mBum of a bay or a river and passed on, after naming it "Boca de Flan". Further north, he would have seen to the east the "Isla y Archipielago de San Juan", and, as Verdia had marked them as a solid land mass, he correctly identified it as a group of islands. He entered the large bay we now call Bellingham and named it and the islands at its mouth. MajorMditthews found great significance at one of Narvaez' stops north of Belling- ham. On his chart, Narvaez had marked "Punta y Laguna del Garzon", and has clearly marked a lake on his map. The lake exists where he marked it - Lake Terrell, near Ferndale, Washington. But the shore along Point Garzon is and was marked by cliffs as much as two hundred feet high. How could Narvaez have known that there was a lake there? Major Matthews believes we are justified in believing that Narvaez went ashore and visited the lake. M€.tthews speculates that Narvaez met local Indians at sea, and conveyed to them his need for meat. The Indians led him to the lake because, in the marshlands surrounding the lake, there was an abundance of elk. The cliffs are not a problem because, even today, a gully cut by a creek gives a reasonably easy passageway to the lake. Even the use of the word lagoon instead of lake is supportive - Lake Terrell is shallow. There is even an anchor to indicate the Narvaez moored opposite the creek mouth (Narvaez used a dotted line to indicate route, anchors to show where he stopped, and figures to show depths in brazas, a braza being 5'k feet.) To M'&tthews, it was im- portant to establish that Narvaez did go ashore, because if he went ashore here it is highly probable that he went ashore elsewhere. Matthews needed the possibility of a second landing to justifiy speculation on what happened at Narvaez' next stop. This occurred in Semiahmdo Bay, opposite the present site of the Indian village of Semiahmoo, which existed in Narvaez' time for it marked it, as he marked all Indian settlements, with two black squares. But if this is accurate, some of his other observations are not. On his chart, he indicated an island "Isla de Zepeda" which we can identify as Point Roberts. Major Matthews has an explanation for his error. First, the Fraser was in flood, and all of the low land would be under water. It is likely that Narvaez would leave the Santa Saturnina at anchor and explore the coast by longboat. He would pass Crescent Beach - it is marked on his map "Punta de San Rafael"- and continue along the shore to somewhere near the mouth of the Serpentine River. From there, looking west, he would see Point Roberts,apparently standing free from any other land mass. It would look like an island. Having put Narvaez at or near the Serpentine River, Matthews made a speculative leap. It has been demonstrated that Narvaez would venture ashore. Suppose now he goes ashore again, and walked a few miles inland - until perhaps, he is im- peded by a great river. He could easily have reached the Fraser in the vicinity of New Westminster. The great impediment to a belief in such a sighting is that surely Eliza would have mentioned it in his report - and he does not. Yet Narvaez demonstrably knew that there was the mouth of a great river somewhere to the immediate north. On his chart, he left a wide gap in his delineation of the coast line, which he marked "Boca de Florida Blanca". His failure to pin point the mouth is understandable. He is in a small sailing ship and dared not hug the coastline too closely lest the winds drive him ashore. His habit of taking constant soundings would have alerted him to the presence of great sand banks, a danger even in time of flood. Today we call them Roberts Bank and Sturgeon Bank and mark them stretching four to five miles out to sea. From that distance out, all Narvaez would see is apparently unending water. He knew there was a river mouth but he could not see it. In his report, Eliza does say, " It is believed that on the north side there must be some very copious river as,close to the Isla de Zepeda, and for a distance of two leagues, they sailed through