Kenneth W. Karsmizki

Cartographic Representations

A Controversy in Mapping Lewis and Clark's Fort Clatsop

Controversy is not what we typically expect when we consider cartographic documents. Maps convey an illusion of authority, Mark Monmonier reminds us, "their convinc-ingly crisp lines and labels effectively concealing an argument's tenuous assumptions." Ranging from crude sketches to detailed professional drawings, maps are so easy to believe that they beg to be the final arbiter of geographic information. Yet, researchers need to look beyond this air of authority to "promote a healthy, informed skepticism about maps" and test the assumptions that maps so forcefully assert.¹

As often as not, cartographic documents contain errors, including "careless or willful omissions, faulty measurements, sloppy drafting, imprecise labels, vanished landmarks, and inconsistent use of symbols." They can include information drawn from legend or local tradition, which must be the case with the 1844 map by Eugène Duflot de Mofras shown on page 583. As a result, some maps are what Monmonier calls "a ready source of misinformation, 'cartographic folklore' that, as they age, increases their 'alluring believability.' " This allure, he explains, can catch anyone, giving maps "an authority that even scholars are reluctant to question."²

As in all historical research, maps have played a role in understanding the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Maps created by Meriwether Lewis and William Clark have been used to define their route across the continent, and other maps have helped identify expedition-related sites for preservation purposes and archaeological investigation. Knowing the precise place where the explorers once stood helps people connect with the past. Perhaps more importantly, knowing where to look for archaeological evidence related to the expedition could add to our knowledge and understanding. The distribution of their campfires, for example, which can be identified through radiocarbon dating, can tell us about how they arranged their camp. Did they observe military protocol even after they were far into the wilderness? Microscopic evidence found in those fires can add to our knowledge of their diet and campfire activities. It can also conclusively prove where they camped, allowing for historic landmark designation and site preservation.

This map was found in a duplicate copy of a volume with descriptions of mapping stations on the Columbia River prepared by the U.S. Coast Geodetic Survey in 1851–1852.

Box 161, GA Series, Descriptions of Stations, E 128 Scientific Records, PI 105, RG 23, National Archives, College Park, Md.

Under current standards, approximating the location of a site is insufficient to allow it to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.³ Fort Clatsop National Memorial was established before these standards were put in place, however, and is listed on the National Register even though the exact location of the site is not known. At the time of the centennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, the Oregon Historical Society initiated an effort to recognize significant sites in Oregon's history, including Fort Clatsop. As the sesquicentennial of the expedition approached, Oregon's Senator Richard Neuberger was successful in having the site designated a National Memorial, and the National Park Service (NPS) took over interpretation of the Lewis and Clark Expedition's winter on the Pacific Ocean. That interpretation was focused on a replica built by the local Jaycees in 1955.

The authenticity of the site remains in question because actual physical remains of the expedition have never been found there. Even so, the NPS accepted the current site location in part because "no other place along the river banks came close to being an alternate location."⁴ The danger of the current situation is that ongoing efforts to determine the precise location of the expedition's wintering site of Fort Clatsop may be threatened by expansion and developments spurred on by the growth of Fort Clatsop National Memorial as a result of the bicentennial commemoration.

When it comes down to pinpointing where to begin an archaeological excavation, which requires extensive manpower and painstaking scientific methodology, the cost is ultimately tied to discerning a good target area — one small enough to make the expenditure likely to reveal something of interest. Although the work of William Clark, and to a lesser extent Meriwether Lewis, made a substantial contribution to filling in details of the western landscape that had previously been terra incognita to Europeans and Euro-Americans, their manuscript maps have limitations. They are working sketches drafted in the field. Distances are estimates rather than measured courses, and all observations for bearings, latitudes, and longitudes were produced using handheld instruments. The maps offer approximate geographic data, limited by the quality of the instruments, the field conditions, and the skills of those who collected the data. The journals and maps of the expedition do not provide the accuracy necessary to pinpoint campsites, which are small targets on a massive western landscape. Therefore, it was with great excitement that the NPS announced in 1999 the discovery of a map showing the location of Fort Clatsop.

Interpreting the Map

While conducting cartographic research in the National Archives at College Park, Maryland, Scott Byram had turned up an 1850s sketch map of the mouth of the Columbia River. The hand-drawn map — filed among the Records of the Coast Geodetic Survey (Record Group 23) — seemed to show "the location of Fort Clatsop ... where Meriwether Lewis and William Clark wintered in 1805–1806."⁵ Byram hastily scanned the map, noted its location, and returned to Oregon, where he was completing work on his Ph.D. Byram talked with Richard Hill, a science writer for the Oregonian, and told him that as soon as he saw the map he "suspected that it was significant" and that he planned to notify the NPS.⁶

Curiosity about the map spread from Byram to the media, to the NPS, the managing agency for Fort Clatsop National Memorial, and then back to the media. Jim Thomson, a senior archaeologist with the NPS, told the Oregonian that "The map reconfirms that we're looking [for the Fort Clatsop site] in the right place.... And I think the map's discovery is exciting because it shows there's more information out there to be found."⁷ But there were still unanswered questions. Who drew the map and when? How were Lewis and Clark connected to the map? Answering these questions might determine whether the map did provide "the precise information or the uncontradicted detail necessary to reliably determine the fort's location," as a Mercator's World editorial claimed.⁸

Byram interpreted the map in a letter to the NPS in March 1999: "The 1851 map shows the fort at the top edge of a slope which descends to the river, and the fort is on the portion of this low bluff which is closest to the river."⁹ The fort Byram refers to is Fort Clatsop. His hypothesis is that the map shows the log hut in which Lewis and Clark wintered, based on writing located next to an open square:

Log Hut
Lewis and Clark
wintered in 1805

Also written on the sketch map is "Breadth of River at its mouth from 4 to 500 yards — Distance from the mouth of river to Hut, where Lewis & Clark wintered, about 2 miles."¹⁰ Byram's assumption was that the map's author had seen the hut where Lewis and Clark wintered. Byram also assumed that the square on the map does not represent the residence of Carlos Shane, who occupied the site at approximately the time of the Coast Survey. He suggested to the NPS that "it might be useful to determine which month of the year 1851 Carlos Shane built the structure near the fort, since this structure is absent from the map showing the fort."¹¹

The map's date and author were not apparent. The question of who made the map is an important one, since the cartographer's notes might provide additional information regarding the map labels and, therefore, the site of Lewis and Clark's winter stay on the Pacific coast. Byram thought 1851 was a possibility, based on documentation that "Lieut. James Alden, commanding the Steamer Active, conducted surveys of the lower Columbia River" that year. Alden, "one of the more prolific surveyors on the Oregon coast in the 1850s," might have been the mapmaker.¹²

W.B. McMurtrie was another potential creator of the map. In 1851, McMurtrie had completed a map of a portion of the Columbia River near Astoria, "including the mouth of the Lewis and Clark River." McMurtrie's map does not cover the vicinity of Fort Clatsop, but he could have visited the site.¹³ McMurtrie's "handwriting [on the Columbia River map] looks a lot like that found on the map showing the fort," Byram observed, and on one of McMurtrie's charts of the Columbia there is a site labeled "Camp," probably referring to McMurtrie's camp.¹⁴ "If they were camped near the river during the survey," Byram speculated, "this may be why they took the time to visit and map the fort."¹⁵ The surveyors, he wrote, "went through the extra detail to map the river and show where the fort was located, recognizing the significance of the fort. They were just recording it for posterity."¹⁶

There are also questions about what the map represents. One hypothesis was that the map "shows the site on the bluff where the remnants of the fort — labeled 'Log Hut' — could still be found 45 years after the Corps of Discovery headed back East." Those involved with Lewis and Clark Fort Clatsop archaeological research agree that there is potential that the "map is another clue to the exact whereabouts of Fort Clatsop," as the Oregonian reported, but does this piece of cartographic evidence actually locate remnants of Fort Clatsop?¹⁷ The challenge is to read the clues correctly.

Coast Survey Records

The Coast Survey dates to 1807, when Congress authorized a survey of the nation's coasts, although it was not until 1816 that the Survey of the Coast was established in the Treasury Department.¹⁸ The agency employed both military and civilian assistants as surveyors and eventually became part of the Department of Commerce, an appropriate home for it because access to coasts, rivers, and harbors had a direct impact on commerce.¹⁹ Given that emphasis, it is understandable that the Coast Survey was extended to the Pacific coast in the late 1840s after the California gold strikes in 1849. By the summer of 1850, William P. McArthur, a surveyor stationed on the Columbia River in Oregon, wrote: "The great probability is that Oregon will develop more rapidly for the next ten years than any other part of the United States except California."²⁰

The cover and title page of the original volume of the U.S. Coast Geodetic Survey descriptions of mapping stations on the Columbia River identify the author, R.D. Cutts, as well as the date, 1851–1852.

Box 160, GA Series, Descriptions of Stations, E 128 Scientific Records, PI 105, RG 23, National Archives, College Park, Md.

The maps Byram found in his research were in "a notebook of descriptions of mapping stations in the vicinity of the Columbia River" with a copy of the map of the Lewis and Clark River.²¹ The bound volume containing the map was from the U.S. Coast Survey, and the cover of the volume is inscribed "U.S. Coast Survey, A. D. Bache Superintendent, Section XI, Description of Signals, Station Columbia River Oregon 1851-2 ~~Original~~ Duplicate Chief of party R. D. Cutts. Asst. U.S.C.S. Vol. I." The cover of a second bound volume has the same identification, with the exception that the handwritten notation on the cover identifies it as the "Original." The first page of each volume reads, "Section XI Description of ~~Signals~~ Stations Columbia River Oregon Original [or Duplicate] 1851-52 R. D. Cutts."²² It appears that neither Alden nor McMurtrie was the map's author but, rather, Richard D. Cutts, who headed the party surveying the Columbia and drew the maps of the Lewis and Clark River.

The correspondence files for Professor A. D. Bache, a noted scientist and the head of the Coast Survey from 1844 to 1865, provide some of the clues necessary to interpret the Coast Survey maps of the Lewis and Clark River.²³ In January 1851, Bache recommended that Cutts "send a competent aid to the Columbia River to sketch in the topography of the shores within the limits of the preliminary survey by [Lt.] C[ommanding]. Wm. P. McArthur." Bache explained: "The work does not take precedence of that already directed, so if that would be crippled by this new direction it must be postponed." He concluded: "I leave it to your judgement."²⁴ It appears that Cutts sent Joseph Ruth on this assignment.

In March 1851, Bache again wrote Cutts, suggesting that "three months in the summer should be devoted to Oregon, carrying a preliminary survey up the river Columbia & Willamette." Once again, Bache left the work to Cutts's discretion: "These you understand are views not instructions ... leaving you as free as possible to take advantage of circumstances which render one portion of the coast more important than another as matters develop."²⁵

By the summer of 1851, Cutts had not yet made it to Oregon, and he wrote Bache regarding the assignment. Cutts was concerned about the headwinds he would encounter on a trip up the coast and about the "fogs on the Columbia [that] prevail during August & Septr." Aware of the impending issuance of a chart from McArthur's preliminary survey and believing it would suffice for the Columbia, he added, "Indeed I deem it best to keep the Columbia for next season — particularly as you are now about to issue a sketch of it."²⁶ Cutts appeared to have placed a higher priority on a survey of San Francisco Bay than on the Columbia. Given the significance of the California gold boom to the U.S. economy, Cutts's decision seems logical.

Bache responded with apparent disappointment, if not outright disapproval, that Cutts had not yet surveyed the mouth of the Columbia. On September 1, 1851, he wrote Cutts: "The entrance to Columbia River has changed and our map is worthless until we can have a revision of the entrance." Bache pointed out that the so-called Ringgold chart, the result of a survey of San Francisco Bay that had preceded the Coast Survey, would suffice for the time being.²⁷ The Ringgold chart bought the surveyors time to conduct a reconnaissance of San Francisco Bay and plan a more perfect survey. Anticipating how long it was going to take for the San Francisco Bay survey, Bache grew more impatient for the Columbia River survey to begin.

Bache's displeasure with Cutts is perplexing. Cutts had kept Bache informed about his activities and his reservations about the Columbia River survey, and Bache had given Cutts the discretion to make his own decisions. Although Bache had expressed interest in the Columbia River survey, he also had indicated that he did not want the other West Coast work "crippled" by the Columbia project.²⁸ At the same time, Bache had information about the poor quality of McArthur's survey of the Columbia that he had not shared with Cutts. In May 1850, McArthur warned Bache about the difficulty of the Columbia River survey, and in July he sent in the results, adding, "It is with much apprehension & fear that I shall lay before you our survey of the mouth of the Columbia but we did the best we could." McArthur continued: "Sometimes I indulge the hope that it will bear some scrutiny & at other times I am not so confident. It is much better than nothing & will be of much service in giving character to the Columbia, as it will show that changes, great changes have taken place, and are to be expected for the future."²⁹

Astoria, shown here in an illustration from London Illustrated News, 1849, was a forty-year-old community by the time R.D. Cutts sent A.M. Harrison to begin the survey of the mouth of the Columbia in 1851.

OHS neg., OrHi 11705

Bache had McArthur's information about the Columbia River the summer before Cutts arrived on the West Coast but still gave Cutts the option of prioritizing his own work. By the fall of 1851, Bache had reversed himself and suddenly became impatient with Cutts not having gone to the Columbia. Without a doubt, the mouth of the Columbia River was much more treacherous and changed more quickly and dramatically than most rivers; and from a commercial standpoint, a new survey of the mouth of the Columbia was becoming increasingly more important. In a September 1, 1851, letter, Bache recommended that Cutts "consult with Lieut. Alden and if there is yet time, to go to the Columbia River." He continued: "Unless [you] both agree that the Columbia should not be attempted by all means go there, as we must if practicable push out the chart for it during this winter."³⁰

Cutts sent word to Bache that he had sailed for San Francisco to consult with Alden regarding the Columbia River survey, but it is likely that the news from this consultation was not well received. On October 28, 1851, Cutts told his superintendent that he and Alden

both agreed that it would be useless to attempt such a survey at this season of the year. The rough boisterous weather would render it impossible to work on the bar — and the rain & short days would make any attempt at the triangn & topogy abortive for the very rapid & particular purpose for which you desire them.

Sounding genuinely frustrated that he was uninformed regarding specifically what was needed from the Columbia River survey, Cutts continued: "I sincerely wish that I knew exactly what is required to complete McArthur's reconnaissance. You merely state that the entrance has changed & that it requires revision. Please have me sent a proof sheet or tracing of the chart you already have, with a note showing what particular portions of the shore line requires immediate reexamination or additions." He also felt compelled to justify his actions: "Until the receipt of your letter I was under the belief that the chart was published & would soon be here — and under those circumstances I did not consider it imperatively necessary to commence at once the final survey." Finally, Cutts wanted Bache to know that "I would certainly have gone up to the Columbia immediately ... had I been aware that the chart was delayed for the want of additional information — and would go up now could I see any prospect of accomplishing work."³¹ But Cutts was giving Bache an honest explanation. On August 27, 1851, Cutts had written his assistant, A.M. Harrison, in Astoria, Oregon. Although he explained that progress on the Columbia River survey would be appreciated, Cutts also believed that the significance of the Columbia survey was somewhat diminished because Superintendent Bache "is about publishing McArthur's sketch of it." Nevertheless, Cutts advised Harrison that "a tracing of your topogy should be sent as soon as possible."³² This letter was written just a few days before Bache and Cutts began their correspondence regarding the importance of the Columbia River survey.

R.D. Cutts's triangulation map of the lower Columbia River served as the basis for his map Entrance to Columbia River, Oregon, published by the U.S. Coast Survey in 1854. The Cutts triangulation continued to be used in maps of the Columbia River at least into the 1880s.

Box 160, GA Series, Descriptions of Stations, E 128 Scientific Records, PI 105, RG 23, National Archives, College Park, Md.

Cutts in Oregon, 1852

In late September 1852, on board the U.S. Schooner Baltimore, which lay anchored in the Columbia River, Cutts reported to Bache on his activities for the past twelve months. He explained that his "party has consisted of the assistant [Cutts himself] — and Messrs. Jos. S. Ruth and A. F. Rodgers — Sub-assistants — and the duty performed has been the triangulation and topography at different points of the coast of California & Oregon. On the 29th May [1852]," Cutts continued, "the season of the year being favorable for Oregon — I left San Francisco in the surveying Schr. Baltimore— and reached, Astoria, Columbia Rr. On the 11th June." On a preliminary reconnaissance, he had developed a plan:

Having reconnoitered the River as far up as Tongue Pt. by the 15th [June 1852], a plan of operation was determined on — & in pursuance of this plan, Sub-asst. Ruth was on that day detached with directions to proceed to Birnie's or Cathlamet, a point about 25 miles above Astoria — and there to reconnoitre & commence work. It was intended that the triangles to be observed by him should extend westwardly, with a view to meet my series which would start from the contemplated Base at the mouth of the River.³³

By June 25, "a site for a Base was selected on Baker's Bay," and "With this Base the triangulation was commenced and during the months of July, August & September, proceeded regularly up the River — extending from Cape Disappt. to Woody Island — a distance of 27 miles." Cutts continued: "Up to this point, the triangulation is complete — each station well marked in the field — and described in the journal — and a finished sketch made of the shore line, topography — and general features of the River."³⁴ The Columbia River survey was not particularly easy, Cutts reported, and "much time has been spent clearing points & hills required for triangulation stations."³⁵ Because of the "heavy cutting" Ruth had encountered, he had not completed his portion of the map by the time Cutts's report and sketches were sent out in the fall of 1852.³⁶

In October 1852, Cutts wrote Bache that he was able to complete the survey of "the difficult portion of the navigation of the Columbia River" — the thirty-five-mile stretch from Cape Disappointment at the mouth of the Columbia to Cathlamet or Birnies. Birnies "is a prominent & well known point — being one of the oldest settlements, and above which the River is almost entirely free from sand bars or shoals." Cutts observed: "A chart of these 35 miles would be therefore a complete key to the Columbia — and would answer every desirable object — at least for some years to come."³⁷

At this point, Cutts had completed the survey that would have included the Fort Clatsop area and Ruth was finishing his survey farther up the Columbia. Cutts's correspondence seemed to indicate that he personally had surveyed the lower Columbia River, including the Lewis and Clark River and the Fort Clatsop site. In Cutts's mind, his Columbia River mission was complete: "My own duties being concluded, I shall drop down tomorrow morning to Astoria — and from thence the Sch. will proceed immediately to sea."³⁸ Two months later, Capt. J.G. Foster transmitted "a tracing of the sketch showing the progress of the triangulation of the Columbia River by Asst. R. D. Cutts."³⁹

An Alternative Interpretation

Using the Bache and Cutts correspondence and data compiled in a broad-based study of the land history of the Lewis and Clark River vicinity, a hypothesis can be developed regarding what the original and duplicate maps represent.⁴⁰ Documents in Box 161 of the Coast Survey records include eighteen small, bound volumes and two larger volumes. Of the large volumes, one is identified as "Columbia River, Oregon 1851–52 Duplicate with R. D. Cutts, Asst. USCS as the Chief of Party," which includes a sketch map of the Lewis and Clark River (pictured on p. 569 and above, right). Three structures are illustrated on the map. One, located near the legend "Log Hut," is depicted as an open square on the west side of the river, upstream from Youngs Bay. Nearby, just southeast of the log hut, is another square — solid black in this case — indicating a structure in the floodplain slightly upstream from the log hut. The "Signal" used for the Columbia River survey is also shown, marked with a triangle surrounded by three dots. The final structure is on the east side, centered in high ground, near the mouth of the Lewis and Clark River.

A side-by-side comparison of the original (top) and duplicate (bottom) sketches of the Lewis and Clark River from the U.S. Coast Survey Records shows minor variations.

Box 160, 161, GA Series, Descriptions of Stations, E 128 Scientific Records, PI 105, RG 23, National Archives, College Park, Md.

Box 160 of the collection, which Byram suspected might include Oregon documents, contains six volumes. One, marked on the spine with "943 GA 1851-63 Var." and also "24613," is the "Original" Columbia River volume. Glued to the front page is a hand-drawn map that records the triangulation survey of the lower Columbia River and provides the context for understanding the sketch maps and "descriptions of stations" that follow. This map is a variation of the tracing that Foster sent to Bache in December 1852.⁴¹

The primary discrepancy between the sketch map in Box 161 and the corresponding map — the original — in Box 160 results from what one might expect, the impossibility that two hand-drawn maps of the same location will come out exactly the same. The lettering on the sketch maps, the shape of the river's edge, and the "blocks" that represent structures are all slightly different. In addition, the legends on the two maps give distinct pieces of information. The first piece is that a "Log Hut," represented by the open square, was found at the site in 1852 when the survey of the area took place. The second piece is that this site, according to local tradition, is where "Lewis and Clark wintered in 1805." The legend refers to the site where Lewis and Clark wintered, not the hut where they took shelter.

The key to solving the issue of what the Cutts map depicts may be in the Provisional Land Records, which contain Don Carlos W. Shane's claim to 640 acres of land on the Lewis and Clark River that he intended "to hold by personal occupancy." The claim was recorded on May 25, 1848, and attested to by Theo. Magruder.⁴² The traditional belief among local residents that Shane's 1848 claim was the location of the Fort Clatsop site rests squarely on the reminiscences of Carlos Shane himself, written roughly fifty years after he settled at the site.⁴³ In 1900, Shane remembered that his house was built the year after he settled on the site in 1850, which means the house would have been there by 1851 and was likely still there at the time of the Cutts survey in 1852.⁴⁴

South of Shane's claim was Richard M. Moore's Donation Land Claim. The case file indicates Moore took "said claim (on or about the 11th or 12th of July 1852)" and "was a resident thereof on and before the 1st day of August 1852."⁴⁵ In September 1852, Moore's land claim was surveyed by L.H. Judson, who also plotted the locations of Carlos Shane's dwelling, Moore's home, and Moore's sawmill. If Judson mapped the location of Shane's and Moore's structures in September 1852, then Cutts undoubtedly saw those structures as well during his survey at the same time. It is logical to conclude that the open square on Cutts's map is Shane's house and that the second square on the map, located slightly upstream and in the flood plain, is Moore's sawmill.

In addition to the Shane and Moore residences, numerous other settlers had made land claims adjacent to the Lewis and Clark River prior to the Cutts survey of 1852.⁴⁶ At least twenty-four claims were located on the Lewis and Clark River and were included in the Provisional Land Records from 1846 to 1848. At least six other settlers were named in metes and bounds descriptions of properties in the vicinity of the Lewis and Clark River. Five of the area's claims were at or near the mouth of the Lewis and Clark River. One of those was the 1848 claim of Joseph and Sarah Jeffers, who settled near the mouth and on the east side of the Lewis and Clark River.⁴⁷ It is likely that the Jeffers home is the third structure that appears on the Cutts map.

Cutts may have seen as many as two dozen settlers within the area covered by his map, but he plotted only three structures on the entire map. It is certainly possible that not all claims had structures built on them at the time of the Cutts survey. Carlos Shane, Isaac Harrell, T.C. Powers, and Thomas Scott are all included in the 1850 assessments, however, and property assessments document the presence of structures on their claims.⁴⁸ One would expect Cutts to identify homes associated with these settlers on his map, but he did not. Why did Cutts overlook some structures but include the "Log Hut" and nearby structure? Possibly it was the perceived importance of the site due to its association with the location where Lewis and Clark wintered.⁴⁹

L.H. Judson completed his survey of Richard Moore's claim in September 1852, the same month that Cutts was engaged in his survey. Moore purchased the southern part of Carlos Shane's property, and Shane's home is shown here just above the edge of Moore's property.

Box 1, File 1-914, RG 49, Records of the Bureau of Land Management, National Archives, Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle, Washington

Ruth may have heard the local tradition regarding the location of the Fort Clatsop site during his stay in Astoria over the winter of 1851–1852. It is also likely that at the time of his 1852 survey Cutts visited Carlos Shane. It seems reasonable that local tradition regarding the location of Fort Clatsop was passed to the surveyors, who in turn recorded on their map that this was the site where "Lewis and Clark wintered in 1805." If that interpretation is correct, the map would be significant for documenting that Shane associated his site with Lewis and Clark at the time he settled there in 1848. As it stands now, the earliest documented reference that Shane believed his claim included Fort Clatsop dates to 1900, when he was interviewed by the Oregon Historical Society. It seems less likely that Cutts, the author of the map, intended his legend to mean that he saw evidence of the log hut in which Lewis and Clark wintered or that either of the architectural symbols placed on the map was intended to locate the structural remains of Fort Clatsop.

Cartographic Confusion

Cutts was very selective in what he included on his map, and his selectivity has created somewhat of a cartographic controversy. The issue of what Cutts intended his map to represent might always be a matter for speculation. In this, the Cutts map is in good company, as countless maps of the mouth of the Columbia River and the Fort Clatsop site are in error. Each of these errors contributes false clues to any search for the location of Lewis and Clark's wintering fort on the Pacific.

Robert Frazer's 1807 "Map of the discoveries of Capt Lewis and Clark ...," for example, shows "keli-mak R." south of Youngs Bay.⁵⁰ Frazer identified the site of Fort Clatsop as "Clatsop camp" and placed it on the east, rather than the west, side of this river, which is now known as the Lewis and Clark. Less than a year after the Lewis and Clark Expedition abandoned the fort, geographic errors regarding its specific location were already being introduced into the cartographic record.

In his 1822 map, Aaron Arrowsmith identified "Fort Clatsop or Fort Astoria" at a location near the mouth of the Columbia.⁵¹ The two forts did not occupy the same site, although his map seems to suggest that they did. Another cartographic error appears on a map identified as Carte du Rio Colombia, which resulted from the 1840–1842 voyage of Eugène Duflot de Mofras.⁵² This map shows the "Hutte ou Lewis et Clarke hivernerent" on the east side of Youngs Bay. The unnamed river emptying into the southeast end of Youngs Bay should be identified as Youngs River, but it is not. What de Mofras identified as "R. de Young" is the Lewis and Clark River and it was on the west bank of this river that Fort Clatsop was located. Knowing the geography of the area, one can see that de Mofras located the "hutte" of Lewis and Clark several miles from its actual site on the Lewis and Clark River to the east side of Youngs Bay.

Another source of locational data is the cartographic record produced by the members of the expedition themselves, including numerous maps of the Youngs Bay–Fort Clatsop vicinity. Although Clark's maps are not properly scaled, they are valuable because of the accuracy with which he visualized landscapes. Each of Clark's marks and symbols has meaning. As one follows the Netul (Lewis and Clark) River upstream on Clark's map, for example, the bluffs are clearly marked along the west side of the river. Clark drew the location of Fort Clatsop on the first point of land on the west side of the river. This sketch matches Clark's written description in the journals, which placed the fort on the "first point of high land on the West Side [of the Netul or Lewis and Clark River] ... about 200 yards from the river ... on a rise about 30 feet higher than the high tides leavel." Descriptions of the site by Gass, Ordway, and Whitehouse match Clark's account.⁵³

This 1844 map of the mouth of the Columbia River by Eugène Duflot de Mofras depicts Fort Clatsop on the east side of an imaginary bay and misnames the Lewis and Clark River.

OHS neg., OrHi 99418

A detailed examination of Clark's map in the immediate vicinity of Fort Clatsop can reveal clues about the location of the fort. Looking upstream, the bluff is the "first point of high land" extending in an easterly or slightly southeasterly direction toward the west bank of the Lewis and Clark River. After coming to a point, this bluff recedes upriver in a southwesterly direction, forming a southeast-facing slope. It next swings southeasterly and then east. This encircling bluff forms a boundary for a marshy area denoted on the map by a stipple pattern. The rectangular shape that represents the fort is placed so that it straddles the north-facing slope of the bluff, not the southeast-facing slope.

The replica of Fort Clatsop, built in 1955 and now part of the National Park system, is located on the southeast-facing slope of the bluff, not the north-facing slope as depicted on Clark's map. Shane's residence was also located on the southeast-facing slope. A southeast-facing site for Shane's house is consistent with the position of the structure on the Cutts map and with the Fort Clatsop replica. It is difficult, however, to reconcile the location of Shane's house site, the structure on the Cutts map, and the present location of the Fort Clatsop replica with the representation of the site of Fort Clatsop on Clark's map.

A Different Conclusion

The discovery of the 1852 Cutts map is important as one more document that supports the local tradition associating the Fort Clatsop site with the property later owned by Carlos Shane. Additional data on early land settlement in the vicinity of Fort Clatsop, as Scott Bryam reminds us, may be found in the sketches and notes of Coast Geodetic surveyors W.B. McMurtrie, W.P. McArthur, William Bartlett, George Davidson, James Lawson, and James Alden, who were all associated with the Columbia River surveys.⁵⁴ Researchers should continue to examine the numerous other surveys covering the region around the mouth of the Columbia River, including those that were substantially earlier than the 1852 survey of which Cutts was a part, such as the 1841 exploring expedition of Charles Wilkes.⁵⁵

An analysis of the Cutts map also reminds us of the power of cartographic documents. Geographer Mark Monmonier cautions that those who study cartographic documents know "maps have had a remarkable effect on our view of the world" but "at the root of their power is our frequently unquestioning acceptance of cartographic messages." As Monmonier explains:

Even folks who are routinely suspicious of written text equate maps with fact and fail to realize that no map is capable of including all information or telling all possible stories. In fact, the process of map-making requires cartographers to limit content in order to create a readable map and so allows them to manipulate their audience with the information they choose to include. This combination of power and subjectivity has repeatedly put maps at the center of controversy.⁵⁶

Despite our inclination to believe that maps are a representation of precise geographical knowledge, anthropologist Raymond Wood cautions researchers that "the value of maps for historical detail tends to diminish rapidly as the area with which one is concerned becomes increasingly localized."⁵⁷ The more we need specific local data, the more likely it is that historic maps cannot yield it. Today we expect precision, but historic maps often lack that quality. It is just such an expectation of cartographic precision that has swirled around the 1852 map of the Lewis and Clark River drawn by R.D. Cutts, and it is a disappointment that the Cutts map does not show the precise location of Fort Clatsop.

William Clark's composite map (detail above), probably drawn while wintering at Fort Clatsop, provides the best locational information regarding the actual site of Fort Clatsop.

Yale Collection of Western Americana, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library

If a cartographic document cannot yield the specific information needed with a high level of accuracy, then it loses a significant part of its value as a tool. The greatest contribution of the Cutts map may be as an addition to the conflicting evidence regarding Fort Clatsop's location, thus raising awareness of the need for caution. Archaeologists hope and strive for the "precise information or the uncontradicted detail necessary to reliably determine the fort's location."⁵⁸ Yet, in interpreting the Cutts map of the Lewis and Clark River we should heed Wood's warning. If we are using maps as evidence, they must, as Monmonier argues, "survive rigorous scientific scrutiny to either accommodate a growing body of evidence or yield to another model."⁵⁹

Notes

^1. Mark Monmonier, Drawing the Line: Tales of Maps and Cartocontroversy (New York: Henry Holt, 1995), 2. See also Monmonier, How to Lie with Maps (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991).

^2. Monmonier, Drawing the Line, 65, 103, 106.

^3. See William J. Murtagh to Douglas P. Wheeler, October 24, 1975, Nominations for the Lewis and Clark Campsite (May 23, 1805) and the Lewis and Clark Campsite (May 24, 1805), letter in the files of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Lewiston, Montana. See also Yi-fu Tuan, Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974); and John Brinckerhoff Jackson, A Sense of Place, a Sense of Time (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994).

^4. Kelly Cannon, Administrative History: Fort Clatsop National Memorial (Seattle: NPS, Pacific Northwest Region, 1995), 42, 43.

^5. Gary Turley, editorial, Mercator's World 4:3 (May/June 1999): 2. Byram was searching the Records of the Coast Geodetic Survey, Record Group 23, Civil Archives Division, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland [hereafter RG 23].

^6.Oregonian, March 20, 1999.

^7. Ibid.

^8. Turley, editorial.

^9. Scott Byram to James Thompson [sic], March 11, 1999, copy in author's possession.

^10. Columbia River volume, Box 160, GA Series, Descriptions of Stations, E 128 Scientific Records, PI 105, RG 23.

^11. Byram to Thompson, March 11, 1999.

^12. Ibid.

^13. Ibid.; U.S. Coast Survey, A.D. Bache, Superintendent, "Mouth of Columbia River, Oregon & Washington, Surveyed by W.B. McMurtrie," 1850–51, scale 1-22762, reg. 317, RG 23.

^14. Byram to Thompson, March 11, 1999. The records for 1850 are on Rolls 38, 39, 40 (Vols. 2–6). Those for 1851 are on Rolls 51, 53, 55 (Vols. 5, 6, 8, 9, 11). Correspondence of A.D. Bache Superintendent of the Coast and Geodetic Survey 1843–1865, National Archives microfilm publications, pamphlet describing M642 (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, 1972).

^15. Scott Byram to author, April 7, 1999.

^16.Oregonian, March 20, 1999.

^17. Ibid.

^18. Two groupings or series of the Coast Survey records are particularly relevant. The GA Series is a description of survey stations established in the Coast Survey. The records description indicates that, in part because of the potential use of the surveys, "the descriptions of specific locations are often quite detailed." The GAR Series holds the reconnaissance notes (prepared preliminary to a survey). Associated records are found on Correspondence of A.D. Bache, Superintendent of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1843–1865, Microfilm M642, RG 23, [hereafter M642]. See also Robert B. Matchette, Guide to Federal Records in the National Archives of the United States (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration, 1995), 1:23.4.2; Nathan Reingold, comp., Preliminary Inventory of the Records of the Coast and Geodetic Survey (Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, 1958), 48; and Gustavus A. Weber, The Coast and Geodetic Survey, Its History, Activities and Organization (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1923).

^19. Introduction, Correspondence of A.D. Bache, 1.

^20. Lewis A. McArthur, "The Pacific Coast Survey of 1849 and 1850," Oregon Historical Quarterly 16:3 (September 1915): 256.

^21.Oregonian, March 20, 1999.

^22. Box 160, 161, GA Series, Descriptions of Stations, E 128 Scientific Records, PI 105, RG 23.The text included both printed and handwritten items. Handwriting is indicated here with italics. On the first page, "Signals" is lined out and above it is written in pencil "Stations."

^23. Richard D. Cutts, Assistant Coast Surveyor, 1850 Correspondence to A. D. Bache, Superintendent, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Docs. 170–199, Roll 38, M642. "Docs." refers to numbers used in the index at the front of the microfilm volume.

^24. Bache to Cutts, January 30, 1851, Doc. 326, Roll 55, M642. See also McArthur, "Pacific Coast Survey"; Cutts to Bache, August 25, 1850, Doc. 34, Roll 40, M642; Cutts to Bache, October 2, 1850, Doc. 198, Roll 38, M642; Bache to Joseph Ruth, October 22, 1850, Doc. 175, Roll 40, M642.

^25. Bache to Cutts, March 11, 1851, Doc. 352, Roll 55, M642.

^26. Cutts to Bache, June 14, 1851, Doc. 369, Roll 59, M642.

^27. Bache to Cutts, September 1, 1851, Doc. 406, Roll 55, M642.

^28. Bache to Cutts, January 30, 1851, Doc. 326, Roll 55, M642.

^29. W.P. McArthur to Bache, May [unreadable], 1850, Doc. 127, Roll 40, M642; McArthur to Bache, July 16, 1850, Doc. 132, Roll 40, M642. McArthur died in 1850, which probably resulted in Cutts being transferred to the West Coast.

^30. Bache to Cutts, September 1, 1851, Doc. 406, Roll 55, M642.

^31. Cutts to Bache, October 28, 1851, Doc. 436, Roll 55, M642.

^32. Cutts to A.M. Harrison, August 27, 1851, Doc. 440, Roll 55, M642.

^33. Cutts to Bache, September 30, 1852, Doc. 166, Roll 78, M642.

^34. Ibid.

^35. Ibid.

^36. Cutts to Bache, October 5, 1852, Doc. 164, Roll 78, M642.

^37. Ibid.

^38. Ibid.

^39. J.G. Foster to Bache, December 4, 1852, [no document number], Roll 78, M642.

^40. Kenneth W. Karsmizki, comp., Provisional Land Claims Raw Data, Clatsop County Land Records, Oregon State Archives, Salem; Kenneth W. Karsmizki, comp., Patented Land Claims Raw Data, T8N R10W, T8N R9W, T7N R10W, and T7N R9W, Clatsop County Land Records, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Ore (Reports prepared on behalf of the Museum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman, for Fort Clatsop National Memorial, NPS, Pacific Northwest Region, 1996, 1997).

^41. One of the differences between the original volume in Box 160 and the duplicate in Box 161 is that the Box 160 volume has the triangulation map. In addition to the tracing that Foster forwarded to Bache and the one in Box 160, a third version is in the Bache correspondence, M642.

^42. Don Carlos W. Shane claim, May 25, 1848, vol. 8, p. 29, Microfilm Reel 3, vol. 6-p. 95 through Vol. 8, Provisional and Territorial Government Land Claim Records, 1845–1849, Oregon State Archives, Salem [hereafter Provisional Records].

^43. Ibid.; Kenneth W. Karsmizki, "Renewing the Search for Fort Clatsop: The First Season, 1995, Planning, Mapping, and Discussion" (report prepared on behalf of the Museum of the Rockies, Montana State University, Bozeman, for Fort Clatsop National Memorial, NPS, Pacific Northwest Region, 1998), 13.

^44. Carlos W. Shane, affidavit signed and dated 1900, in Proceedings of the Oregon Historical Society (Salem, Ore.: W.H. Leeds, 1901), 20.

^45. Richard M. Moore Donation Land Claim Case File, Box 1, File 1-914, RG 49, Records of the Bureau of Land Management, National Archives, Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle, Wash.

^46. Microfilm Reel 3, Vol. 6-p. 95 through Vol. 8, Provisional Records.

^47. Joseph Jeffers claim, April 17, 1848, Vol. 7, p. 221, Microfilm Reel 3, Vol. 6-p. 95 through Vol. 8, Provisional Records.

^48. Carlos Shane, Isaac Harrel, Truman Powers, and Thomas Scott, 1850 Assessments, Clatsop County Assessment Rolls 1847–1872, Oregon State Archives, Salem.

^49. Clatsop County property assessments list the value of Carlos Shane's property at $250 in 1850, which may warrant describing his house as a hut. Carlos Shane, 1850 and 1854 Assessment, Clatsop County Assessment Rolls 1847–1872, Oregon State Archives, Salem. For examples of early settlers' interest in the site of Fort Clatsop, see D. Lee and J.H. Frost, Ten Years in Oregon (1844; reprint, New York: Arno, 1973); A.C. Wert, Provisional Land Claims Raw Data [1846–1848], Clatsop County Land Records, Oregon State Archives, Salem; P.W. Gillette, "Letters from Oregon," 1853, scrapbook 21, Research Library, Oregon Historical Society, Portland [hereafter OHS Research Library].

^50. Robert Frazer, "A Map of the discoveries ... " in Gary E. Moulton, ed., Atlas of the Lewis & Clark Expedition (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983), 124.

^51. Aaron Arrowsmith, A Map Exhibiting All the New Discoveries in the Interior Parts of North America (London: J. Arrowsmith, [1839]); available at Humanities-Maps, New York Public Library.

^52. Eugène Duflot de Mofras, "Carte du Rio Colombia depuis son embouchure ... ," 1844, map 196, OHS Research Library.

^53. Gary E. Moulton, ed., Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition 13 vols. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983–2001): 6:114. Cf. references by Whitehouse (11:402, 431), Gass (10:180), and Ordway (9:259).

^54. Byram to Karsmizki, April 7, 1999.

^55. Mouth of the Columbia River Oregon Territory Surveyed by the U.S. Exploring Expedition, Charles Wilkes, Esq. Commander, 1841, Drawer 92, Sheet 1, Fortifications Map File, RG 77, National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland.

^56. Monmonier, Drawing the Line, 1.

^57. W. Raymond Wood, ed., Ice Glider 32OL110: Papers in Northern Plains Prehistory and Ethnohistory (Sioux Falls, S.D.: Archaeology Laboratory, Augustana College, 1986), 25.

^58. Turley, Mercator's World, p. 2.

^59. Monmonier, 149.

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.