth of local companies that produced mine machinery.
Figure 9. Dutch Flat, Placer County, 1866. Note the narrow streets that helped pre­cipitate
devastating fires that consumed entire commercial districts ( Thomas House­worth
Collection, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.).
24
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
Examples include the Knight Foundry ( 1873) in Sutter Creek and the Miners Foundry ( 1855) in
Nevada City.
The Sierra Nevada mining region was divided from north to south: the southern mines were south
of the Cosumnes River to Mariposa and the northern mines were north of the Cosumnes River
towards Downieville. Both mining regions had a diverse ethnic heritage, although the southern
mines included a disproportionate number of Latin American miners, primarily from northern
Mexico, Chile, and Peru. The southern mines also attracted large numbers of Italians and Chi-nese,
most of who were initially engaged in gold mining. After 1900, Serbians, Croatians, and
even Russians immigrated to the southern mines, such as those near Jackson, Amador County.
Many southern mining towns had their fandango dance hall, bull- and- bear rings, and other His-panic
cultural influences. The sheer number of communities formed in this region during the
California gold rush reflects the intensity of mining activity during those early years ( DuFault
1959: 155– 170; Monaghan 1973; Standart 1976: 333– 357).
While the main point of commerce and trade for the central and southern mines was Stockton,
the northern mines relied primarily on Sacramento, whose merchants acted as intermediaries be-tween
San Francisco capitalists, speculators, and commodities traders and the Sierra storekeep-ers
and miners. Before individuals with access to capital and goods established permanent town-sites,
the geography of trade and the flow of goods were fluid— sometimes shifting rapidly as the
prominence of river- bar mining camps and the importance of emerging towns changed. Sacra-mento’s
sphere of trade put a vast region under the control of its merchants and entrepreneurs.
The region extended roughly from the town of Auburn, located at the confluence of the Middle
and North Forks of the American River in Placer County on the north, to the town of Jackson in
southern Amador County on the south. The towns in between, which formed the core of the cen-tral
mining district, linked Sacramento by a network of roads running east to west and branch-ing
out into the foothills; the principal routes roughly parallel the modern courses of State Routes
( SRs) 16, 50, and 20. It was during the 20th century that a circuitous highway system, known to-day
as SR 49 ( also known as the Golden Chain Highway), linked the mining towns of the Mother
Lode region from Mariposa in the south to Downieville in the north.
North Coast Ranges and San Francisco Bay Area
The North Coast Ranges consist of a series of northwest- to- southeast- trending ridges and broad
valleys that define the western edge of the Central Valley. Mountain elevations in this region reach
as high as 6,000 feet, and snow is common on higher elevations. Many rivers carve through the
valleys, creating broad alluvial fans and rich bottomlands that support diverse crops. Chaparral
dominates south- facing slopes, and evergreen oak woodland occupies cooler north- facing slopes
( a vegetation pattern termed “ slope effect”). On the coast side, stepped terraces indicate the uplift
that has resulted from geological activity. The north coast region includes the counties of Hum-boldt,
Mendocino, Lake, Sonoma, Napa, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara.
The towns of the northern California coast were oriented to the leading centers of trade, namely
Eureka in the north and San Francisco to the south. The prevailing industries of the region in-cluded
logging, mining, agriculture, dairying, and viticulture. As towns grew and developed, their
success depended upon transportation networks and the demand for the goods that they were
producing.
25
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
In the 1850s and 1860s, small towns sprang up along the northwest coastal zone. The far north-ern
coastal region witnessed a surge in logging operations tied to local ports or coves where ves-sels
could be loaded with redwood. The shipping of lumber quickly grew to dominate the coastal
towns ( Cox 1974: 259– 262). Humboldt Bay was the safest harbor in northern California to ac-commodate
oceangoing vessels filled with lumber, and Eureka’s establishment 7 miles from the
bay’s entrance in 1850 allowed the city to dominate the ocean shipping trade. Eureka had many
early rivals within Humboldt Bay. These early rivals included Bucksport and Arcata, also es-tablished
in 1850, which were beachheads of trade created by San Francisco business interests
( Moehring 2004: 16– 17). Eureka’s success as a center for commerce and trade was in part because
of its status as county seat, obtained in 1856.
During the early 1850s, resistance by Native Americans south of Humboldt Bay delayed town
development in the rugged north coastal country. To help subjugate the Native Americans along
the Mendocino coast and provide a military presence, the army erected Fort Bragg in 1857. The
creation of the military outpost resulted in the development of a small town around the post to
supply trade goods. The closing of the Noyo Indian Reservation in 1867 made land available and
permitted the town to grow rapidly, converting Fort Bragg into a lumber- manufacturing, shipping,
and later, fishing community ( Palmer 1880: 428; Moehring 2004: 18).
During the height of lumbering activity, circa 1870– 1890, numerous hamlets grew up along the
coast, each one a shipping point for coastal lumber schooners lying at anchor off the coast. Along
the Mendocino County coastline, logs were sent into the sea in chutes from the cliffs or by rail
and wharf to awaiting vessels at more than a dozen places— Usal, Rockport, Hardy Creek, West-port,
Cleone, Fort Bragg, Noyo, Caspar, Mendocino, Little River, Albion, Navarro, Elk ( Green-wood),
Point Arena, and Gualala.
The coastal port towns of Men-docino
and Sonoma counties,
which often started as centers
of redwood production, re-mained
small and multifunc-tional.
When lumber was at its
peak, Mendocino’s Point Arena,
which was established in 1859,
was the busiest town between
San Francisco and Eureka. The
town contained 14 sawmills,
which were visited daily by
coastal shipping schooners that
navigated the treacherous wa-ters
to access not only Point
Arena but other growing lum-ber
centers such as Fort Bragg,
Elk, Albion, and Mendocino
( Munro- Fraser 1880: 377; Spen-cer-
Hancock 1978) ( Figure 10).
Figure 10. Noyo River at Fort Bragg, 1866 ( Thomas Houseworth Col­lection,
Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.).
26
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
Salmon fishing became an important coastal industry, and by 1860, Eureka boasted seven pack-ing
plants that produced cured fish for the local towns and for export ( McEvoy 1986). Del Norte
also had a large salmon- packing industry, exporting canned salmon to San Francisco ( Bledsoe
1881: 115).
The inland communities east of the coastal range used overland transportation routes to link com­mercial
farmers with urban Bay Area markets in the pre- railroad era. Within this network of
small rural towns, the county seats, like those in the far northern counties, became centers of dis-tribution.
Their origins were typically agricultural, but their networks remained the same. Peta-luma,
established in 1852, benefited from its location on the wagon route to Humboldt and Men-docino
counties and its position on the banks of Petaluma Creek. Ukiah, created in 1856, stood
out as the main center of distribution for the interior cities, with smaller competitors in Lakeport
( 1859) and Colusa ( 1850). Although the railroad brought new economic opportunities to these
towns, each of them was already on established travel routes from San Francisco or Sacramento
north to the coast or mining regions, and the continued use of those routes allowed the towns to
flourish ( Menefee 1873: 238; Palmer 1880: 234,472– 478, 1881: 162– 166; Rogers 1891: 263– 266;
Lambert 1918: 234– 238).
Napa, located at the head of navigation on the Napa River, became an important center of com-merce
and trade, transporting fruit, grain, wine, and other agricultural products to the Bay Area.
Its viticulture industry quickly proved to be the most profitable for the region. In addition to ship-ping
directly to San Francisco, Napa had two rail lines running through it from Vallejo to Calis-toga.
It benefited from its location on the trade route between Benicia and Sonoma and from be-ing
the trade center for smaller satellite towns ( Menefee 1873: 50– 60; Moehring 2004: 19– 20).
The San Francisco Bay and Peninsula— an area that includes the present- day counties of Marin,
Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, and San Mateo, and northern elements of Santa Clara
County— experienced some of the most rapid and significant urban growth in northern California
prior to the 20th century. That growth came as a direct consequence of the “ instant” emergence
of San Francisco as the state’s central urban place in the wake of the gold rush. Development oc-curred
in the new urban communities surrounding San Francisco to meet the needs of the bur-geoning
metropolis. The location of the outlying communities to San Francisco, however, made
the character of their development more suburban than urban ( Walker 2001b). Indeed, the cit-ies
and towns of the bay and peninsula emerged primarily as processing and shipping points for
agricultural and industrial goods, as small ports, and as bedroom communities for San Francisco
( Moehring 2004: 2– 3,22).
All around San Francisco Bay, from Marin County across the Golden Gate to Contra Costa and
Alameda counties directly opposite San Francisco, numerous towns appeared in the 1850s. In
Marin County, new arrivals eager to profit from San Francisco’s growth transformed communities
such as Sausalito ( 1850) and San Rafael, initially a mission asistencia established in 1817. Sausal-ito,
whose main industry was fishing, remained a rather small community into the 1910s, but San
Rafael rapidly evolved into a San Francisco suburb ( Lewis Publishing Company 1892a: 398– 400;
Scott 1985: 28,30,33,56).
Elsewhere along the East Bay in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, industrial communities,
ports, and local agricultural- processing centers developed. In Contra Costa County, explosive
manufacturing created an economic boom for the region. Towns such as Hercules, established
27
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
in 1881, and Pinole, which was established earlier in 1854, found their economies revitalized by
the industry. Along the northern tier of Contra Costa County, waterfront communities were more
common. Most notable were Port Costa ( 1879) and Martinez ( 1849) along the Carquinez Strait,
and New York Landing ( changed later to Pittsburg) and Antioch both established in 1849 along
Suisun Bay. For a time, these towns occupied a critical juncture between San Francisco, the min-ing
districts of the east, and the burgeoning farms of the Central Valley. Further inland, Contra
Costa County became home to a diverse array of townsites in the mid- to- late- 19th century— some
organized around mineral extraction and others predicated upon agricultural processing. Begin-ning
in the 1860s, a number of short- lived coal- mining towns appeared south of Suisun Bay:
Nortonville ( 1861), Somersville ( 1861), Stewartville ( 1861), Judsonville ( 1860), and West Hart-ley
( 1870). Agricultural- processing and service communities were established, including Walnut
Creek ( 1860), Pacheco ( 1860), and Concord ( 1869). Walnut Creek, located on its namesake, be-came
one of the most prosperous small towns in the San Ramon Valley by the late- 19th century,
largely because of its location along major roads that connected the East Bay to the Central Val-ley
( Munro- Fraser 1882; Purcell 1940).
In Alameda County, a similar pattern of town building occurred, resulting in the creation of eco-nomically
diverse communities such as Oakland ( 1852), Alameda ( 1854), and Berkeley ( 1864)
( Figure 11). All began as “ ferry suburbs,” but within a generation, they had become significant
cities in their own right. As with other townsites in California, the creation of these communi-ties
came at the expense of existing Hispanic landholders. All three towns emerged out of Vi-cente
Peralta’s enormous Rancho de San Antonio. Oakland was first; squatters and land specu-lators
illegally seized portions of Peralta’s rancho and platted a residential community for San
Figure 11. Bird’s Eye View of Oakland, 1893 ( Elliot Publishing Company, Courtesy of Oakland Public Library).
28
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
Francisco in the 1850s. With the completion of the Central Pacific’s transcontinental railroad in
1868, Oakland became a crucial transportation hub for not only California, but for the West Coast
as a whole ( Moehring 2004: 22).
Although not as spectacular in their growth as Oakland, the towns of Alameda and Berkeley never­theless
experienced considerable development. By the 1870s, Alameda had evolved into not only
a processing and shipping point for local timber, dairy products, and fruit, but also a San Fran-cisco
bedroom community. Berkeley took a different path; in 1873, it wooed the University of
California from Oakland to its current site and became the intellectual hub of the Bay Area ( Scott
1985: 35,55,66– 67; Moehring 2004: 22). As Oakland, Alameda, and Berkeley grew up alongside
San Francisco, small towns devoted to agricultural processing formed in the county interior and
thrived by supplying these larger cities with goods ( Moehring 2004: 22). These communities in-cluded
Hayward ( 1854), followed by San Leandro ( 1855), Emeryville ( 1859), and Livermore
( 1864). In contrast to the agricultural villages that dotted the interior of Contra Costa County,
these communities successfully diversified their economies and grew considerably into the early-
20th century.
To the south of San Francisco along the peninsula, San Mateo was established in 1863 and South
San Francisco in 1890. Both communities emerged as agricultural- processing and shipping cen-ters
precisely because of their locations ( Moehring 2004: 22,24).
Farther south along the eastern side of the peninsula in southern San Mateo and northern Santa
Clara counties, large estate homes and ranches developed, and later affluent residential suburbs.
As rail networks extended farther southward from San Francisco, a wealthier class of emigrants
began to settle not only in San Mateo and Redwood City, but also in Menlo Park ( 1854), Palo Alto
( 1888), and Burlingame ( 1901) ( Hynding 1982: 109– 117; Moehring 2004: 24).
Farther south, in northern Santa Clara County, an agricultural- based town network formed with
San Jose at its center. San Jose began as a Spanish pueblo located about 60 miles south of San
Francisco. The town functioned as the central place for much of the South Bay. Indeed, as one
historian has noted, San Jose through “ aggressive leadership” managed to monopolize much of
the county, politically and economically; it became the county seat in 1850 and even served as
the state capital until 1851. Towns such as Santa Clara, Cupertino, and Alviso evolved into thriv-ing
communities, established in the fertile Santa Clara agricultural valley where key transporta-tion
routes ran through San Jose to San Francisco.
Central Coast Ranges
The Central Coast Ranges generally exhibit the same geology and soils formations as the North
Coast Ranges described above. The central coast region includes the counties of Monterey, Santa
Cruz, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, and most of Santa Barbara County. In contrast to the San
Francisco Bay and Peninsula, the central coast area, with the exception of the few major cities,
experienced comparatively little urbanization in the late- 19th and early- 20th centuries. Although
agriculture stimulated the creation and growth of a few towns, the area’s lack of rail access until
the mid- to late 1870s severely hampered the local economy. Those communities that were able
to secure access to the railroad and develop the surrounding agricultural land were successful well
into the 20th century.
29
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
Prior to statehood, the city of
Monterey served as a port city,
a center for trade, and the pro-vincial
capital ( Figure 12).
With the rapid expansion of
San Francisco in the 1850s,
however, Mon­terey
quickly
found itself surpassed in im-portance
and size. During the
mid- 19th century, lacking rail
access to the rest of the state,
Monterey found it difficult to
exploit its hinterlands, with
the exception of dairying and
grazing livestock ( Moehring
2004: 25– 27). Beginning in
the 1870s through the 1940s,
the fishing industry largely
sustained Monterey and the
county’s coastline communi-ties.
For instance, Moss Landing, some 15 miles northeast of Monterey, was the location of a pros-perous
whale fishery until 1888. Cannery Row, located along the Monterey waterfront, began as
a single cannery, built by Frank Booth to process sardines, at the foot of Alvarado Street. When
World War I cut off the European import of canned fish, the demand for California’s fish increased
dramatically and gave life to Monterey’s canning industry. By the end of the war, nearly 30 can-neries
existed along Cannery Row ( Hoover et al. 1990: 229– 230).
In the early 19th century, ranchos dominated the Salinas Valley, and they prospered by supplying
the mining districts with beef and mutton. In the ensuing decades, some of the ranchos were trans­formed
into wheat and vegetable farms, and dairies spread across the valley. Located on the Sali­nas
River, Salinas lacked a railroad connection and thus access to outside markets until the 1870s.
Consequently, its economy and the economy of the region revolved around wheat production,
small- scale cultivated farms, cheese and butter production, and raising livestock ( Breschini et al.
2000: 28– 34).
Being so closely wedded to a single industry entailed significant risks for many small California
communities. The town of San Lucas is a case in point. Italian immigrant and land speculator Al-berto
Trescony established the town along the Southern Pacific Railroad line, which ran through
the former Rancho San Lucas. In the 1870s, Trescony leased several parcels of the San Lucas
property to local grain and dairy farmers. He invested heavily in the success of these farms; he
even went so far as to establish a ferry service on the Salinas River in 1889 so his tenants could
transport their goods to Salinas. With the arrival of the Southern Pacific, Trescony platted the
town on the right- of- way that he had granted to the railroad. Intending for his community to be
an agricultural market town, he built an enormous grain warehouse and constructed a spur line to
the railroad track. Trescony’s efforts encouraged the agricultural development of the surrounding
area but did little to stimulate the growth of the town of San Lucas, and in the 1920s, it lost its
trade to King City as trucks began to replace trains as the principal vehicle for transporting goods
to market ( Palmer 1965: 206– 208). Similar scenarios played out in other small towns throughout
Figure 12. Monterey, circa 1849. Note the curvilinear streets and adobe
construction associated with Spanish or Mexican era settlements ( Courtesy
of The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley).
30
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
California, particularly those that were dependent on transportation systems, such as railroad and
ferry service.
Still farther inland, in both southern Santa Clara and San Benito counties, the combination of
agricultural development and transportation access was critical to the creation and success of
towns. For example, in southern Santa Clara County, Gilroy, which was established in 1869, was
situated in the midst of rich agricultural land, but ultimately its location along the El Camino
Real— the major route through the county to San Francisco— ensured its development. By the
1870s, Gilroy included a roadside inn and stable, a hotel, a blacksmith’s shop, a saddler, a post
office, a schoolhouse, two churches, a dentist’s office, and a lawyer’s office. It continued to pros-per
through the 1890s, with the construction of a railroad depot and flour mill— both of which
catered to the needs of the area’s farmers ( Foote 1888: 201– 204). When San Benito County was
established in 1874, Hollister, established 2 years earlier, was chosen as the county seat for the
same combination of town- building factors— agriculture and transportation.
Sacramento Valley
The Sacramento Valley is part of the Central Valley, which is approximately 500 miles long and
40 miles wide, and lies betwixt the Coast Ranges and the Sierra Nevada. The Central Valley was
the “ richest agricultural valley in the world” ( Johnston ( 2003: 35). The principal counties in the
Sacramento Valley include Glenn, portions of Butte, Colusa, Yolo, Solano, Yuba, Sutter, and Sac-ramento.
Cooler winters, higher rainfall, and less- productive soils characterize the Sacramento
Valley in comparison to the San Joaquin Valley, which lies immediately to the south beginning in
San Joaquin County.
With the excitement of gold in the nearby Sierra Nevada, Sacramento’s waterfront became a trade
center, and the Sacramento River became the main artery of commerce for a region extending
throughout the Sacramento Valley and beyond. Ranchos were first established along the Sacra-mento
River north of the city’s future site during Mexican rule as interested parties petitioned the
Mexican government for land grants. Buena Ventura Rancho and Chico Rancho were established
prior to the gold rush of 1848. These small ranchos soon converted into small communities with
the sudden interest in river travel and trade into their respective golden hinterlands. It likewise
became important to push the head of practical navigation upstream as far as possible to outfit
the emerging mining camps of far northern California ( Zelinsky and Olmsted 1985: 87– 97).
The trade between Sacramento and the central mines was so prosperous that it spawned the state’s
first rail line— the Sacramento Valley Railroad established in 1855– 1856 with its eastern terminus
at the town of Folsom. Founded by Theodore Judah on the main stem of the American River at
the base of the foothills, Folsom was an early center of gold placer mining and later dredge mining.
The two major tributaries of the Sacramento River flowing southeast out of the Sierra Nevada,
the Feather and Yuba rivers, provided a means for shipping to the northern mines. During the
early 1850s, a rivalry grew over which town was to seize river traffic at the head of steam navigation
on the Feather River with Marysville ( 1850), Yuba City ( 1849), and Vernon vying for the position
( McGowan 1961: 63,66– 67). Farther north along the Sacramento River, other towns sought su-premacy
over river navigation and commerce, and Redding and Red Bluff, both established in
the 1850s, emerged as the ultimate winners.
31
Townsites Thematic Study
Chapter 2. Historic Context
Marysville’s story began in 1842 when Theodore Cordua, a Prussian, built an adobe dwelling and
a trading store near the Yuba River, at what he called the village of “ New Mecklenburg.” Cor-dua’s
Ranch became an important stopping place in the Sacramento Valley for emigrants ending
their long voyage over the California– Oregon Trail and a way station for hunters and trappers,
and later, for miners. Charles Covillaud, a native of France and former employee of Cordua, pur-chased
the ranch, and during the gold rush, his ranch became a center of trade and travel. Covil-laud
laid out the townsite in January 1850 and named it Marysville after his wife ( Hoover et al.
1966: 587– 588).
Freight and passenger traffic soon established Marysville as the head of practical steam naviga-tion
on the Sacramento. San Franciscan Sam Brannan challenged Marysville’s place as the cen-tral
shipping point to the mines by establishing a rival wharf and a branch stor