California Ship Registry

What this is

The first machine-readable registry of documented vessel visits to the Californias, 1769–1846. The unit of record is the visit, one vessel, one anchorage, one time, after the voyage-level design of SlaveVoyages. Every row carries its evidence and a stable identifier (v0001…) so a single visit can be cited. Fields and controlled vocabularies: CODEBOOK.md. Merging is conservative, two records collapse into one visit only on ship + year + (where present) month and anchorage. Over-splitting is preferred to silent loss, and sources_disagree records a collation conflict rather than resolving it invisibly.

Sources

2,072 visits carry 2,900 citations. Counts below are citations, not visits; a visit often carries two or three.

1 · The Archives of California documentary calendar, 1,877 citations, 57 volumes

The author’s item-level catalogue of BANC MSS C-A 1–63, the Savage transcripts of the Spanish and Mexican provincial archive burned in 1906. Most rows link to a specific manuscript leaf. Heaviest volumes: C-A 7 (116), 13 (114), 14 (109), 12 (100), 56 (95), 48 (94), 24 (88), 18 (84), 11 (82), 55 (76).
Archives of California: A Documentary Calendar of the Savage Transcripts. archivesofcalifornia.com. Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21912644.

2 · Bancroft’s narrative, 396 citations

Vessels narrated in the running text of volumes I–II, never previously consolidated into a list.
Hubert Howe Bancroft, History of California, 7 vols. San Francisco: The History Company, 1884–1890. Vol. I (1542–1800); vol. II (1801–1824).

3 · Bancroft’s consolidated vessel lists, 164 citations

His own marine lists: ‘List of vessels 1825–30’ and ‘1831–5’ (vol. III), ‘1841–5’ (vol. IV), ‘1846–8’ (vol. V). Partially merged. 77 of the 198 vessels parsed from these lists are not yet in the registry, 31 of them American; 63 names remain OCR-garbled. See REVIEW-QUEUE.md.
Bancroft, History of California, vols. III–V, appended vessel lists.

4 · Ogden’s otter-trade appendix, 327 citations

Itineraries of the vessels in the California sea-otter trade, vessel by vessel and year by year.
Adele Ogden, The California Sea Otter Trade, 1784–1848. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1941. Appendix, ‘Identified Vessels in the California Sea Otter Trade’.

5 · The Russian layer, 52 citations

Built from RAC and AVPRI-grounded notes and the C-A port-duty ledgers, with absences stated in data/russian-absent.txt rather than silently omitted.
N. N. Bolkhovitinov (ed.), Istoriia Russkoi Ameriki, 3 vols. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, 1997–1999 · James R. Gibson and Alexei A. Istomin (eds.), Russian California 1806–1860: A History in Documents, Hakluyt Society, 3rd ser. (2014) · Kirill Khlebnikov, Colonial Russian America, trans. Basil Dmytryshyn and E. A. P. Crownhart-Vaughan (Oregon Historical Society, 1976) · AVPRI doc. 2: Rezanov to Alexander I, 5/17 May 1806, San Francisco · Otto von Kotzebue, A Voyage of Discovery into the South Sea and Beering’s Straits (London, 1821) · V. M. Golovnin, Around the World on the Kamchatka, trans. Ella Wiswell (Hawaii, 1979).

6 · Published voyage narratives and editions, 84 citations

Jean-François de Galaup de La Pérouse, A Voyage Round the World, trans. (London: Stockdale, 1799), chs. X–XI · George Vancouver, A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean, 3 vols. (London, 1798) · W. Kaye Lamb (ed.), The Voyage of George Vancouver 1791–1795, Hakluyt Society, 2nd ser. 163–166 (1984) · Archibald Menzies, journal, California portion, ed. Alice Eastwood, California Historical Society Quarterly 2:4 (1924): 265–340 · Benito de la Sierra, ‘Account of the Hezeta Expedition’, ed. Henry R. Wagner, CHSQ 9:3 (1930) · Fray Vicente de Santa María, The First Spanish Entry into San Francisco Bay, 1775, ed. John Galvin (John Howell Books, 1971) · Vicente Vila, Diary of the San Carlos, ed. Robert Selden Rose, Academy of Pacific Coast History 2:1 (1911) · Miguel Costansó, Diario histórico (1770), ed. Frederick J. Teggart, APCH 2:4 (1911) · Herbert E. Bolton, Fray Juan Crespí: Missionary Explorer (UC Press, 1927) · Herbert K. Beals, Juan Pérez on the Northwest Coast (Oregon Historical Society Press, 1989) · Relación del viage hecho por las goletas Sutil y Mexicana en el año de 1792 (Madrid: Imprenta Real, 1802) · John Kendrick (ed.), The Voyage of Sutil and Mexicana, 1792 (Arthur H. Clark, 1991) · Alejandro Malaspina, Viaje político-científico alrededor del mundo, ed. Pedro de Novo y Colson (Madrid, 1885) · Andrew David, Felipe Fernández-Armesto et al. (eds.), The Malaspina Expedition 1789–1794, Hakluyt Society, 3rd ser. II (2003) · Donald C. Cutter, Malaspina in California (John Howell–Books, 1960) · W. R. Broughton, A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean… 1795–1798 (London, 1804) · F. W. Beechey, Narrative of a Voyage to the Pacific and Beering’s Strait… in H.M.S. Blossom (London: Colburn & Bentley, 1831) · Charles Wilkes, Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition… 1838–1842 (Philadelphia, 1844) · Peter Corney, Voyages in the Northern Pacific… 1813 to 1818 (Honolulu: Thrum, 1896) · George Simpson, Narrative of a Journey Round the World, 2 vols. (London, 1847) · Peter Uhrowczik, The Burning of Monterey: The 1818 Attack on California by the Privateer Bouchard (Cyril Books, 2001) · Freeman M. Tovell, At the Far Reaches of Empire: The Life of Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra (UBC Press, 2008) · Warren L. Cook, Flood Tide of Empire: Spain and the Pacific Northwest, 1543–1819 (Yale, 1973) · Henry R. Wagner, Spanish Explorations in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Fine Arts Press, 1933) and The Cartography of the Northwest Coast of America to the Year 1800 (UC Press, 1937).

7 · Archival, direct

AGI, Californias, leg. 8, exp. 3, ff. 71–75v: Solá to the Viceroy, no. 168, 5 Oct 1818 · AGI, ESTADO, 43, N.12 (PARES): the Martínez and López de Haro expedition in search of the Russian establishments · C-A 40, the 1826–27 Santa Bárbara customs ledgers, leaf-verified.

Quality control

The false-positive register. Seven documented classes of “fake ship”, decree phantoms, era conflations, persons read as vessels, places and demonyms, OCR garbles, mis-flags, and mentions read as visits. Every new source re-triggers all seven. See FALSE-POSITIVE-REGISTER.md, and PHANTOM-SHIPS.md for the vessels that were removed and why.

Measured, not asserted. A seeded random sample of 107 visits, about 5 per cent of the registry, was traced back to its cited source on 18 July 2026: every visit in the automatable tier was supported by its citation, and citation-level fidelity was 98.8 per cent, the single defect being the order of two citations rather than an invented visit. The full working is in AUDIT-2026-07-18.md.

Leaf verification. Manuscript-derived names are checked against the scanned leaf before entering the tables, a policy adopted after it caught real misreads (Nilo not “Wilcox”, Jackman not “Jackson”).

Nothing is auto-accepted. Uncertain rows stay status = draft and route to REVIEW-QUEUE.md. The stripe at the left of each row shows its status.

What this registry does not know

Absence of a row is not absence of a ship. Contraband was under-recorded by design, so the gaps in the record sit exactly where the activity was. The asymmetry is a finding, not a flaw.

The two periods are not equally finished. The Spanish period, 1769–1821, is the clean, reliable core: coverage is dense, the flags are sound, and it is the span the Flags at anchor figure is scoped to. The Mexican period, 1822–1846, is still a work in progress and should be treated as provisional. The registry is probably missing many vessels there: 77 of the 198 ships on Bancroft’s own consolidated lists are not yet merged, 31 of them American, so the 1830s–40s decade totals are a floor rather than a count. Some flag values and other row-level errors are still present in that period. Version 1.1 is coming soon and will fold in the missing vessels and finish the Mexican-period flag audit.

Counts measure the archive as much as the traffic. Decade totals reflect record survival and harvest coverage. Roughly a quarter of rows name no vessel at all, evidence of traffic that cannot be attributed to a hull.

On the flag field. The gross post-1821 spain artifact (43 rows the harvester mis-read from Spanish-language records) was corrected row by row on 2026-08-24: the Chilean insurgent-navy vessels and the Mexican vessels reassigned, four Bancroft-verbatim fixes applied, the one genuine Spanish case (the Asia) kept, and the rest left blank rather than guessed. A build guard now blocks any post-1821 spain port-call. Even so, flag analysis is safest confined to 1769–1821 until the Mexican-period audit ships in v1.1.

Cite this registry

Aodhan Coyne, California Ship Registry: Documented Vessel Visits to the Californias, 1769–1846. ships.archivesofcalifornia.com. Version 0.2.0. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.22105908 (Zenodo, 2026). Individual visits are citable by identifier, e.g. v0143.
Data and code: github.com/Aodhanm/california-ship-registry · METHOD.md · CODEBOOK.md · audit
Corrections and questions: aodhancoyne@gmail.com. If a document you hold contradicts a row here, the document wins.