"In essence, history is a lie."  --C.J. Cherryh
 
I am well aware of the "official party line" on the introduction of
honeybees.  However, as a member of the breed of revisionist historians,
my research (as is frequently the case) has come up with original source
material that contradicts the standard "facts."
 
Much of the commonly-known "history" of early California is completely
misrepresented, whether the "idyl" of Spanish/Mexican Romance or Anglo- or
Euro-centric "history."  I am currently researching agriculture prior
to the Gold Rush for a continuing project with Cal. State Parks and Recreation,
and can assure you honeybees were here, both by direct reference and by
inference (honey and crops that need them as pollinators).
 
Probably the best commonly-available reference to pre-Gold Rush beekeeping
in California (meaning outside the Bancroft Library at UCB or similar
sources) comes from Hugo Reid's journals (in the Huntington Library).
Much of this text was recently republished in the book "A Scotch
Paisano in Old California."  One of his mentions is of his visit to the
San Gabriel Mission, where he observes wild hives in the trees.  This
is in 1836.  There are references to local honey that date from ca. 1805
(around Monterey) and (again) Mission San Gabriel in 1833.  Probably, the
mission records, if one were willing to sort through all the faded Spanish
handwriting, could provide more documentation.  (These records are not
readily accessible, though, and my Spanish is very basic, beside my main
focus being the Ranchero period: ca. 1825-1847.  I have only done minimal
research in the original Mission records, and that primarily for fruit trees
being grown at Mission San Juan Bautista and Mission San Antonio.)
Unfortunately, the general attitude and skew of the existing documentation
on early California assumes the stance that nothing existed before the
Anglo invasion that occurred with the Gold Rush.  (I have found several
"first grown in..." references that contradict, most notably the Gravenstein
apples---"first imported in 1868" that contradicted the *living specimen*
(now dead) mentioned in the Russian manifest listing of 1836.)  Honeybees
are probably a similar case.
 
If you consider the pollination mechanics involved in keeping large orchards
of citrus and pear trees, which were common both with the Missions and
later the rancheros, which need honeybees as their primary pollinators, it
makes sense that the bees came with the missions.  The local bees are more
oriented toward pollinating the Labiate and Leguminosae families than the
Rosacea, which has always relied on honeybees for primary pollination.  The
yields of the orchards, available both in records and from archeological
remains (mostly stone-fruit pits) indicate heavy fruit production.
 
It also would make sense in that sugar was a rare and expensive commodity
in early California (often costing up to $30 for a 10 lb cone), so that
a cheap and renewable sweetener, such as honey, would be desirable.
 
I've already, in the course of this project, managed to prove that "sourdough"
as we currently understand it was unknown and undesirable here, prior to
about 1870 (120 pages of treatise, oy vey!), so I suspect one of my next
projects will have to be similar myth-dispersal about beekeeping.  (I'm
certain the American Bee Journal would be interested, which is a larger
audience that most of my research has found, so far!)
 
  Jane Beckman [[log in to unmask]]
  State of California Parks and Recreation Volunteer Interpreter/Research
  Historian