diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/69319-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/69319-0.txt | 4485 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 4485 deletions
diff --git a/old/69319-0.txt b/old/69319-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 4a4888b..0000000 --- a/old/69319-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4485 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Prehistoric villages, castles, and -towers of southwestern Colorado, by Jesse Walter Fewkes - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Prehistoric villages, castles, and towers of southwestern - Colorado - -Author: Jesse Walter Fewkes - -Release Date: November 9, 2022 [eBook #69319] - -Language: English - -Produced by: The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at - https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images - generously made available by The Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PREHISTORIC VILLAGES, -CASTLES, AND TOWERS OF SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO *** - - - - - -Transcriber’s Notes: - - Underscores “_” before and after a word or phrase indicate _italics_ - in the original text. - Small capitals have been converted to SOLID capitals. - Illustrations have been moved so they do not break up paragraphs. - Old or antiquated spellings have been preserved. - Typographical and punctuation errors have been silently corrected. - - - - - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION - BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY - BULLETIN 70 - - PREHISTORIC VILLAGES, CASTLES, AND - TOWERS OF SOUTHWESTERN - COLORADO - - BY - J. WALTER FEWKES - - [Illustration] - - WASHINGTON - GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE - 1919 - - - - - LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL - - SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, - BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY, - _Washington, D. C., January 23, 1919_. - - SIR: I have the honor to transmit the accompanying manuscript, - entitled “Prehistoric Villages, Castles, and Towers of - Southwestern Colorado,” by J. Walter Fewkes, and to recommend its - publication, subject to your approval, as Bulletin 70 of this Bureau. - - Very respectfully, - J. WALTER FEWKES, - _Chief_. - - DR. CHARLES D. WALCOTT, - _Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution_. - - - - -CONTENTS - - - Page - Introduction 9 - Historical 10 - Classification 14 - Villages 16 - Rectangular ruins of the pure type 16 - Surouaro 16 - Goodman Point Ruin 17 - Johnson Ruin 18 - Bug Mesa Ruin 19 - Mitchell Spring Ruin 19 - Mud Spring (Burkhardt) Ruin 20 - Ruin with semicircular core 22 - Wolley Ranch Ruin 22 - Blanchard Ruin 23 - Ruins at Aztec Spring 23 - Great open-air ruins south and southwest - of Dove Creek post office 28 - Squaw Point Ruin 28 - Acmen Ruin 29 - Oak Spring House 29 - Ruin in Ruin Canyon 30 - Cannonball Ruin 30 - Circular ruins with peripheral compartments 31 - Wood Canyon Ruins 32 - Butte Ruin 32 - Emerson Ruin 33 - Escalante Ruin 36 - Cliff-dwellings 37 - Cliff-dwellings in Sand Canyon 38 - Double cliff-house 38 - Scaffold in Sand Canyon 38 - Unit type houses in caves 39 - Cliff-houses in Lost Canyon 40 - Great houses and towers 40 - Masonry 40 - Structure of towers 42 - Hovenweep district 44 - Ruin Canyon 44 - Square Tower Canyon 45 - Classification of ruins in - Square Tower Canyon 46 - Hovenweep House (Ruin 1) 46 - Hovenweep Castle 47 - Western section of Hovenweep Castle 47 - Eastern section of Hovenweep Castle 48 - Ruin 3 48 - Ruin 4 49 - Ruin 5 49 - Ruin 6 49 - Eroded bowlder house (Ruin 7) 49 - Twin Towers (Ruin 8) 50 - Ruin 9 50 - Unit type House (Ruin 10) 50 - Stronghold House (Ruin 11) 51 - Ruins in Holly Canyon 52 - Ruin A, Great House, Hackberry Castle 52 - Towers [C and D] 52 - Holly House 53 - Ruins in Hackberry Canyon 53 - Horseshoe House 53 - Towers in the Main Yellow Jacket Canyon 54 - Davis Tower 55 - Lion (Littrell) Tower 55 - McLean Basin 55 - Tower in Sand Canyon 57 - Towers in Road (Wickyup) Canyon 57 - Towers of the Mancos 58 - Holmes Tower 58 - Towers on the Mancos River below the bridge 59 - Tower A 59 - Tower B 59 - Megalithic and slab house ruins at McElmo Bluff 60 - Grass Mesa Cemetery 64 - Reservoirs 64 - Pictographs 65 - Minor antiquities 66 - Historic remains 68 - Conclusions 68 - Index 77 - - - - -ILLUSTRATIONS - - - PLATES - 1. _a_, Butte Ruin. - _b_, Aztec Spring Ruin. - _c_, Surouaro, Yellow Jacket Spring Ruin. - 2. _a_, Blanchard Ruin. - _b_, Blanchard Ruin, Mound 2. - _c_, Surouaro, Yellow Jacket Spring Ruin. - 3. _a_, Acmen Ruin. - _b_, Mud Spring Ruin. - 4. _a_, Building on rock pinnacle, near Stone Arch, Sand Canyon. - _b_, Stone Arch, Sand Canyon. - 5. _a_, Tower in Sand Canyon. - _b_, Unit type House in Sand Canyon. - 6. _a_, Stone Arch House, Sand Canyon. - _b_, Cliff-house, showing broken corner. - 7. _a_, Scaffold in Sand Canyon. - _b_, Storage cist in Mancos Valley. - _c_, Pictographs near Unit type House in cave. - 8. Double cliff-dwelling, Sand Canyon. - 9. _a_, Cliff-dwelling under Horseshoe Ruin. - _b_, Cliff-dwelling, Ruin Canyon. - 10. _a_, Kiva of cliff ruin, Lost Canyon. - _b_, Cliff ruin, Lost Canyon. - 11. _a_, Square Tower in Square Tower Canyon. - _b_, Tower in McLean Basin. - _c_, Ruin in Hill Canyon, Utah. - 12. Head of South Fork, Square Tower Canyon. - 13. North Fork of Square Tower Canyon, looking west. - 14. _a_, Hovenweep House and Hovenweep Castle, from the south. - _b_, Hovenweep Castle, from the west. - _c_, Hovenweep Castle, from the south. - 15. _a_, West end of Twin Tower, showing small cliff-house. - _b_, Twin Towers, Square Tower Canyon, from the south. - _c_, Tower 4, junction of North and South Forks, - Square Tower Canyon. - 16. _a_, Hovenweep Castle, with Sleeping Ute Mountain, South Fork, - Square Tower Canyon. - _b_, Entrance to South Fork, Square Tower Canyon. - 17. Stronghold House, Square Tower Canyon. - 18. _a_, Head of Holly Canyon. - _b_, South side of Hovenweep Castle, Square Tower Canyon. - 19. _a_, Holly Canyon group, from the east. - _b_, Great House at head of Holly Canyon, from the north. - _c_, Unit type Ruin, from the east. - 20. _a_, Great House at head of Holly Canyon, from the south. - _b_, Ruin B at head of Holly Canyon, from the west. - _c_, Great House at head of Holly Canyon. - 21. _a_, Great House, Holly Canyon. - _b_, Stronghold House and Twin Towers, Square Tower Canyon. - 22. _a_, Hovenweep Castle. - _b_, Southern part of Cannonball Ruin, McElmo Canyon. - 23. _a_, Square tower with rounded corners, Holly Canyon. - _b_, Holly Tower in Holly Canyon. - _c_, Horseshoe House. - 24. _a_, Horseshoe Ruin. - _b_, Bowlder Castle, Road (Wickyup) Canyon. - 25. _a_, Closed doorway in Bowlder Castle, Road (Wickyup) Canyon. - _b_, Broken-down round tower, Square Tower Canyon. - 26. _a_, North side of tower, Square Tower Canyon. - _b_, D-shaped tower near Davis ranch, Yellow Jacket Canyon. - _c_, Model of towers in McLean Basin. - 27. Round tower and D-shaped tower in McLean Basin. - 28. _a_, D-shaped tower in McLean Basin, - showing cross section of wall. - _b_, Round tower in McLean Basin, showing standing stone slab. - 29. _a_, Holmes Tower, Mancos Canyon. - _b_, Lion Tower, Yellow Jacket Canyon. - 30. _a_, Tower above cavate storehouses, Mancos Canyon, - below bridge. - _b_, Tower on mesa between eroded cliffs and bridge over Mancos - Canyon, on Cortez Ship-rock Road. - 31. _a_, Tower above cavate storehouses, Mancos Canyon, - below bridge. - _b_, Eroded shale formation in which are small walled cavate - storehouses. - 32. _a_, Reservoir near Picket corral, showing retaining wall. - _b_, Kiva, Unit type House, Square Tower Canyon. - 33. Pictographs, Yellow Jacket Canyon. - - - TEXT FIGURES - Page - 1. Ground plan of Aztec Spring Ruin 26 - 2. Ground plan of Wood Canyon Ruin 32 - 3. Metes and bounds of Emerson Ruin 34 - 4. Schematic ground plan of Emerson Ruin 35 - 5. Ground plan of Unit type House in cave 39 - 6. Square Tower Canyon 45 - 7. Ground plan of Hovenweep House 46 - 8. Ground plan of Hovenweep Castle 47 - 9. Ground plan of Twin Towers 50 - 10. Ground plan of Unit type House 51 - 11. Holly Canyon Ruins 52 - 12. Horseshoe (Hackberry) Canyon 53 - 13. Ground plan of Horseshoe House 54 - 14. Ground plan of Davis Ruin 55 - 15. Ground plan of Lion House 55 - 16. Ground plan of ruin with towers in McLean Basin 56 - 17. Doorway in Round Tower, McLean Basin 57 - 18. Megalithic stone inclosure, McElmo Bluff 61 - - - - -PREHISTORIC VILLAGES, CASTLES, AND TOWERS OF SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO - -By J. WALTER FEWKES - - - - -INTRODUCTION - - -The science of archeology has contributed to our knowledge some of -the most fascinating chapters in culture history, for it has brought -to light, from the night of the past, periods of human development -hitherto unrecorded. As the paleontologist through his method has -revealed faunas whose like were formerly unknown to the naturalist, the -archeologist by the use of the same method of research has resurrected -extinct phases of culture that have attained a high development and -declined before recorded history began. No achievements in American -anthropology are more striking than those that, from a study of human -buildings and artifacts antedating the historic period, reveal the -existence of an advanced prehistoric culture of man in America. - -The evidences of a phase of culture that had developed and was on the -decline before the interior of North America was explored by Europeans -are nowhere better shown than in southwestern Colorado, New Mexico, -Arizona, and Utah, the domain of the Cliff-dwellers, or the cradle of -the Pueblos. There flourished on what is now called the Mesa Verde -National Park, in prehistoric times, a characteristic culture unlike -that of any region in the United States. This culture reached its -apogee and declined before the historic epoch, but did not perish -before it had left an influence extending over a wide territory, which -persisted into modern times. Through the researches of archeologists -the nature of this culture is now emerging into full view; but much -material yet remains awaiting investigation before it can be adequately -understood. The purpose of this article is to call attention to new -observations bearing upon its interpretation made by the author, under -the auspices of the Bureau of American Ethnology, on brief trips to -Colorado and Utah in 1917 and 1918. - -The peculiar cliff-dwellings and open-air villages of the Mesa Verde -are here shown to be typical of those found over a region many miles -in extent. They indicate a distinct culture area, which is easily -distinguished from others where similar buildings do not exist, but -not as readily separated from that of adjacent regions where the -buildings are superficially similar but structurally different. In -order to distinguish it from its neighbors and determine its horizon, -we must become familiar with certain architectural characteristics. As -our knowledge of the character of buildings in this area is incomplete, -the intention of the author is to define the several different types of -buildings that characterize it. - -When, in 1915, there was brought to light on the Mesa Verde National -Park, Colorado, the mysterious structure, Sun Temple, the author -recalled well-known descriptions of towers and other related buildings -that have been recorded from other localities in southwestern Colorado -and Utah. The published descriptions of these structures did not seem -to him adequate for comparisons, and he planned an examination of these -great houses and towers, hoping to gather new data that would shed some -light on his interpretation of Sun Temple. During the field work in -1917, thanks to an allotment from the Bureau of American Ethnology for -that purpose, he undertook a reconnoissance in the McElmo district, -where similar buildings are found and where he believed cultural -relatives of the former inhabitants of Mesa Verde once lived. In 1918 -he extended his field work still farther. He investigated ruins as far -as the western tributaries of the Yellow Jacket Canyon, penetrating a -short distance beyond the Colorado border into Utah. The object of the -following pages is to make known the more important results of this -visit, and interpret the evidence they present as a contribution to -our knowledge of the extension in prehistoric times of the Mesa Verde -culture area. - - - - -HISTORICAL - - -Attention was first publicly called, about 40 years ago (1875-1877), -by Messrs. Jackson,[1] Holmes, Morgan, and others, to some of the -ruins here considered. It is difficult to identify all of the ruins -mentioned or described by these pioneers. Their “Hovenweep Castle” is -supposed to lie in about the center of the district here considered, -possibly on Square Tower (Ruin) Canyon, although the large castellated -building[2] in Holly Canyon would also fulfill conditions equally -well. Their “Pueblo” may have been situated on the McElmo near the -mouth of Yellow Jacket Canyon. Early writers rather vaguely refer to -a cluster of castles and towers as situated some distance from the -“Burial Place,” which is readily identified on the promontory at the -mouth of the McElmo, as probably those in Square Tower (Ruin) Canyon, -but the cluster may be either at Square Tower or Holly Canyon, both -of which are about the same distance from this site. As “Pueblo” is -not indicated on the map accompanying the Hayden report, the sites of -rock shelters “some 7 miles from ‘Pueblo’ and 3 miles from the McElmo” -remain doubtful. The author retains the name “Hovenweep Castle” for the -ruin in Square Tower Canyon. - -[1] Ancient Ruins in Southwestern Colorado. Rept. U.S. Geol. Surv. -Terr. (Hayden Survey) for 1874, Washington, 1876. - -[2] The situation of a spring near Hovenweep Castle indicates that the -Great House may be the Hovenweep Castle of early writers. - -In his account of ruins in the region visited, Prof. W. H. Holmes[3] -considers several other ruins, as “the triple-walled tower” (here -called Mud Spring village, p. 20), ruins at Aztec Spring (p. 23), -cliff-dwellings and towers of the San Juan and Mancos, the “slab cysts” -or burial places on the Dolores, and the promontory at the junction -of the Hovenweep and McElmo (p. 60). The best preserved towers and -castellated buildings which his article considers occur on the San Juan -and Mancos Canyons, districts on the periphery of the region covered by -this account. - -[3] Report on the ancient ruins of Southwestern Colorado. Tenth Ann. -Rept. U. S. Geol. Surv. Terr. (Hayden Survey) for 1876, Washington, -1879. - -These pioneer reports of Jackson and Holmes not only called attention -to a new archeological field, but also introduced to the archeologist -several new types of prehistoric American architecture of which nothing -was previously known. They have been repeatedly quoted and are still -constantly referred to by writers on southwestern archeology. - -Although Jackson made many photographs of the castles and towers of -the Hovenweep, none of these were published in his reports, possibly -because halftone methods of reproduction were then unknown. The -illustrations that appear in the text of early reports are mainly -reproductions of sketches. These reports, in which the discovery of -the tower type of architecture and its adjacent cliff-dwellings were -announced, should thus rightly rank as the first important steps in the -scientific investigations of the stone-house builders of this district -of our Southwest; although the allied “Casas Grandes” or great houses -of the Chaco had been described a few years before by Gregg, Stimpson, -and others. - -We have, in addition to these pioneer reports, several magazine -articles of about the same date, the material for which was largely -drawn from them. One of the most important newspaper articles of that -date was written by Mr. Ernest Ingersoll, published in the New York -Tribune, and another, of anonymous authorship, is to be found in the -Century Magazine for the year 1877. New forms of towers and castellated -buildings were added in these accounts to those of the earlier authors. - -One of the most important contributions to the antiquities of the -region about Mesa Verde was made by the veteran ethnologist, Morgan, -who published notes contributed by Mr. Mitchell on a cluster of mounds -near his ranch. As no name was given this village it is here called -the Mitchell Spring Village. Morgan likewise mentions the ruin at Mud -Spring and a tower in the ruin near his spring. Professor Newberry was -the first author to affix the name Surouaro to a ruin situated at the -head of the Yellow Jacket Canyon. - -Several of these ruins were described and figured by Mr. Warren K. -Moorehead as “The Great Ruins of Upper McElmo Creek” in the Illustrated -American for July 9, 1892, the sixth of a series of articles under a -general title “In search of a Lost Race.” He gives descriptions of a -“cave shelter” found near Twin Towers, Square Tower in “Ruin Canyon,” -a building (Hovenweep Castle), and the tower at the junction of the -North and South Forks of Ruin Canyon. This paper is accompanied by a -map of Ruin Canyon by Mr. Cowen. In Moorehead’s discussion of these -remains, individual towers and other ruins are designated by capital -letters, A-V, to some of which are also affixed the names “Hollow -Boulder,” “Twin Towers,” “Square Tower,” etc. Details of structure and -measurements of the more striking buildings and a discussion of certain -features of structure, some of which will be considered later under -individual ruins, are likewise given. - -The most important general article yet published on the prehistoric -remains of the region here considered is by Dr. T. Mitchell Prudden,[4] -who also mentions several of the ruins here treated. His most important -contribution is a description of what he calls the “unit type,” which -he recognized as a fundamental structural feature in the pueblos of -this region. He also showed that the kiva in Montezuma Valley villages -is identical with that of cliff-dwellings in the Mesa Verde, and -emphasized, as an important feature, the union of the tower and the -pueblo, a characteristic of the highest form of pueblo architecture. - -Doctor Prudden has followed his comprehensive paper above mentioned -with an account[5] of the excavation of one of the mounds at Mitchell -Spring in which he adds to our knowledge of the structure of his “unit -type.” - -In “A Further Study of Prehistoric Small House Ruins in the San Juan -Watershed,”[6] Doctor Prudden has furnished important additional data -which shows the uniformity of the unit type over a large area of the -San Juan drainage. - -[4] The Prehistoric Ruins of the San Juan Watershed in Utah, Arizona, -Colorado, and New Mexico., Amer. Anthrop., n. s. vol. v, no. 2, 1903. - -[5] The Circular Kivas of Small Ruins in the San Juan Watershed. Amer. -Anthrop., n. s. vol. xvi, no. 1, 1914. - -[6] Memoirs Amer. Anthrop. Asso., vol. v, no. 1, 1918. - -The following among other prehistoric remains in the district -mentioned or described by Doctor Prudden are covered by the author’s -reconnoissance: - - 1. Ruins at Dolores Bend (Escalante Ruin). - 2. Wolley Ranch Ruin. - 3. Burkhardt Ruin (Mud Spring Village). - 4. Goodman Point Ruin. - 5. Unnamed ruin west of Goodman Lake. - 6. Ruin at junction of McElmo and Yellow Jacket. - 7. Group on Yellow Jacket nearly opposite mouth of Dawson Canyon - (Davis or Littrell Tower). - 8. Surouaro. - 9. Cannonball Ruin. - 10. Towers and buildings of Ruin and Bridge Canyons. - 11. Pierson Spring Ruin. - 12. Bug Spring Ruins. - -The following towers can be identified from his figures:[7] - - 1. “Square building opposite mouth of Dawson Creek.” - Prudden, pl. xviii, fig. 2. (This building is not - square, but semicircular.) - - 2. Cannonball Ruin. Prudden, pl. xxi [xxii]. - - 3. “Small tower-like structure ... at the head of Ruin - Canyon, in the Yellow Jacket group.” Prudden, pl. - xxiii, fig. 2. (This building is not in Ruin Canyon, - but in Holly Canyon.) - - 4. “Tower ... about the head of Ruin Canyon.” Prudden, - pl. xxiii, fig. 1. (This is the most eastern of the - Twin Towers, but not about the head of the canyon.) - - 5. Sand Canyon Tower. Prudden, pl. xxiv, fig. 2. - -Although mainly devoted to descriptions of the cliff-houses of the -Mesa Verde, Baron G. Nordenskiöld’s “Cliff-Dwellers of the Mesa Verde” -discusses in so broad a manner the relationship of pueblo ruins and -cliff-houses that no student can overlook this epoch-making work. In -fact, Nordenskiöld laid the foundations for subsequent students of -pueblo morphology, although some of his comparisons and generalizations -were premature because based on imperfect observations which have been -superseded by later investigations. - -The partial excavation of the excellent ruin at the head of Cannonball -Canyon by S. G. Morley[8] sheds considerable light on the morphology -of prehistoric buildings in the McElmo district. Unfortunately -no attempt was made by him to repair the walls of this ruin for -permanent preservation, but it is not too late still to prevent -their further destruction and preserve them for future students and -visitors. Morley’s description of the buildings is accompanied by -good photographs and a ground plan. He brought to light in this ruin -examples of the characteristic unit type kiva. - -[7] Amer. Anthrop., n. s. vol. v, no. 2, 1903. - -[8] The Excavation of the Cannonball Ruins in Southwestern Colorado. -Amer. Anthrop., n. s. vol. x, no. 4, 1908. - -The latest work on the McElmo Ruins, one part of which has already -appeared, is a joint contribution by Morley and Kidder.[9] In this -publication accurate dimensions and sites of ruins in the McElmo and -Square Ruin Canyons are given, with other instructive data. Morley -and Kidder have designated the ruins by Arabic numbers, and in a few -instances by names. The author has preserved these numbers so far as -possible in his account. - -The following ruins in Ruin Canyon and neighboring district covered by -this reconnoissance are described by Morley and Kidder: - - No. 1. Wickyup Canyon, Ruin 1 and Ruin 2, “Boulder Castle.” - No. 2. Two towers in Ruin Canyon: 1ᵃ, near the mouth; 1ᵇ, - Towers on or near forks, No. 1 [Hovenweep Pueblo], - No. 2 [Hovenweep Castle.] - No. 3. [Square Tower.] - No. 4. [Oval Tower.] - No. 5. [Tower.] - No. 6. [6.] - No. 7. [Boulder Cliff-house.] - No. 8. Twin Towers. - No. 9. [9.] - No. 10. [Unit type House.] - No. 11. Gibraltar House and ruin. [Stronghold House.] - No. 12. [12.] - -The pueblos and cave dwellings of the “Pivotal group” (those on or near -the promontory at the junction of the McElmo and Yellow Jacket Canyons) -were also studied by the authors. - -Almost the whole article by Morley and Kidder, which the editor -announces will be completed in a future number of “El Palacio,” is -devoted to descriptions of buildings[10] in Ruin and Road (Wickyup) -Canyons and the ruins of the “Pivotal group” at the base of a -promontory between the junction of the Yellow Jacket and McElmo. - -[9] The Archaeology of McElmo Canyon, Colorado. El Palacio, vol. iv, -no. 4, Santa Fe, 1917. - -[10] The dimensions of buildings and towers given in this article are -welcome additions to our knowledge, but from lack of ground plans -one can not fully determine the arrangement of rooms designated in -individual ruins. - - - - -CLASSIFICATION - - -In the classification by Morley and Kidder and the majority of writers, -sites rather than structural features are adopted as a basis although -all recognized that large cliff-dwellings like Cliff Palace are -practically pueblos built in caves. In the following classification -more attention is directed to differences in structure than to -situation, notwithstanding the latter is convenient for descriptive -purposes. - -1. Villages or clusters of houses, each having the form of the pure -pueblo type. The essential feature of the pure type is a compact -pueblo, containing one or more unit types, circular kivas of -characteristic form, surrounded by rectangular rooms. These units, -single or consolidated, may be grouped in clusters, as Mitchell Spring -or Aztec Spring Ruins; the clusters may be fused into a large building, -as at Aztec or in the community buildings on Chaco Canyon. - -2. Cliff-houses. These morphologically belong to the same pure type as -pueblos; their sites in natural caves are insufficient to separate them -from open-sky buildings. - -3. Towers and great houses. These buildings occur united to -cliff-dwellings or pueblos, but more often they are isolated. - -4. Rooms with walls made of megaliths or small stone slabs set on edge. - -In reports on the excavation of Far View House[11] on the Mesa Verde, -the author called attention to clusters of mounds indicating ruined -buildings in the neighborhood of Mummy Lake, a little more than 4 miles -from Spruce-tree House. This cluster he considers a village; Far View -House, excavated from one of the mounds, is regarded as a prehistoric -pueblo of the pure type. The forms of other buildings covered by the -remaining mounds of the Mummy Lake site are unknown, but it is probable -that they will be found to resemble Far View House, or that all members -of the village have similar forms. - -[11] A Prehistoric Mesa Verde Pueblo and its People. Smithson. Rept. -for 1916, pp. 461-488, 1917. Far View House—a Pure Type of Pueblo Ruin. -Art and Archaeology, vol. vi, no. 3, 1917. - -This grouping of small pueblos into villages at Mummy Lake on the Mesa -Verde is also a distinctive feature of ruins in the Montezuma Valley -and McElmo district. In these villages one or more of the component -houses may be larger and more conspicuous, dominating all the others, -as at Goodman Point, or at Aztec Spring. The houses composing the -village at Mud Spring were about the same size, but at Wolley Ranch -Ruin only one mound remains, evidently the largest, the smaller having -disappeared. - -The third group, towers and great houses, includes buildings of oval, -circular, semicircular, and rectangular shapes. Morphologically -speaking, they do not present structural features of pueblos, for they -are not terraced, neither have they specialized circular ceremonial -rooms, kivas with vaulted roofs surrounded by rectangular rooms, -or other essential features of the pueblo type. The group contains -buildings which are sometimes consolidated with cliff-houses and -pueblos, but are often independent of them. In this type are included -castellated buildings in the Mancos, Yellow Jacket, McElmo, and the -numerous northern tributary canyons of the San Juan. - - -VILLAGES - -RECTANGULAR RUINS OF THE PURE TYPE - -As the word is used in this report, a village is a cluster of houses -separated from each other, each building constructed on the same plan, -viz, a circular ceremonial room or kiva with mural banquettes and -pilasters for the support of a vaulted roof, inclosed in rectangular -rooms. When there is one kiva and surrounding angular rooms we adopt -the name “unit type.” When, as in the larger mounds, there are -indications of several kivas or unit types consolidated—the size -being in direct proportion to the number—we speak of the building as -belonging to the “pure type.” Doctor Prudden, who first pointed out the -characteristics of the “unit type,”[12] has shown its wide distribution -in the McElmo district. The Mummy Lake village has 16 mounds indicating -houses. Far View House, one of these houses, is made up of an -aggregation of four unit types and hence belongs to the author’s “pure -type.” - -[12] The situation of the cemetery, one of the characters of Prudden’s -“unit type,” appears constant in one kiva buildings, but is variable -in the pure type, and, as shown in the author’s application of the -unit type to the crowded condition in Spruce-tree House and other -cliff-houses, does not occur in the same position as in pueblos of the -pure type open to the sky. - -While villages similar to the Mummy Lake group, in the valleys near -Mesa Verde, have individual variations, the essential features are -the same, as will appear in the following descriptions of Surouaro, -and ruins at Goodman Point, Mud Spring, Aztec Spring, and Mitchell -Spring. Commonly, in these villages, one mound predominates in size -over the others, and while rectangular in form, has generally circular -depressions on the surface, recalling conditions at Far View mound -before excavation. These mounds indicate large buildings in blocks, -made up of many unit forms of the pure type, united into compact -structures. One large dominant member of the village recalls those -ruins where the village is consolidated into one community pueblo. -The separation of mounds in the village and their concentration in -the community house may be of chronological importance, although the -relative age of the simple and composite forms can not at present -be determined; but it is important to recognize that the units of -construction in villages and community buildings are identical. - - -SUROUARO - -The cluster of mounds formerly called Surouaro, now known as Yellow -Jacket Spring Ruin, is situated near the head of the canyon of the same -name to the left of the Monticello road, 14 miles west of Dolores. This -village (pls. 1, _c_; 2, _c_) contains both large and small houses of -the pure pueblo type, covering an area somewhat less than the Mummy -Lake group, on the Mesa Verde. The arrangement of mounds in clusters -naturally recalls the Galisteo and Jemez districts, New Mexico, where, -however, the arrangement of the mounds and the structure of each is -different. The individual houses in a Mesa Verde or Yellow Jacket -village were not so grouped as to inclose a rectangular court, but were -irregularly distributed with intervals of considerable size between -them.[13] - -The largest mound in the Surouaro village, shown in plate 1, _c_, -corresponds with the so-called “Upper House” of Aztec Spring Ruin, but -is much larger than Far View or any other single mound in the Mummy -Lake village. - -Surouaro was one of the first ruins in this region described by -American explorers, attention having been first called to it by -Professor Newberry,[14] whose description follows: “Surouaro is the -name of a ruined town which must have once contained a population of -several thousands. The name is said to be of Indian (Utah) origin, -and to signify desolation, and certainly no better could have been -selected.... The houses are, many of them, large, and all built of -stone, hammer dressed on the exposed faces. Fragments of pottery are -exceedingly common, though like the buildings, showing great age.... -The remains of _metates_ (corn mills) are abundant about the ruins. The -ruins of several large reservoirs, built of masonry, may be seen at -Surouaro, and there are traces of acequias which led to them, through -which water was brought, perhaps from a great distance.” - -[13] In his valuable study, Pueblo Ruins of the Galisteo Basin, New -Mexico (Anthrop. Papers of the Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., vol. XV, pt. 1, -1914), Mr. Nelson figures (Plan I, _B_) an embedded circular kiva in -what he calls the “historic part” of the Galisteo Ruin, but does not -state how he distinguishes the historic from the prehistoric part of -this building. The other kivas at Galisteo are few in number and not -embedded, but situated outside the house masses as in historic pueblos. - -[14] Report of the exploring expedition from Santa Fe, New Mexico, -to the Junction of the Grand and Green Rivers of the Great Colorado -of the West in 1859, under the command of Capt. J. N. Macomb, p. 88, -Washington, 1876. - - -GOODMAN POINT RUIN - -This ruin is a cluster of small mounds surrounding larger ones, -recalling the arrangement at Aztec Spring. They naturally fall into two -groups which from their direction or relation to the adjacent spring -may be called the south and north sections. - -The most important mound of the south section, Block A, measures 74 -feet on the north, 79 feet on the south, and 76 feet on the west side. -This large mound corresponds morphologically to the “Upper House” at -Aztec Spring (fig. 1, _A_). About it there are arranged at intervals, -mainly on the north and east sides, other smaller mounds generally -indicating rectangular buildings. The southeast angle of the largest -is connected by a low wall with one of the smaller mounds, forming -an enclosure called a court, whose northern border is the rim of -the canyon just above the spring. A determination of the detailed -architectural features of the building buried under Block A is not -possible, as none of its walls stand above the mass of fallen stones, -but it is evident, from circular depressions and fragments of straight -walls that appear over the surface of the mound, that the rooms were -of two kinds, rectangular forms, or dwellings, and circular chambers, -or kivas. This mound resembles Far View House on the Mesa Verde before -excavation. - -A large circular depression, 56 feet in diameter, is situated in the -midst of the largest mounds. A unique feature of this depression, -recognized and described by Doctor Prudden, are four piles of stones, -regularly arranged on the floor. The author adopts the suggestion -that this area was once roofed and served as a central circular kiva, -necessitating a roof of such dimensions that four masonry pillars -served for its support. The mound measures about 15 feet in height, -and has large trees growing on its surface, offering evidence of -a considerable age. Several other rooms are indicated by circular -surface depressions, but their relation to the rectangular rooms can be -determined only by excavation. - - -JOHNSON RUIN - -This ruin, to which the author was conducted by Mr. C. K. Davis, is -about 4 miles west of the Goodman Point Ruin near Mr. Johnson’s ranch -house, in section 12, township 36, range 18. It is said to be situated -at the head of Sand Canyon, a tributary of the McElmo, and is one of -the largest ruins visited. The remains of former houses skirt the rim -of the canyon head for fully half a mile, forming a continuous series -of mounds in which can be traced towers, great houses, and other types -of buildings, and numerous depressions indicating sunken kivas. The -walls of these buildings were, however, so tumbled down that little -now remains above ground save piles of stones in which tops of buried -walls may still be detected, but not without some difficulty. In a cave -under the “mesa rim” there is a small cliff-house in the walls of which -extremities of the original wooden rafters still remain in place. - -In an open clearing, about 3 miles south and west of Mr. J. W. Fulk’s -house, Renaraye post office, there is a small ruin of rectangular form, -the ground plan of which shows two rectangular sections of different -sizes, joined at one angle. The largest section measures approximately -20 by 50 feet. It consists of low rooms surrounding two circular -depressions, possibly kivas. Although constructed on a small scale, -this section reminds one of the Upper House of Aztec Spring Ruin. The -smaller section, which also has a rectangular form, has remains of -high rooms on opposite sides and low walls on the remaining sides. -In the enclosed area there is a circular depression or reservoir, -corresponding with the reservoir of the Lower House at Aztec Spring -Ruin. - - -BUG MESA RUIN - -The author was guided by Mr. H. S. Merchant to a village ruin, one of -the largest visited, situated a few miles from his ranch house. This -village is about 10 miles due south of the store at the head of Dove -Creek, and consists of several large mounds, each about 500 feet long, -arranged parallel to each other, and numerous isolated smaller mounds. -Not far from this large ruin there is a prehistoric reservoir estimated -as covering about 4 acres. Many circular depressions, indicated -kivas, and lines of stones showed tops of buried rectangular rooms. -Excavations in a small mound near this ruin were conducted by Doctor -Prudden.[15] - -The canyon which heads near the corral on the road to Merchant’s house -revealed no evidence of prehistoric dwellings. - - -MITCHELL SPRING RUIN - -This ruin takes its name from the earliest known description of it by -Morgan,[16] which was compiled from notes by Mr. Mitchell, one of the -early settlers in Montezuma Valley. Morgan’s account is as follows: - -“Near Mr. Mitchell’s ranch, and within a space of less than a mile -square, are the ruins of nine pueblo houses of moderate size. They are -built of sandstone intermixed with cobblestone and adobe mortar. They -are now in a very ruinous condition, without standing walls in any -part of them above the rubbish. The largest of the number is marked -No. 1 in the plan, figure 44, of which the outline of the original -structure is still discernible. It is 94 feet in length and 47 feet -in depth, and shows the remains of a stone wall in front inclosing a -small court about 15 feet wide. The mass of material over some parts of -this structure is 10 or 12 feet deep. There are, no doubt, rooms with a -portion of the walls still standing covered with rubbish, the removal -of which would reveal a considerable portion of the original ground -plan.” - -The author paid a short visit to the Mitchell Spring village and by -means of Morgan’s sketch map was able to identify without difficulty -the nine mounds and tower he represents. The village at Mitchell Spring -differs from that at Mud Spring and at Aztec Spring mainly in the small -size and diffuse distribution of the component mounds and an absence -of any one mound larger than the remainder. It had, however, a round -tower, but unlike that at Mud Spring village, this structure is not -united to one of the houses. The addition of towers to pueblos, as -pointed out by Doctor Prudden[17] several years ago, marks the highest -development of pueblo architecture as shown not only in open-air -villages but also in some of the large cliff pueblos, like Cliff -Palace. Isolated towers are as a rule earlier in construction. - -[15] Memoirs Amer. Anthrop. Asso., vol. V, no. 1, 1918. - -[16] Houses and House-life of the American Aborigines. Cont. N. Amer. -Ethn., vol. IV, pp. 189-190, 1831. - -[17] Prudden excavated a unit type ruin from one of the Mitchell Spring -mounds. (Amer. Anthrop., vol. XVI, no. 1, 1914.) - -The unit type mound uncovered by Doctor Prudden is one of the most -instructive examples of this type in Montezuma Canyon, but the author -in subsequent pages will call attention to the existence of the same -type in Square Tower Canyon. All of these pueblos probably have kivas -of the pure type, practically the same in structure as Far View House -on the Mesa Verde National Park. - - -MUD SPRING (BURKHARDT) RUIN - -The collection of mounds (pl. 3, _b_), sometimes called Burkhardt -Ruin, situated at Mud Spring, belongs to the McElmo series. This -ruin, in which is the “triple-walled tower” of Holmes, for uniformity -with Mitchell Spring Ruin and Aztec Spring Ruin, is named after a -neighboring spring. Like these, it is a cluster of mounds forming a -village which covers a considerable area. The arroyo on which it is -situated opens into the McElmo, and is about 7 miles southwest from -Cortez, at a point where the road enters the McElmo Canyon. - -The extension of the area covered by the Mud Spring mounds is -east-west, the largest mounds being those on the east. These latter -are separated from the remainder, or those on the west, by a shallow, -narrow gulch. There are two towers united to the western section -overlooking the spring, the following description of one of which, with -a sketch of the ground plan, is given by Holmes.[18] - -[18] Op. cit., pp. 398-399. - -“The circular structures or towers have been built, in the usual -manner, of roughly hewn stone, and rank among the very best specimens -of this ancient architecture. The great tower is especially -noticeable.... In dimensions it is almost identical with the great -tower of the Rio Mancos. The walls are traceable nearly all the way -round, and the space between the two outer ones, which is about 5 feet -in width, contains 14 apartments or cells. The walls about one of these -cells are still standing to the height of 12 feet; but the interior can -not be examined on account of the rubbish which fills it to the top. -No openings are noticeable in the circular walls, but doorways seem to -have been made to communicate between the apartments; one is preserved -at _d_.... This tower stands back about 100 feet from the edge of the -mesa near the border of the village. The smaller tower, _b_, stands -forward on a point that overlooks the shallow gulch; it is 15 feet in -diameter; the walls are 3½ feet thick and 5 feet high on the outside. -Beneath this ruin, in a little side gulch, are the remains of a wall -12 feet high and 20 inches thick.... The apartments number nearly a -hundred, and seem, generally, to have been rectangular. They are not, -however, of uniform size, and certainly not arranged in regular order.” - -Morgan[19] gives the following description of the same ruin which seems -to the author to be the Mud Creek village: - -“Four miles westerly [from Mitchell ranch], near the ranch of Mr. -Shirt, are the ruins of another large stone pueblo, together with an -Indian cemetery, where each grave is marked by a border of flat stones -set level with the ground in the form of a parallelogram 8 feet by 4 -feet. Near the cluster of nine pueblos shown in the figure are found -strewn on the ground numerous fragments of pottery of high grade in the -ornamentation, and small arrowheads of flint, quartz, and chalcedony -delicately formed, and small knife blades with convex and serrated -edges in considerable numbers. - -“This is an immense ruin with small portions of the walls still -standing, particularly of the round tower of stone of three concentric -walls, incorporated in the structure, and a few chambers in the north -end of the main building. The round tower is still standing nearly -to the height of the first story. In its present condition it was -impossible to make a ground plan showing the several chambers, or to -determine with certainty which side was the front of the structure, -assuming that it was constructed in the terraced form.... The Round -Tower is the most singular feature in this structure. While it -resembles the ordinary _estufa_, common to all these structures, it -differs from them in having three concentric walls. No doorways are -visible in the portion still standing, consequently it must have been -entered through the roof, in which respect it agrees with the ordinary -_estufa_. The inner chamber is about 20 feet in diameter, and the -spaces between the encircling walls are about 2 feet each; the walls -are about 2 feet in thickness, and were laid up mainly with stones -about 4 inches square, and, for the most part, in courses. There is a -similar round tower, having but two concentric walls, at the head of -the McElmo Canyon, and near the ranch of Mr. Mitchell [Mitchell Ruin].” - -As the name Mud Spring is locally known to the natives, especially -to employees of livery stables and garages, the ruin is here called -Mud Spring. The tower and the other circular buildings are united to -other rooms as in similar groups of mounds. The presence of surface -depressions, thought to indicate circular kivas,[20] shows that the Mud -Spring mounds are remains of a village of the same type as the Mummy -Lake group, but with towers united to the largest mounds. - -[19] Op. cit., p. 190. - -[20] Although the kivas of Mud Spring Ruin have not been excavated -there is little doubt from surface indications that they belong to the -unit type. - -The time the author could give to his visit to the Mud Spring Ruin -(pl. 3, _b_) was too limited to survey it, but he noticed in addition -to the two circular buildings already recorded, a large mound situated -on the west side of the gulch, and numerous small mounds on the -east side of the same, each apparently with a central depression -like a kiva. All these mounds have been more or less mutilated by -indiscriminate digging, but many mounds, still untouched, remain to -be excavated before we can form an adequate conception of the group. -The “triple-walled tower” is now in such a condition that the author -could not determine whether it was formerly circular or D-shaped; the -“small tower” is in even worse condition and its previous form could -not be made out. The Mud Spring mounds cover a much larger area than -descriptions or ground plans thus far published would indicate. - -Originally Mud Spring Ruin consisted of a cluster of pueblos of various -sizes, each probably with a circular kiva and rectangular rooms, -combined with one or more towers at present too much dilapidated to -determine architectural details without excavations. Like the other -clusters of pueblos in the McElmo and Montezuma Valley, the cemetery -near Mud Spring Ruin has suffered considerably from pothunters, but -there still remain many standing walls that are well preserved. - - -RUIN WITH SEMICIRCULAR CORE - -This ruin is situated on the San Juan about 3 miles below the sandy -bed of the mouth of the Montezuma, on a bluff 50 feet above the river. -The ground plan by Jackson[21] indicates a building shaped like a -trapezoid, 158 feet on the northeast side, 120 on the southeast, and -32 on the northwest side. The southwest side is broken midway by a -reentering area at the rim of the bluff over the river. - -[21] Tenth Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol. Surv. Terr. (Hayden Survey) for 1876, -pl. xlviii, fig. 2, 1879. - -In the center of this trapezoidal structure there is represented a -series of rooms arranged like those of Horseshoe House, but composed -of a half-circular chamber surrounded by seven rooms between two -concentric circular walls. Thus far the homology to Horseshoe House is -close but beyond this series of rooms, following out the trapezoidal -form, at least five other rooms appear on the ground plan. The position -of these recalls the walls arranged around the tower at Mud Spring -village. In other words, the ruin resembles Horseshoe House, but has -in addition rectangular rooms added on three sides, forming an angular -building. So far as the author’s information goes, no other ruin of -exactly this type, which recalls Sun Temple, has been described by -other observers. - - -WOLLEY RANCH RUIN - -Wolley Ranch Ruin, situated 10 miles south of Dolores, is one of the -largest mounds near Cortez. There are evidences of the former existence -of a cluster of mounds at this place, only one of which now remains. -This is covered with bushes, rendering it difficult to trace the -bounding walls. - - -BLANCHARD RUIN - -Several years ago private parties constructed at Manitou, near Colorado -Springs, a cliff-dwelling on the combined plan of Spruce-tree House and -Cliff Palace. The rocks used for that purpose were transported from -a large mound on the Blanchard ranch near Lebanon, in the Montezuma -Valley, at the head of Hartman’s draw, about 6 miles south of Dolores. -Two mounds (pl. 2, _a_, _b_), about three-quarters of a mile apart, -are all that now remain of a considerable village; the other smaller -mounds, reported by pioneer settlers, have long since been leveled by -cultivation. As both of these mounds have been extensively dug into to -obtain stones, the walls that remain standing show much mutilation. -The present condition of the largest Blanchard mound, as seen from its -southwest angle, is shown in plate 2, _b_. About half of the mound, now -covered with a growth of bushes, still remains entire, exposing walls -of fine masonry, on its south side. The rooms in the buried buildings -are hard to make out on account of this covering of vegetation and -accumulated débris; but the central depressions, supposed to be kivas, -almost always present in the middle of mounds in this district, show -that the structure of Blanchard Ruin follows the pure type. - - -RUINS AT AZTEC SPRING - -The mounds at Aztec Spring (pl. 1, _b_), situated on the eastern flank -of Ute Mountain, at a site looking across the valley to the west end -of Mesa Verde, were described forty years ago by W. W. Jackson[22] and -Prof. W. H. Holmes.[23] The descriptions given by both these pioneers -are quoted at length for the reason that subsequent authors have added -little from direct observation since that time, notwithstanding they -have been constantly referred to and the illustrations reproduced. - -[22] Rept. U. S. Geol. Survey Terr. (Hayden Survey) for 1874, -Washington, 1876. - -[23] Op. cit. - -As a result of a short visit, the author is able to add the few -following notes on the Aztec Spring mounds. The ruin is a village -consisting of a cluster of unit pueblos of the pure type in various -stages of consolidation. No excavations were made, but the surface -indications point to the conclusion that the different mounds indicate -that these pueblos have different shapes and sizes. - -The author’s observations differ in several unimportant particulars -from those of previous writers, and while it is not his intention to -describe in detail the Aztec Spring village he will call attention to -certain features it shares with other villages in the Montezuma Valley. - -The best, almost the only accounts of this village are the following -taken from the descriptions by Jackson and Holmes published in 1877. -Mr. Jackson gives the following description:[24] - - “Immediately adjoining the spring, on the right, as - we face it from below, is the ruin of a great massive - structure [Upper House?] of some kind, about 100 - feet square in exterior dimensions; a portion only - of the wall upon the northern face remaining in its - original position. The _débris_ of the ruin now - forms a great mound of crumbling rock, from 12 to 20 - feet in height, overgrown with artemisia, but showing - clearly, however, its rectangular structure, adjusted - approximately to the four points of the compass. Inside - this square is a circle, about 60 feet in diameter, - deeply depressed in the center. The space between - the square and the circle appeared, upon a hasty - examination, to have been filled in solidly with a - sort of rubble-masonry. Cross-walls were noticed in - two places; but whether they were to strengthen the - walls or divided apartments could only be conjectured. - That portion of the outer wall remaining standing is - some 40 feet in length and 15 in height. The stones - were dressed to a uniform size and finish. Upon the - same level as this ruin, and extending back some - distance, were grouped line after line of foundations - and mounds, the great mass of which is of stone but - not one remaining upon another.... Below the above - group, some 200 yards distant, and communicating by - indistinct lines of _débris_, is another great - wall, inclosing a space of about 200 feet square [Lower - House?].... This better preserved portion is some 50 - feet in length, 7 or 8 feet in height, and 20 feet - thick, the two exterior surfaces of well-dressed and - evenly laid courses, and the center packed in solidly - with rubble-masonry, looking entirely different from - those rooms which had been filled with _débris_, - though it is difficult to assign any reason for its - being so massively constructed.... The town built about - this spring is nearly a square mile in extent, the - larger and more enduring buildings in the center, while - all about are scattered and grouped the remnants of - smaller structures, comprising the suburbs.” - -The description by Professor Holmes[25] is more detailed and -accompanied by a ground plan, and is quoted below: - -[24] Op. cit., pp. 377-378. - -[25] Op. cit., p. 400. - -“The site of the spring I found, but without the least appearance of -water. The depression formerly occupied by it is near the center of a -large mass of ruins, similar to the group [Mud Spring village] last -described, but having a rectangular instead of a circular building as -the chief and central structure. This I have called the _upper house_ -in the plate, and a large walled enclosure a little lower on the slope -I have for the sake of distinction called the _lower house_. - -“These ruins form the most imposing pile of masonry yet [1875] found -in Colorado. The whole group covers an area about 480,000 square -feet, and has an average depth of from 3 to 4 feet. This would give -in the vicinity of 1,500,000 solid feet of stonework. The stone used -is chiefly of the fossiliferous limestone that outcrop along the base -of the Mesa Verde a mile or more away, and its transportation to this -place has doubtless been a great work for a people so totally without -facilities. - -“The upper house is rectangular, measuring 80 feet by 100 feet, and is -built with the cardinal points to within a few degrees. The pile is -from 12 to 15 feet in height, and its massiveness suggests an original -height at least twice as great. The plan is somewhat difficult to make -out on account of the very great quantity of _débris_. - -“The walls seem to have been double, with a space 7 feet between; a -number of cross-walls at regular intervals indicate that this space has -been divided into apartments, as seen in the plan. - -“The walls are 26 inches thick, and are built of roughly dressed -stones, which were probably laid in mortar, as in other cases. - -“The enclosed space, which is somewhat depressed, has two lines of -_débris_, probably the remains of partition-walls, separating it into -three apartments, _a_, _b_, _c_ [note]. Enclosing this great house is a -network of fallen walls, so completely reduced that none of the stones -seem to remain in place; and I am at a loss to determine whether they -mark the site of a cluster of irregular apartments, having low, loosely -built walls, or whether they are the remains of some imposing adobe -structure built after the manner of the ruined pueblos of the Rio Chaco. - -“Two well-defined circular enclosures or _estufas_ [kivas] are situated -in the midst of the southern wing of the ruin. The upper one, A, is on -the opposite side of the spring from the great house, is 60 feet in -diameter, and is surrounded by a low stone wall. West of the house is a -small open court, which seems to have had a gateway opening out to the -west, through the surrounding walls. - -“The lower house is 200 feet in length by 180 in width, and its walls -vary 15 degrees from the cardinal points. The northern wall, _a_, is -double and contains a row of eight apartments about 7 feet in width by -24 in length. The walls of the other sides are low, and seem to have -served simply to enclose the great court, near the center of which is a -large walled depression (_estufa_ B).” - -The number of buildings that composed the Aztec Spring village (fig. 1) -when it was inhabited can not be exactly estimated, but as indicated -by the largest mound, the most important block of rooms exceeds in -size any at Mitchell Spring Ruin. While this village also covered more -ground than that at Mud Spring, it shows no evidence of added towers, -a prominent feature of the largest mound of the latter. Two sections -(fig. 1, _A_, _B_) may be distinguished in the arrangement of mounds -in the village; one may be known as the western and the other as the -eastern division. - -[Illustration: FIG. 1.—Ground plan of Aztec Spring Ruin.] - -The highest and most conspicuous mound of the western section (_A_) -is referred to by Professor Holmes as the “Upper House.” Surface -characteristics now indicate that this is the remains of a compact -rectangular building, with circular kivas and domiciliary rooms of -different shapes, the arrangement of which can not be determined -without extensive excavations. The plan of this pueblo published -by Holmes[26] shows two large and one small depression, indicating -peripheral rectangular chambers surrounded by walls of rectangular -rooms. - -[26] Op. cit., pl. xl. - -The author interprets the depressions, _K_, as kivas, but supposes -that they were not rectangular as figured by Holmes, but circular, -surrounded on all four sides by square secular chambers, the “Upper -House” being formed by the consolidation of several units of the pure -pueblo type. Although Aztec Spring Ruin is now much mutilated and its -walls difficult to trace, the surface indications, aided by comparative -studies of the rooms, show that Holmes’ “_a_,” “_b_,” and “_c_,” now -shown by depressions, are circular, subterranean kivas. They are the -same kind of chambers as the circular depressions in the mounds on -the south side of the spring. The height of the mound called “Upper -House” indicates that the building had more than one story on the -west and north sides, and that a series of rooms one story high with -accompanying circular depressions existed on the east side. - -The “Upper House” is only one of several pueblos composing the western -cluster of the Aztec Spring village. Its proximity to the source of -water may in part account for its predominant size, but there are -evidences of several other mounds (_E-H_) in its neighborhood, also -remains of pueblos. Those on the north (_C_) and west sides (_E-H_) are -small and separated from it by intervals sometimes called courts. The -most extensive accumulation of rooms next the “Upper House” is situated -across the draw in which the spring lies, south of the “Upper House” -cluster already considered. The aggregation of houses near the “Upper -House” is mainly composed of low rectangular buildings among which are -recognized scattered circular depressions indicating kivas. The largest -of these buildings is indicated by the mound on the south rim of the -draw, where we can make out remains of a number of circular depressions -or kivas (_K_), as if several unit forms fused together; on the north -and west sides of the spring there are small, low mounds, unconnected, -also suggesting several similar unit forms. The most densely populated -part of the village at Aztec Spring, as indicated by the size of the -mounds clustered on the rim around the head of the draw, is above the -spring, on the northwest and south sides. - -There remains to be mentioned the eastern annex (_B_) of the Aztec -Spring village, the most striking remains of which is a rectangular -inclosure called “Lower House,” situated east of the spring and lower -down the draw, or at a lower level than the section already considered. -The type of this structure, which undoubtedly belonged to the same -village, is different from that already described. It resembles a -reservoir rather than a kiva, inclosed by a low rectangular wall, -with rows of rooms on the north side. The court of the “Lower House” -measures 218 feet. The wall on the east, south, and west sides is only -a few feet high and is narrow; that on the north is broader and higher, -evidently the remains of rooms, overlooking the inclosed area. - -Perhaps the most enigmatical structures in the vicinity of Aztec Spring -village are situated on a low mesa south of the mounds, a few hundred -feet away. These are circular depressions without accompanying mounds, -one of which was excavated a few years ago to the depth of 12 feet; on -the south there was discovered a well-made wall of a circular opening, -now visible, by which there was a communication through a horizontal -tunnel with the open air. The author was informed that this tunnel -is artificial and that one of the workmen crawled through it to its -opening in the side of a bank many yards distant. - -No attempt was made to get the exact dimensions of the component -houses at Aztec Spring, as the walls are now concealed in the mounds, -and measurements can only be approximations if obtained from surface -indications without excavation. The sketch plan here introduced (fig. -1) is schematic, but although not claimed as accurate, may serve to -convey a better idea of the relation of the two great structures and -their annexed buildings than any previously advanced. - -The author saw no ruined prehistoric village in the Montezuma Valley -that so stirred his enthusiasm to properly excavate and repair as that -at Aztec Spring,[27] notwithstanding it has been considerably dug over -for commercial purposes. - -[27] Mr. Van Kleeck, of Denver, has offered this ruin to the Public -Parks Service for permanent preservation. It is proposed to rename it -the Yucca House National Monument. - - -GREAT OPEN-AIR RUINS SOUTH AND SOUTHWEST OF DOVE CREEK POST OFFICE - -In the region south and southwest of Dove Creek there are several large -pueblo ruins, indicated by mounds formed of trimmed stone, eolean sand, -and clay from plastering, which have certain characters in common. -Each mound is a large heap of stones (pl. 3, _a_) near which is a -depression or reservoir, with smaller heaps which in different ruins -show the small buildings of the unit type. These clusters or villages -are somewhat modified in form by the configuration of the mesa surface. -The larger have rectangular forms regularly disposed in blocks with -passageways between them or are without any definite arrangement. - - -SQUAW POINT RUIN - -This large ruin, which has been described by Doctor Prudden as Squaw -Point Ruin and as Pierson Lake Ruin, was visited by the author, who has -little to add to this description. One of the small heaps of stone or -mounds has been excavated and its structure found to conform with the -definition of the unit type. The subterranean communication between one -of the rectangular rooms and the kiva could be well seen at the time of -the author’s visit and recalls the feature pointed out by him in some -of the kivas of Spruce-tree House. The large reservoir and the great -ruin are noteworthy features of the Squaw Point settlement. - -It seems to the author that the large block of buildings is simply a -congeries of unit types the structure of one of which is indicated by -the small buildings excavated by Doctor Prudden, and that structurally -there is the same condition in it as in the pueblo ruins of Montezuma -Valley, a conclusion to which the several artifacts mentioned and -figured by Doctor Prudden also point. - -The same holds true of Bug Point Ruin, a few miles away, also excavated -and described by Doctor Prudden. Here also excavation of a small mound -shows the unit type, and while no one has yet opened the larger mound -or pueblo, superficial evidences indicate that it also is a complex of -many unit types joined together. Until more facts are available the -relative age of the small unit types as compared to the large pueblo -can not be definitely stated, but there is little reason to doubt that -they are contemporaneous, and nothing to support the belief that they -do not indicate the same culture. - - -ACMEN RUIN - -Following the Old Bluff Road and leaving it about 5 miles west of -Acmen post office, one comes to a low canyon beyond Pigge ranch. The -heaps of stone or large mounds cover an area of about 10 acres, the -largest being about 15 feet high. East of this is a circular depression -surrounded by stones, indicating either a reservoir or a ruined -building. - -The top of the highest mound (pl. 3, _a_)—no walls stand above the -surface—is depressed like mounds of the Mummy Lake group on the Mesa -Verde. This depression probably indicates a circular kiva embedded -in square walls, the masonry of which so far as can be judged -superficially is not very fine. There are many smaller mounds in the -vicinity and evidences of cemeteries on the south, east, and west -sides, where there are evidences of desultory digging; fragments of -pottery are numerous. - -These mounds indicate a considerable village which would well repay -excavation, as shown by the numerous specimens of corrugated, black and -white, and red pottery in the Pigge collection, made in a small mound -near the Pigge ranch. - -The specimens in this collection present few features different from -those indicated by the fragments of pottery picked up on the larger -mounds a mile west of the site where they were excavated. They are the -same as shards from the mounds in the McElmo region. - - -OAK SPRING HOUSE - -About 15 miles southwest of Dove Creek on Monument Canyon there is a -good spring called Oak Spring, near which are several piles of stones -indicating former buildings, the largest of which, about a quarter of a -mile away, has a central depression with surrounding walls now covered -with rock or buried in soil or blown sand. Very large piñon trees grow -on top of the highest walls of this ruin, the general features of which -recall those at Bug Spring, though their size is considerably less. In -the surface of rock above the spring there are numerous potholes of -small size. One of these, 4 feet deep and about 18 feet in diameter, is -almost perfectly circular and has some signs of having been deepened -artificially. It holds water much of the time and was undoubtedly a -source of water supply to the aborigines, as it now is to stock in that -neighborhood. - - -RUIN IN RUIN CANYON - -One of the large rim-rock ruins may be seen on the left bank of Ruin -Canyon in full view from the Old Bluff Road. The ruin is an immense -pile of stones perched on the very edge of the rim, with no walls -standing above the surface. The most striking feature of this ruin is -the cliff-house below, the walls and entrance into which are visible -from the road (pl. 9, _b_). It is readily accessible and one of the -largest in the country. On either side of the Old Bluff Road from Ruin -Canyon to the “Aztec Reservoir” small piles of stone mark the sites -of many former buildings of the one-house type which can readily be -seen, especially in the sagebrush clearings as the road descends to the -Picket corral, the reservoirs, and the McElmo Canyon. - - -CANNONBALL RUIN - -One of the most instructive ruins of the McElmo Canyon region is -situated at the head of Cannonball Canyon, a short distance across -the mesa north of the McElmo, at a point nearly opposite the store. -This ruin is made up of two separate pueblos facing each other, one of -which is known as the northern, the other as the southern pueblo (pl. -22, _b_). Both show castellated chambers and towers, one of which is -situated at the bottom of the canyon. The southern pueblo was excavated -a few years ago by Mr. S. G. Morley, who published an excellent plan -and a good description of it, and made several suggestions regarding -additions of new rooms to the kivas which are valuable. Its walls were -not protected and are rapidly deteriorating. - -This pueblo, as pointed out by Mr. Morley,[28] has 29 secular rooms -arranged with little regularity, and 7 circular kivas, belonging to -the vaulted-roofed variety. It is a fine example of a composite pueblo -of the pure type, in which there are several large kivas. Morley has -pointed out a possible sequence in the addition of the different kivas -to a preexisting tower and offers an explanation of the chronological -steps by which he thinks the aggregation of rooms was brought about. -Occasionally we find inserted in the walls of these houses large -artificially worked or uncut flat stones, such as the author has -mentioned as existing in the walls of the northwest corner of the court -of Far View House. This Cyclopean form of masonry is primitive and may -be looked upon as a survival of a ruder and more archaic condition best -shown in the Montezuma Mesa ruins farther west, a good example of which -was described by Jackson.[29] - -[28] Amer. Anthrop., n. s. vol. x, no. 4, pp. 596-610, 1908. - -[29] Op. cit., pp. 428-429. - - -CIRCULAR RUINS WITH PERIPHERAL COMPARTMENTS - -It has long been recognized that circular ruins in the Southwest differ -from rectangular ruins, not only in shape but also in structural -features, as relative position and character of kivas. The relation -of the ceremonial chambers to the houses, no less than the external -forms of the two, at first sight appear to separate them from the pure -type.[30] They are more numerous and probably more ancient, as their -relative abundance implies. - -[30] It is premature to declare that the kivas in circular ruins do -not belong to the vaulted-roofed type simply from want of observation -to that effect. In Penasco Blanco and other ruins of the Chaco Canyon -group, as shown in ground plans, they appear to be embedded in secular -rooms. Additional studies of the architectural features of circular -pueblos are desirable. - -These circular ruins, in which group is included certain modifications -where the curve of one side is replaced (generally on the south) by a -straight wall or chord, have several concentric walls; again, they take -the form of simple towers with one row of encircling compartments, or -they may have a double wall with inclosed compartments. - -Many representations of semicircular ruins were found in the region -here considered, some of which are of considerable size. The simplest -form is well illustrated by the D-shaped building, Horseshoe House, -in Hackberry Canyon, a ruin which will be considered later in this -article. Other examples occur in the Yellow Jacket, and there -are several, as Butte Ruin, Emerson, and Escalante Ruins, in the -neighborhood of Dolores. - -In contrast to the village type consisting of a number of pueblos -clustered together, but separated from each other, where the growth -takes place mainly through the union of components, the circular -ruin in enlarging its size apparently did so by the addition of new -compartments peripherally or like additional rings in exogenous trees. -Judging from their frequency, the center of distribution of the -circular type lies somewhere in the San Juan culture area. This type -does not occur in the Gila Valley or its tributaries, where we have an -architectural zone denoting that a people somewhat different in culture -from the Pueblos exists, but occurs throughout the “Central Zone,” so -called, extending across New Mexico from Colorado as far south as Zuñi. -Many additional observations remain to be made before we can adequately -define the group known as the circular type and the extent of the area -over which it is distributed. - -The following examples of this type have been studied by the author: - - -WOOD CANYON RUINS - -Reports were brought to the author of large ruins on the rim of Wood -Canyon, about 4 miles south of Yellow Jacket post office, in October, -1918, when he had almost finished the season’s work. Two ruins of size -were examined, one of which, situated in the open sagebrush clearing, -belongs to the village type composed of large and small rectangular -mounds. The other is composed of small circular or semicircular -buildings with a surrounding wall. The form of this latter (fig. 2) -would seem to place it in a subgroup or village type. Approach to the -inclosed circular mounds was debarred by a high bluff of a canyon on -one side and by a low defensive curved wall (_E_), some of the stones -of which are large, almost megaliths, on the side of the mesa. From -fragmentary sections of the buried walls of one of these circular -mounds (_A_, _B_), which appear on the surface, it would seem that the -buildings were like towers (_C_, _D_). This is one of the few known -examples of circular buildings in an area protected by a curved wall. -In the cliffs below Wood Canyon Ruin is a cliff-dwelling (_G_, _H_, -_J_) remarkable mainly in its site. - -[Illustration: FIG. 2.—Ground plan of Wood Canyon Ruin.] - - -BUTTE RUIN - -The so-called Butte Ruin, situated in Lost Canyon, 5 miles east of -Dolores, belongs to the circular type. It crowns a low elevation, -steep on the west side, sloping more gradually on the east, and -surrounded by cultivated fields. The view from its top looking toward -Ute Mountain and the Mesa Verde plateau is particularly extensive. The -butte is forested by a few spruces growing at the base and extending up -the sides, which are replaced at the summit by a thick growth of sage -and other bushes which cover the mound, rendering it difficult to make -out the ground plan of the ruin on its top. - -From what appears on the surface it would seem that this ruin was -a circular or semicircular building about 60 feet in diameter, the -walls rising about 10 feet high. Like other circular mounds it shows -a well-marked depression in the middle, from which radiate walls or -indications of walled compartments. Like the majority of the buildings -of the circular form, the walls on one side have fallen, suggesting -that a low straight wall, possibly with rectangular rooms, was annexed -to this side. - -In the neighborhood of Butte Ruin there is another hill crowned with a -pile of stones, probably a round building of smaller size and with more -dilapidated walls. Old cedar beams project in places out of the mounds. - -The cliff-houses below the largest of these mounds show well-made walls -with a few rafters and beams. There are pictographs on the cliff a -short distance away. - - -EMERSON RUIN - -This ruin crowns a low hill about 3 miles south of Dolores (fig. -3). The form of the mound is semicircular with a depression in the -middle around which can be traced radiating partitions suggesting -compartments. Its outer wall on the south side, as in so many other -examples of this type, has fallen, and the indications are that here -the wall was straight, or like that on the south side of Horseshoe Ruin. - -The author’s attention was first called to this ruin by Mr. Gordon -Parker, supervisor of the Montezuma Forest Reserve, it having been -discovered by Mr. J. W. Emerson, one of his rangers. The circular or -semicircular form (fig. 4) of the mound indicates at once that it does -not belong to the same type as Far View House; the central depression -is surrounded by a series of compartments separated by radiating -walls like the circular ruins in the pueblo region to the south. Mr. -Emerson’s report, which follows, points out the main features of this -remarkable ruin.[31] - -[31] The letter referring to the circular ruin near Dolores was -prepared by Mr. Emerson, the discoverer of this ruin, and was -transmitted to the Smithsonian Institution as part of a phase of -cooperative work with the Forest Service, by Mr. Gordon Parker, -superintendent of the Montezuma Forest Reserve. - -[Illustration: FIG. 3.—Metes and bounds of Emerson Ruin. (After -Emerson.)] - - DOLORES, COLORADO, _July 7, 1917_. - - In August, 1916, I visited Mesa Verde National Park. - While there Doctor Fewkes inquired in regard to - ruins in the vicinity of the Big Bend of the Dolores - River. He informed me that the log of two old Spanish - explorers of 1775 described a ruin near the bend of the - Dolores River as of great value. - - Later, during October, 1916, I visited a number of - ruins in this vicinity, including the one which (for - the want of a better name) I have mapped and named Sun - Dial Palace. Later, last fall, I again visited these - ruins with Mr. R. W. Williamson, of Dolores, Colorado. - - On July 5, 1917, I again visited these ruins, which - I have designated as Reservoir Group and Sun Dial - Palace.[32] For location and status of land on which - they lie see map of sec. 17, T. 37 N., R. 15 W., N. M. - P. M. (fig. 3). - - While examining Sun Dial Palace I noted the “D-shaped - construction, also that the south wall of the building - ran due east and west.” Also please note the regularity - of wall bearings from the approximate center of the - elliptical center chamber. I also noted that a shadow - cast by the sun apparently coincides with some of these - walls at different hours during the day. This last gave - suggestion to the name. Also please note that the first - tier of rooms around the middle chamber does not show - a complete set of bearings but seems to suggest that - these regular bearings were obtained from observation - and study of a master builder. The result of his study - was built as the next circular room tier was added. The - two missing rooms on the western side of the building - seem to suggest that this building was never completed, - and also bear out my theory of an outward building of - room tiers from the middle chamber. - - On the ground this building is fully completed on the - south side and forms a due east and west line. An error - in mapping the elliptical middle chamber has given the - south side an incomplete appearance. - - I believe that the excavation and study of this ruin - will recall something of value, as Father Escalante - wrote in his log in 1775. - - Respectfully submitted. - (Signed) J. WARD EMERSON, - _Forest Ranger_. - -[Illustration: FIG. 4.—Schematic ground plan of Emerson Ruin. (After -Emerson.)] - -[32] Also see detailed map of construction of Sun Dial Palace (fig. 4). - -A personal examination of the remains of this building leads the author -to the conclusion that while it belongs to the circular group, with a -ground plan resembling Horseshoe House, and while the central part had -a wall completely circular, the outer concentric curved walls did not -complete their course on the south side, but ended in straight walls -comparable with the partitions separating compartments. The author -identifies another ruin as that mentioned by the Catholic fathers in -1775. - - -ESCALANTE RUIN - -The name Escalante Ruin, given to the first ruin recorded by a white -man in Colorado, is situated about 3 miles from Dolores on top of a low -hill to the right of the Monticello Road, just beyond where it diverges -from the road to Cortez. The outline of the pile of stones suggests a -D-shaped or semicircular house with a central depression surrounded by -rooms separated by radiating partitions. The wall on the south or east -sides was probably straight, rendering the form not greatly unlike the -other ruins on hilltops in the neighborhood of Dolores. - -This is supposed to be the ruin to which reference is made in the -following quotation from an article in Science:[33] - -“There is in the Congressional Library, among the documents collected -by Peter Force, a manuscript diary of early exploration in New Mexico, -Colorado, and Utah, dated 1776, written by two Catholic priests, Father -Silvester Velez Escalante and Father Francisco Atanacio Dominguez. This -diary is valuable to students of archeology, as it contains the first -reference to a prehistoric ruin in the confines of the present State of -Colorado, although the mention is too brief for positive identification -of the ruin.[34] While the context indicates its approximate site, -there are at this place at least two large ruins, either of which might -be that referred to. I have no doubt which one of these two ruins -was indicated by these early explorers, but my interest in this ruin -is both archeological and historical. Our knowledge of the structure -of these ruins is at the present day almost as imperfect as it was a -century and a half ago. - -“The route followed by the writers of the diary was possibly an Indian -pathway, and is now called the Old Spanish Trail. After entering -Colorado it ran from near the present site of Mancos to the Dolores. -On the fourteenth day from Santa Fe, we find the following entry: ‘En -la vanda austral del Vio [Rio] sobre un alto, huvo anti-quam (te) una -Poblacion pequeña, de la misma forma qᵉ las de los Indios el Nuevo -Mexico, segun manifieran las Ruinas qᵉ de invento registramos.’ - -“By tracing the trip day by day, up to that time, it appears that -the ruin referred to by these early fathers was situated somewhere -near the bend of the Dolores River, or not far from the present town -Dolores, Colo. The above quotation indicates that the ruin was a small -settlement, and situated on a hill, on the south side of the river or -trail, but it did not differ greatly from the ruined settlements of the -Indians of New Mexico with which the writers were familiar, and had -already described.” - -[33] Fewkes, J. W., The First Pueblo Ruin in Colorado Mentioned in -Spanish Documents. Science, vol. xlvi, Sept. 14, 1917. - -[34] Diario y Dereotero de las nuevas descubrimientos de tierras a los -r’bos N. N. OE. OE. del Nuevo Mexico por los R. R. P. P. Fr. Silvester -Velez Escalante, Fr. Francisco Atanacio Dominguez, 1776. (Vide Sen. Ex. -Doc. 33d Congress, No. 78, pt. 3, pp. 119-127.) - - -CLIFF-DWELLINGS - -There are numerous cliff-houses in this district, but while, as a -rule, they are much smaller than the magnificent examples in the Mesa -Verde, they are built on the same architectural lines as their more -pretentious relatives. Both large and small have circular subterranean -kivas, similarly constructed to those of Spruce-tree House, and -have mural pilasters (to support a vaulted roof, now destroyed), -ventilators, and deflectors. - -There are also many rooms in cliffs, possibly used for storage or for -some other unknown purposes, but too small for habitations. It is -significant that these are identical so far as their size is concerned -with the “ledge houses,” near Spruce-tree House, indicating similar or -identical uses. - -The kivas of cliff-dwellings of size in the region considered have the -same structural features as those of adjacent ruins, but very little -resemblance, save in site, to those of cliff-dwellings in southern -Arizona, as in the Sierra Ancha or Verde Valley, the structure of which -resembles adjacent pueblos. - -The absence in the McElmo region of very large cliff-houses is due -partly but not wholly to geological conditions, the immense caves of -the Mesa Verde not being duplicated in the tributaries of the McElmo; -but wherever caverns do occur, as in Sand Canyon, we commonly find -diminutive representatives. While differences in geological features -may account for the size of these prehistoric buildings, the nature of -the site or its size is not all important.[35] - -[35] Attention may be called to the fact that often we find very -commodious caves without correspondingly large cliff-houses, even in -the Mesa Verde. - -Here and there one sees from the road through the McElmo Canyon a few -small cliff-houses, and if he penetrates some of the tributaries, he -finds many others. The canyon is dominated by the Ute Mountain on the -south, but on the north are numerous eroded cliffs in which are many -caves affording good opportunities for the construction of cliff-houses. - -These buildings do not differ save in size from the cliff-houses of the -Mesa Verde. Their kivas resemble the vaulted variety and the masonry is -identical. - -Although the existence of cliff-dwellings in the tributaries of the -McElmo has long been known, the characteristic circular kivas which -occur in the Mesa Verde had not been recognized previous to the present -report. - -The relative age of the pueblos and great towers and the same -structures in caves can not be decided by the data at hand, but the -indications are that they were contemporary. - -On account of the similarity in structure of the McElmo cliff-dwellings -to those on Mesa Verde, only a few examples from the former region are -here considered. It may be worthy of note that while McElmo -cliff-dwellings are generally accompanied by large open-air pueblos -and towers or great houses on the cliffs above, in the Mesa Verde -open-air buildings[36] are generally situated some distance from the -cliff-dwellings. - - -CLIFF-DWELLINGS IN SAND CANYON - -Several small cliff-houses occur in Sand Canyon, one of the northern -tributaries of the McElmo. Stone Arch House, here figured (pl. 6, _a_), -so-called from the eroded cliff (pl. 4, _b_) near by. It is situated in -the cliff, about a mile from where the canyon enters the McElmo Canyon -near Battle Rock. Abundant piñon trees and a few scrubby cedars grow -in the low mounds of the talus below the ruin, near which, on top of a -neighboring rock pinnacle, still stand the well-constructed walls of a -small house (pl. 4, _a_). - - -DOUBLE CLIFF-HOUSE - -The formerly unnamed cliff-house shown in plate 8[37] is one of the -best preserved in Sand Canyon. It consists of an upper and a lower -house, the former situated far back in the cave, the latter on a -projecting terrace below. Unfortunately it is impossible to introduce -an extended description of this building as it was not entered by the -author’s party, but from a distance the walls exhibit fine masonry. -It is unique in having double buildings on different levels, an -arrangement not rare in a few examples of cliff-dwellings on the Mesa -Verde. As shown in plate 8, the character of the rock on which the -lower house stands is harder than that above in which the cave has been -eroded. The upper house is wholly protected by the roof[38] of the cave -and occupies its entire floor. The lower house shows from a distance at -least two rooms, the front wall of one having fallen. - -[36] Sun Temple, however, is a seeming exception and follows the McElmo -rule of proximity; several large cliff-dwellings occur under the cliff -on which this mysterious building stands. - -[37] Taken from a point across the canyon, the only one from which both -houses can be included in the same photograph. - -[38] For a good example of cliff-houses at different levels, see -Cliff-Dwellings in Fewkes Canyon, Mesa Verde National Park, Holmes -Anniversary Volume. - -From a distance the walls of both the lower and the upper house seem to -be well preserved, although many of the component stones have fallen to -the base of the cliff. - - -SCAFFOLD IN SAND CANYON - -One of the cliffs bordering Sand Canyon has an inaccessible cave in -which is an artificial platform or lookout shown in plate 7, _a_. -Although this structure is not as well preserved as the scaffold in -the neighborhood of Scaffold House in Laguna (Sosi) Canyon, on the -Navaho National Monument, it seems to have had a similar purpose. It -is constructed of logs reaching from one side of the cave to the other -supporting a floor of flat stones and adobe. Its elevated situation -would necessitate for entrance either holes cut in the cliffs or -ladders. - - -UNIT TYPE HOUSES IN CAVES - -In subsequent pages the author will describe a ruin called the Unit -type House, situated in the open on the north rim of Square Tower -Canyon. A similar type of unit type house is found in a cave in Sand -Canyon. The reader’s attention may first be called to the definition -of a unit type, which is a building composed of a circular kiva, -with mural banquettes and pedestals supporting a vaulted roof, with -ventilator, reflector, and generally a ceremonial opening near a -central fire hole in the floor. This kiva (fig. 5) is generally -embedded in or surrounded by rectangular rooms. The single-unit type -has one kiva with several surrounding rooms; the so-called pure type is -composed of these units united. - -[Illustration: FIG. 5.—Ground plan of Unit type House in cave.] - -In an almost inaccessible cave (pl. 5, _b_) in Sand Canyon a few miles -from the McElmo road near the scaffold already mentioned there is a -cliff ruin, so far as known the first described single-unit house in -a cave. It covers the whole floor of the cave (fig. 5) and its walls -are considerably dilapidated, but the kiva shows this instructive -condition: The walls are double, one inside the other, with two sets -of pedestals, the outer of which are very much blackened with smoke -of constant fires; the inner fresh and untarnished, evidently of late -construction. A similar double-walled kiva known as “Kiva A” exists -in Spruce-tree House, as described in the author’s account of that -ruin.[39] On the perpendicular wall of the precipice at the right hand -of the ruin in the cave above mentioned are several pictographs shown -in plate 7, _c_. - -[39] Antiquities of the Mesa Verde National Park: Spruce-tree House. -Bull. 41, Bur. Amer. Ethn., 1909. - -The rectangular rooms about the kiva are in places excavated out of the -cliffs, but show standing walls on the front. These were not, however, -constructed with the same care as those of the kiva. - -The cliff-house in Hackberry Canyon (pl. 9, _a_) is one of the most -instructive. It lies below Horseshoe House and appears to be a second -example of a unit type kiva and surrounding rooms. - -The cliff-dwelling in Ruin Canyon[40] visible across the canyon from -the Old Bluff City Road is well preserved. On the rim of the canyon are -piles of stone indicating a very large pueblo, with surface circular -depressions indicating unit type houses. - -[40] The name Ruin Canyon, often applied also to Square Tower Canyon, -is retained for this canyon. - - -CLIFF-HOUSES IN LOST CANYON - -Lost Canyon, a southern tributary of the Dolores River, contains -instructive cliff-houses to which my attention was called by Mr. Gordon -Parker, superintendent of the Montezuma Forest Reserve, who has kindly -allowed me to use the accompanying photographs. This cliff-house -(pl. 10, _a_, _b_) belongs to the true Mesa Verde type and shows -comparatively good preservation of its walls, some of the beams being -in place. It is most easily approached from Mancos. - -There are small cliff-houses in the same canyon not far from Dolores, -but these are smaller and their walls very poorly preserved. - -An interesting feature of these cliff-houses in Lost Canyon is that -they mark the northern horizon of cliff-dwellings of the Mesa Verde -type, having kivas similarly constructed. - - -GREAT HOUSES AND TOWERS - -Great houses and towers differ from pueblos of the pure type but may -often be combined with them, forming composite houses arranged in -clusters called villages. Castles and towers may be isolated structures -without additional chambers, or may have many annexed rooms which -are rectangular, round, or semicircular in form. Semicircular towers -surrounded by concentric curved walls connected by radial partitions -forming compartments are shown in Horseshoe Ruin, to which attention -has been called in preceding pages, and possibly in the circular or -semicircular ruins on hilltops near Dolores. - - -MASONRY - -The masonry of the great house and tower type (pl. 11, _a_, _b_) varies -in excellence, not only in different examples but also in different -portions of the same building. Some of the walls contain some of the -best-constructed masonry north of Mexico; others (see pl. 6, _b_) are -crudely made. In the Great House of the Holly group, where the walls -show superior construction, the lowest courses of rock are larger than -those above, but in Hovenweep Castle small stones are found below those -of larger size; the Round Tower in McLean Basin shows small and large -stones introduced for ornamentation. - -The ambitious constructors of several towers have built the foundations -of these towers on bowlders sloping at a considerable angle, and it -is a source of wonder that these walls have stood for so many years -without sliding from their bases. Although so well constructed in many -instances, the courses were weak from their want of binding to the -remaining wall. As a consequence many corners have fallen, leaving -the remaining walls intact. The builders often failed to tie in the -partitions to the outer walls, by which failure they lost a brace and -have sprung away from their attachment. - -In a general way we may recognize masonry of two varieties. - -1. That in which horizontal courses are obscure or absent. This has -resulted from the use of stones of different sizes, the intervals -between which are filled in with masses of adobe. These stones are -little fashioned, or dressed only on one side, that forming the face of -the wall. - -2. That constructed of horizontal courses, constituting by far the -larger number of these buildings. Each course of this masonry is made -of well-dressed stones, carefully pecked, and of the same size. In this -horizontal masonry the thickness of stones used may vary in different -courses (pl. 11, _b_). They may be alternately narrow or thick, or -layers of thick stones may be separated by one or more layers of -tabular or thin stones. This method of alternation may be so regular -as to please the eye and thus become decorative, a mode of decoration -that reached a high development in the Chaco Ruins. The stones in the -horizontal style of masonry are equal in size throughout the whole -building in some cases, and show not only care in choice of stones but -also in dressing them to the same regulation size. In these cases the -joints fit so accurately that chinking has not been found necessary and -a minimum use of adobe was required. - -The inner walls of kivas are much better constructed than the outer -walls of the same or of the walls about them. The masonry here is -regular horizontal. The sides, lintels, and thresholds of doorways -are among the finest examples of construction. With the exception of -walls sheltered by overhanging cliffs, the plastering has completely -disappeared, but there is no reason to doubt that the interiors of all -the great houses and towers were formerly plastered. - -It is instructive to compare the masonry of the great houses and -towers of the Mancos with that of the towers in Hill Canyon (pl. 11, -_c_) in Utah, the most northern extension of these two types. In Eight -Mile Ruin, one of the largest of these buildings in Hill Canyon, we -have a circular tower with annexed great houses, all constructed of -well-dressed stones, the masonry in the walls showing on one side of -the tower. No excavations, however, have yet been undertaken in Hill -Canyon Ruins, and it is not known whether the unit type of kiva is -found there, but the combination of great houses and towers is evident -from the ground plans elsewhere published.[41] - -The feature of the towers in Hill Canyon is the clustering into groups, -somewhat recalling the condition in Cannonball Ruin, where, however, -they are united. In the Eight Mile Ruin one of the towers is separated -from the remaining houses. - -Several towers have accompanying circular depressions with surrounding -mounds. This association can well be seen in Holmes Tower on the -Mancos Canyon and in Davis Tower and one or two others on the Yellow -Jacket. These depressions, sometimes called reservoirs, have never been -excavated, but from what is known of rooms accompanying towers in the -western section of Hovenweep Castle it may be that they indicate kivas. -Some towers have no sunken area in the immediate vicinity, especially -those mounted on rocky points or perched on bowlders. At Cannonball -Ruin there are several kivas side by side in one section and towering -above them is a massive walled tower and other rooms. - - -STRUCTURE OF TOWERS - -None of the towers examined have evidences of mural pilasters to -support a roof or recesses in the walls as in vaulted-roofed kivas. -They are sometimes two stories high, the rafters and flooring resting -on ledges of the inner wall. Lateral entrances are common and windows -are absent.[42] - -While the author has found no ruin of the same ground plan as Sun -Temple on the Mesa Verde, D-shaped towers or great houses from several -localities distantly recall this mysterious building, and there may be -an identity in use between Sun Temple and the massive walled structures -of the McElmo and Yellow Jacket; what that use was has not thus far -been determined.[43] If they were constructed for observatories we can -not account for the square tower in the South Fork of Square Tower -Canyon, from which one can not even look down the canyon, much less in -other directions, hemmed in as it is by cliffs. Isolated towers are -often too small for defense; and they show no signs of habitation. - -[41] Smithson. Misc. Colls., vol. 68, no. 1, 1917. - -[42] Our knowledge of the entrances into kivas of the vaulted-roofed -type is not all that could be desired. Kiva D of Spruce-tree House has -a passageway opening through the floor of an adjacent room, and Kiva A -of Cliff Palace has the same feature. Doctor Prudden has found lateral -entrances from kivas into adjoining rooms in his unit type pueblo. The -majority of cliff-dwellers’ kivas show no evidence of lateral entrances. - -[43] Mr. Jackson, op. cit., p. 415, regarded it likely that the towers -were “lookouts or places of refuge for the sheep herders who brought -their sheep or goats up here to graze, just as the Navajos used to and -as the Utes do at the present time.” This explanation is impossible, -for there is no evidence that the builders of the towers had either -sheep or goats, the Navajos and the Utes obtaining both from the -Spaniards. - -Are they granaries for storage of corn or places for rites and -ceremonies? Do they combine several functions—observation, defense, and -storage of food? Thus far in studies of more than 30 towers and great -houses not one has been found so well preserved that enough remains -to determine its use, and yet their walls are among the best in all -southwestern ruins. Some future archeologist may find objects in towers -that will demonstrate their function, but from our present knowledge no -theory of their use yet suggested is satisfactory. - -It is impossible from the data available to determine the century in -which the towers and great houses of the region were constructed. Thus -far a few were seen with great trees growing in them, but none with -roofs; the state of preservation of the walls does not point to a great -age. Several writers have regarded them as occupied subsequently to -the Spanish conquest, while others have ascribed to them a very remote -antiquity. It can hardly be questioned that the cliff-dwellers, and by -inference their kindred, the tower builders, were superior in their -arts to modern Pueblos. - -It is important to determine first of all the forms of these towers; -whether their ground plans are circular, oval, square, rectangular, or -semicircular. The northern wall of many is uniformly curved and the -last to fall, which might lead to the belief that the southern side, -generally straight, was poorly made, but one can not determine that by -direct observation, since the latter has fallen. As a matter of fact -the south wall was generally low and straight, over 50 per cent of -the “round” towers being semicircular, D-shaped, or some modification -of that form; but we also have square and rectangular towers. It is -also important to determine whether these had single or multiple -chambers and the arrangement of the rooms in relation to them. This is -especially desirable in towers with concentric compartments. - -It is also instructive to know more of the association of towers with -pueblos and cliff-dwellings or to analyze component architectural -features. The tower type often occurs without appended rooms. At Cliff -Palace and Square Tower House it is united with a pueblo village under -cliffs; in Mud Spring Ruin it has a like relation to rooms of a pueblo -in the open. Has its function changed by that union? What use did the -tower serve when isolated and had it the same use when united with -other kinds of rooms in cliff-dwellings and pueblos? - -No writer on the prehistoric towers of Colorado and Utah has emphasized -the fact that a large number of these buildings are semicircular or -D-shaped, but it has been taken for granted that the fallen wall on -the south side was curved, rendering the tower circular or oval.[44] -In most cases this wall was the straight side of a D-shaped tower. -Doctor Prudden, who first recognized the importance of a union of -towers with other types of architecture in the McElmo district, -says:[45] “Towers of various forms and heights occasionally form a part -of composite ruins of various types.” He says also: “Several of the -houses are modified by the introduction of a round tower.” And again: -“At the head of a short canyon north of the Alkali, which I have called -Jackson Canyon ... each building consists of an irregular mass of rooms -about 200 feet long, with low towers among them.” - -As our studies are morphological, dealing with forms rather than -sites of towers, little attention need be paid to their situation on -bowlders, in cliffs, or at the bottoms of canyons. The majority of the -castellated ruins considered in the following pages are in the proposed -Hovenweep National Monument, but there are others in the main Yellow -Jacket and its other tributaries. - -[44] The tower figured by Prudden (Amer. Anthrop., n. s. vol. v, no. 2, -pl. xviii, fig. 2) as a “round tower” is really semicircular, as shown -in the ground plan (fig. 14) here published. - -[45] Ibid., pp. 241, 263, 273. - - -HOVENWEEP DISTRICT - -The name Hovenweep (“Deserted Valley”) is an old one in the -nomenclature of the canyons of southwestern Colorado and formerly -(1877) was applied to the canyon now called the Yellow Jacket, but at -present is limited to one of the tributaries. The name is here used to -designate an area situated just over the Colorado State line, in Utah, -part of which it is hoped will later be reserved from the public domain -and made a monument to be called Hovenweep National Monument. - -The ruined castles and towers in this district are marvelously well -preserved, considering their age and imperfect masonry. We can -determine their original appearance with no difficulty and use them -in reconstructing the possible forms of more dilapidated ruins, now -piles of débris. The best castles and towers known to the author are -localized in three canyons: (1) Square Tower Canyon, (2) Holly Canyon, -(3) Hackberry Canyon. There are, of course, other castles and towers in -the Yellow Jacket-McElmo region, but there is no locality where so many -different forms appear in equal numbers in a small area. - - -RUIN CANYON - -The Old Bluff Road from Dolores diverges southward from that to -Monticello at Sandstone post office and passes a pile of rocks visible -from the road on the Ruin Canyon long before it reaches Square Tower -Canyon (fig. 6). This large ruin is situated on the east rim and under -it in the side of the cliff are fairly well-preserved cliff-houses. -Other ruins with high standing walls were reported in Ruin Canyon but -were not visited. - -The duplication of names of canyons in this district is misleading. -Names like Ruin Canyon are naturally applied to canyons in which -there are ruins. When the author learned at Dolores of Ruin Canyon, -he supposed it was a tributary of the Yellow Jacket or McElmo, but -while the canyon known to cowboys at Dolores by this name has large -ruins on its rim, it is not the “Ruin Canyon” to which attention is -now directed. The duplication of names has led me to retain the name -Ruin Canyon for one and to suggest the name Square Tower Canyon for the -other. - -[Illustration: FIG. 6.—Square Tower Canyon.] - -After leaving Ruin Canyon the Old Bluff Road takes a southerly course, -passing through the cedars until a sagebrush clearing replaces the -“timber,” where it crosses two well-preserved Indian reservoirs, or -bare surfaces of rock, dipping south, the southern border having as -a retaining wall a low ridge of earth to hold back the water. The -retaining wall of the second reservoir has been built up by stockmen -and, when the author was there, contained considerable water. Crossing -the second reservoir a trail turns east or to the left and follows the -road to Keeley Camp, near which are the “Keeley Towers.” - -At present an automobile can approach within a mile of these ruins. - - -SQUARE TOWER CANYON - -To reach the Square Tower Canyon (pls. 11-17) one returns to the -reservoir on the Bluff Road and continues east about 3 miles farther, -where a signboard on the left hand indicates the turn off to Square -Tower Canyon. Following the new direction about southeast the great -buildings are visible a mile away. An automobile can go to the very -head of this canyon and a camp can be made within a few feet of -Hovenweep House. If the visitor approaches Square Tower Canyon from the -McElmo, he passes through Wickyup Canyon, where there are two towers on -the summits of elevated buttes, not far from the junction of the canyon -and the Yellow Jacket. - -The castles and towers in Square Tower Canyon have been known for many -years and have been repeatedly photographed.[46] - -[46] Among the older photographs seen by the author are those of W. -H. Jackson, prints of which are on exhibition in the State Historical -Museum at Denver, Colo. - -Several descriptions of these ruins have been printed, but no -satisfactory studies of their structure have been published. They -are recognized as prehistoric and are generally thought to have been -inhabited contemporaneously with the cliff-dwellers of the Mesa Verde, -being built in the same style of architecture. - - -CLASSIFICATION OF RUINS IN SQUARE TOWER CANYON - -The ruins in Square Tower Canyon are classified for convenience in -description as follows: - -(1) Ruins which have indications of inclosed circular kivas, with -mural pilasters and banquettes, and closely approximated surrounding -rooms. To this class belong ruins 1, 2, and 10. Of these, Unit type -Ruin (No. 10) has only one kiva and belongs to the simplest or unit -form of the pure type. Ruins 1 and 2 have two or more kivas and are -formed by a union of several units, combined with towers and great -houses. (2) Ruins, the main feature of which is absence of a circular -kiva. The Twin Towers belong to this second or “great house” type. The -few cliff-dwellings in this canyon are small, generally without kivas, -resembling storage cists rather than domiciles. - - -HOVENWEEP HOUSE (RUIN 1) - -This ruin (fig. 7), the largest in the canyon, is situated at the head -of the South Fork. Although many of its walls have fallen, there still -remains a semicircular great house (_B_, _C_, _D_) with high walls -conspicuous for some distance. The ruin is a pueblo of rectangular form -belonging to the pure type, showing circular depressions identified as -kivas (_K_), embedded in collections of square and rectangular rooms, -and massive walled buildings (_E_) on the south side. - -[Illustration: FIG. 7.—Ground plan of Hovenweep House.] - -The standing walls of the ruin are remains of a conspicuous D-shaped -tower (_B_, _C_, _D_), which is multichambered. Its straight wall -measures 23 feet, the curved wall 56 feet, and its highest wall, which -is on the northeast corner, is 15 feet high. At the northwest angle of -the ruin (A) there stand remains of high walls which indicate that -corner of a rectangular pueblo. Hovenweep House (pl. 14, _a_) was the -largest building in this canyon, but with the exception of the addition -of a semicircular tower or great house, does not differ greatly from -a pueblo like Far View House on the Mesa Verde. The piles of stone -and earth indicating rooms below justify the conjecture that when the -fallen débris is removed the unfallen walls will still rise several -feet above their rocky foundations. If properly excavated, Hovenweep -House would be an instructive building, but in its present condition, -while very picturesque, its structure is difficult to determine. - -[Illustration: FIG. 8.—Ground plan of Hovenweep Castle.] - - -HOVENWEEP CASTLE - -This ruin (pls. 14, _b_, _c_; 18, _b_), like the preceding, has -circular kivas compactly embedded in rectangular rooms arranged -about them, indicating the pure type of pueblos. The massive walled -semicircular towers and great houses are combined with square rooms and -kivas, indicating that it is distinguished by two sections, an eastern -and a western, which, united, impart to the whole the shape of a letter -L (fig. 8). - - -WESTERN SECTION OF HOVENWEEP CASTLE - -The western section (fig. 8, _A-D_, _M_) of Hovenweep Castle is made up -of five rooms, the most western of which, _M_, is semicircular, while -_A_, _B_, _C_, and _D_ are rectangular. Room _A_ is almost square, -one of its walls forming the straight wall of the south side of the -semicircular tower, _M_. At the union its walls are not tied into -the masonry of the circular wall of the tower, as may be seen in the -illustration, plate 14, _b_, implying that it was constructed later. -There is an entrance into _A_ from the south or cliff side, and a -passageway from _A_ to Room _B_, which latter opens by a doorway into -Room _C_. All rectangular rooms of the western section communicate with -each other, but none except A seem to have had an external entrance. -The photograph of the south wall of the west section of the ruin (pl. -14, _c_) shows small portholes in the second story and narrow slits in -the tower walls. The lower courses of masonry are formed of thinner -stones than the rows above, but smaller stones compose the courses at -the top of the wall. A view of the north wall of the western section -(pl. 22, _a_) shows the tower and rooms united to it. There is no kiva -in the western section. - - -EASTERN SECTION OF HOVENWEEP CASTLE - -The longest dimension of the western section (pls. 12, 14, _c_) is -approximately east-west; that of the eastern is nearly north-south. The -eastern section (fig. 8, _E-L_), like the western, has a tower (_L_), -which is situated between two circular depressions or kivas (_K_). On -the north and south ends the eastern section is flanked by rectangular -rooms. Those at the north end were better constructed, and even now -stand as high as the walls of the western tower. The views show that -their corners are not as well preserved as their faces, which is due -to defects in masonry, as lack of bonding. Although much débris has -accumulated around the kivas, especially in their cavities, it is -evident that these ceremonial rooms were formerly one storied, and -practically subterranean on account of the surrounding rooms. Several -fragments of walls projecting above the accumulated débris indicate -rooms at the junction of the eastern and western sections of the ruin, -but their form and arrangement at that point are not evident and can be -determined only by excavation. The inner kiva walls show evidences of -mural pilasters and banquettes like those of cliff-dwellings and other -pure pueblo types. - - -RUIN 3 - -The square tower (pl. 11, _a_), standing on a large angular rock in the -canyon below Hovenweep Castle, is a remarkable example of prehistoric -masonry so situated that it is shut in by cliffs, rendering the -outlook limited. Several published photographs of this tower give the -impression that it stands in the open and was an outlook, but that this -is hardly the case will be seen from a general view looking west up the -South Fork. - - -RUIN 4 - -This ruin is a small tower situated in a commanding position on the -point of the mesa where the canyon forks. The section of the wall still -standing indicates a circular form, the north side of which has fallen; -the part still intact, or that on the south side, exhibits good masonry -about 8 feet high (pl. 15, _c_). - - -RUIN 5 - -The walls of the north segment of a tower stand on a large angular -block of stone rising from a ledge above the arroyo, or bed of the -canyon, below Ruin 4, on the South Fork. What appears to have been a -doorway opens on its north side; this opening is defended by a wall, -remains of a former protected passageway into the tower. - -On the perpendicular cliff of the precipice near Ruin 5 and below -the point on which Ruin 4 stands there are several almost illegible -pictographs, below which are rather obscure evidences of a building, -the features of which can be determined only by excavation. - -Instructive features of Tower No. 5 are two parallel walls, one -on each side of the doorway, like those of the circular towers on -the promontory at the junction of the Yellow Jacket and McElmo. -Other towers on the canyon rim show defensive walls, as in Ruin 9, -constructed about their entrances from corners of the buildings to -the mesa rim, effectually preventing passage. Morley and Kidder have -suggested that the walled recess in the cliff below Ruin 9 was probably -built to prevent access from below. This feature is found in the floor -entrances of a building near the Great House of the Holly group. - - -RUIN 6 - -This ruin is a small tower whose curved walls are so broken down that -the form is not evident. It is situated in the base of the talus at the -head of the South Fork (pl. 26, _a_). - - -ERODED BOWLDER HOUSE (RUIN 7) - -This house, more remarkable from its site than its structure, was -constructed in an eroded cave of a bowlder halfway down the talus of -the cliff. The front walls are somewhat broken down, but others built -in the rear of the cave still remain intact. On the top of the bowlder -is the débris of fallen walls, suggesting a former tower, but not -much remains in place to determine its outlines. Where the walls are -protected the mortar shows impressions of human hands and at one place -there are the indentations of a corncob used by the plasterers to press -the mortar between the layers of stone. There were formerly at least -two rooms in the rear of the cave, the front walls of which have fallen -and are strewn down the talus to the bottom of the canyon. - - -TWIN TOWERS (RUIN 8) - -The so-called Twin Towers, which seen together from certain points -appear as one ruin (pl. 15, _a_, _b_), rank among the most impressive -buildings in Square Tower Canyon. They stand on the south side of the -canyon on a rock isolated by a cleft from the adjoining cliff. The -larger (fig. 9, _A-E_) has an oval ground plan and a doorway in the -southwest corner; the smaller (_F_, _G_, _H_, _I_) is horseshoe shaped -with a doorway in the east wall, which is straight. The arrangement of -rooms is seen in figure 9. Small walled-up caves are found below the -foundation on the northwest base of the larger room. - -[Illustration: FIG. 9.—Ground plan of Twin Towers.] - - -RUIN 9 - -The ground plan of this ruin is rectangular in form, 19 feet 6 inches -long by 10 feet wide. The standing walls measure 11 feet in altitude. -It is situated on the south rim at the mouth of the South Fork, just -above Ruin 7, a few feet back from the cliff. A doorway opening in the -middle of its north wall was formerly made difficult of entrance by -walls, now fallen, extending from the northeast and northwest angles to -the edge of the cliff. The masonry throughout is rough; projecting ends -of rafters indicate a building two stories high. There are peepholes -with plastered surfaces through the southeast and west walls, which -suggest ports. A short distance east of the building is a circle of -stones reminding the author of a shrine. - - -UNIT TYPE HOUSE (RUIN 10) - -This pueblo (pl. 19, _c_), from a comparative point of view, is one -of the most interesting ruins in the Hovenweep, and is situated on -the very edge of the canyon on the North Fork not far from where it -begins. It is the simplest form of prehistoric pueblo, or the unit[47] -of a pure type, made up of a centrally placed circular ceremonial room -(fig. 10, _K_) embedded in rectangular rooms, six in number (_A-F_). -The resulting or external form is rectangular, oriented about due north -and south; the southern side, which formerly rose from the edge of the -canyon, being much broken down and its masonry precipitated over the -cliff. - -[47] The “unit type” was first recognized by Doctor Prudden in his -illuminating studies of the pueblos of the San Juan Basin. The author -was the first to point out its existence in cliff-houses of the same -area. - -The central kiva (fig. 10) is made of exceptionally fine masonry and -shows by what remains that it had mural banquettes, and pilasters to -support the roof, with other features like a typical kiva of the Mesa -Verde cliff-houses. A side entrance opens in one corner into a small -room (fig. 10, _G_) in which ceremonial objects may have been formerly -stored (pl. 32, _b_). - -The kiva of Unit type House is architecturally the same as those with -vaulted roofs at Spruce-tree House, Cliff Palace, and Far View House on -the Mesa Verde. A similar structure, according to Prudden,[48] occurs -at Mitchell Spring Ruin in the Montezuma Valley, and near the Picket -corral. The same type was found by Morley[49] at the Cannonball Ruin -and by Kidder[50] in a kiva on Montezuma Creek in Utah, where clusters -of mounds would appear to be composed of single or composite ruins of -this type. This small pueblo was probably inhabited by one social unit, -and may be regarded as the first stage of a compound pueblo. - -[48] Circular Kivas in San Juan Watershed. Amer. Anthrop., n. s. vol. -16, no. 1, 1914. - -[49] Excavation of the Cannonball Ruins in southwestern Colorado. Amer. -Anthrop., n. s. vol. x, no. 4, 1908. - -[50] Explorations in southeastern Utah. Amer. Journ. Archæol., 2d ser., -vol. xiv, no. 3, 1910. - - -[Illustration: FIG. 10.—Ground plan of Unit type House.] - - -STRONGHOLD HOUSE (RUIN 11) - -Ruin 11 is composed of a cluster of several small buildings, one of -which is situated on the north edge of the mesa somewhat east of Ruin -10 (pl. 25, _b_); another, called by Morley and Kidder Gibraltar -House, formerly of considerable size, was built on the sloping surface -of an angular bowlder (pl. 17, 21, _b_). Although many walls have -fallen, enough remains to render it a picturesque ruin, attractive to -the visitor and instructive to the archeologist, by whom it has been -classed as a tower. This building from the east appears to be a square -tower, but it is in reality composed of several rooms perched on an -inaccessible rock. - - -RUINS IN HOLLY CANYON - -The towers in Holly Canyon (fig. 11) are in about the same condition -of preservation as those in Square Tower Canyon. They cluster about -the head of a small canyon (pl. 18, _a_) and may be approached on foot -along the mesa above Keeley Camp, about a mile distant. Two of the -Holly ruins belong to the tower type and were built on fallen bowlders. -One of these has two rooms on the ground floor. (Pls. 19, _a_, _b_; 20, -_a_, _c_.) - -[Illustration: FIG. 11.—Holly Canyon Ruins.] - - -RUIN A, GREAT HOUSE, HACKBERRY CASTLE - -Ruin A (pl. 21, _a_), the largest building of the group, which stands -on the edge of the canyon, is rectangular in form, measuring 31 by -9 feet, and is 20 feet high (fig. 11, _A_). Evidences of two rooms -appear on the ground plan, one of which is 14 feet long, the other 12 -feet inside measurement. The partition separating the two rooms is -not tied into the outer walls, an almost constant feature in ancient -masonry. The ends of the rafters are still seen in the wall at a level -12 feet above the base. Fallen stones have accumulated in the rooms to -a considerable depth, and the tops of the remaining wall, where the -mortar is washed out, will tumble in a short time. - -Ruin B (pl. 20, _b_), situated a short distance north of Ruin A, also -stands on the canyon rim. The north wall is entire, but the south wall -has fallen. What remains indicates that the ruin was about square, with -corners on the north side rounded, imparting to it a semicircular form. -The entrance into this room may have been through the floor. - - -TOWERS [C AND D] - -These towers (pl. 23, _a_, _b_) show some of the finest masonry known -in this region, being constructed on fallen bowlders which their -foundations almost completely cover. Holly Tower (pl. 23, _b_) measures -16 feet high and 21 feet in diameter. It is 7 feet wide, its top rising -to a height level with that of the mesa on which stand buildings -already considered. One of the two rooms of this tower is narrower -and wider than the other, shown in an offset as if constructed at a -different time. Its foundations are 17 feet long by 8 feet wide, the -highest wall measuring, at the southeast corner, 12 feet 8 inches. -There is a fine doorway, wide above and narrow below, in the north -wall. The approach at present is difficult on account of the height -of the rock on which it stands, but there are evidences of former -footholes. - - -HOLLY HOUSE - -Several broken-down walls, some of which are over 6 feet high, situated -east of Ruin A, appear to belong to a pueblo of considerable size (fig. -11, _E_, _F_), but the large foundation rock on which it is situated -has settled, its top having separated from the edge of the canyon, so -that the corner of the building (_F_) is out of plumb. The walls on the -adjoining cliff are also much broken down, although several sections -of them rise a few feet above the general surface. The cause of this -change in level of the base may have been an earthquake or the settling -or sliding of the bowlder on the talus down the hill. The united -building appears to have been a pueblo of rectangular form. Its walls -are so broken down that it was not possible to determine its exact -dimensions. - - -RUINS IN HACKBERRY CANYON - -HORSESHOE HOUSE - -The large building in Hackberry Canyon, one of the terminal spurs of -Bridge Canyon, a mile northeast of the cluster in Holly Canyon, is -particularly instructive from the fact that surrounding the remains of -a circular tower, for two-thirds of its circumference, is a concentric -wall with compartments separated by radial partitions (fig. 12, 1). - -[Illustration: FIG. 12.—Horseshoe (Hackberry) Canyon.] - -Horseshoe House (pl. 23, _c_) stands on the north edge of the canyon -(fig. 12, 1), having its straight wall on the south side, as is usually -the case, the well-preserved north side being curved. The northeastern -corner still stands several feet high. The southeastern corner formerly -rested on a projecting rock, which recalls the cornerstone of Sun -Temple. The masonry of most of the southern segment of the enclosed -circular room or tower has fallen down the cliff. There does not -appear to have been a doorway on the south side, and there is not space -for rooms on this side on account of the nearness to the edge of the -cliff. While the form (fig. 13) of Horseshoe Ruin recalls that of Sun -Temple, in details of room structure it is widely divergent. The length -of the south wall, or that connecting the two ends of the horseshoe, -is 30 feet, its width 27 feet; the highest wall on the northwest side -is 12 feet. Figure 13 shows the arrangement of the rooms and the -mutilation of the south wall of the ruin. The distance between the -outer and inner concentric walls averages 4 feet; the circular room is -17 feet in diameter. - -In the same cluster as Horseshoe Ruin (pl. 24, _a_) there is another -well-made tower (fig. 12, 4), constructed on a point at the entrance -to the canyon, and below it in a cave are well-preserved walls of a -cliff-dwelling. - -[Illustration: FIG. 13.—Ground plan of Horseshoe House.] - -A short distance due north of Horseshoe House, at the head of a small -canyon, a tributary of Bridge Canyon, there are two large pueblos and a -round tower. The pueblos are mentioned by Prudden, who gives a ground -plan which indicates an extensive settlement. - - -TOWERS IN THE MAIN YELLOW JACKET CANYON - -Of the several towers and great houses of the main Yellow Jacket Canyon -two may suffice to show their resemblance to those in Square Tower -Canyon. The two towers considered belong to the D-shaped variety, the -straight wall, as is almost always the case, being on the south side. - - -DAVIS TOWER - -Mr. C. K. Davis, who lives not far from the Yellow Jacket Spring, -conducted the author to a tower of semicircular ground plan (fig. 14) -near his ranch. This ruin (pl. 26, _b_), is situated on a rocky ridge -on top of the talus halfway down to the bottom of the canyon, on its -right side. - - -LION (LITTRELL) TOWER[51] - -This tower (pl. 29, _b_) is built on a bowlder situated in Yellow -Jacket Canyon a mile from Mr. Littrell’s ranch and about 5 miles south -of the Yellow Jacket post office; approximately 20 miles from Dolores, -Colorado. Its ground plan (fig. 15) is D-shaped, the lower story being -divided by partitions into four rooms. The wall of the middle room -seems to be double, or to have been reenforced. It measures 40 feet on -the straight side, the highest wall being about 25 feet above the base. -The foundations rest on the irregular surface of a bowlder to which it -conforms. - -[51] This tower is reputed to be the home of a mountain lion, hence the -name Lion House. - - -[Illustration: FIG. 14.—Ground plan of Davis Ruin.] - - -M’LEAN BASIN - -McLean Basin is 3 miles from the Old Bluff City Road near Picket -corral, 32 miles from Dolores. It has been a favorite wintering place -for stock and is well known to herdsmen. One can approach the ruin -from the road to Bluff City and the towers here referred to are easily -reached by a trail down the mesa to the highest terrace. There are said -to be several ruins in the McLean Basin, the two towers (pls. 26, _c_, -27, 28, _a_, _b_) visited being placed in an exceptional position in -reference to surrounding rooms. One of these towers is circular, the -other D-shaped or semicircular in ground plan (fig. 16, _A_, _B_). - -[Illustration: FIG. 15.-Ground plan of Lion House.] - -Previously to the author’s study of the southwestern towers two forms -of these structures were recognized; the square or rectangular, and -the circular or oval. It is now known that several of the towers -previously described as circular are in reality D-shaped, and this form -is probably more common than the circular. - -[Illustration: FIG. 16.—Ground plan of ruin with towers in McLean -Basin.] - -The rectangular building in the McLean Basin has a circular tower (pl. -28, _b_) on the southwest angle and a D-shaped tower (pl. 28, _a_) on -the northeast. They resemble two turrets rising above the remaining -walls that form the sides of the rectangles. These towers average about -12 feet high, and are well constructed, while low connecting walls -of coarse masonry rise slightly above the surface. It would appear -from the amount of débris that the remaining walls indicate a row -of buildings, one story high, with circular subterranean kivas, but -this can not be accurately determined without excavation of the ruin. -Outside of the rectangle, however, there are at least two circular -areas, possibly kiva pits. The rectangular building measures about 50 -feet square. The ground on which the buildings formerly stood slopes -to the south, and back of it on the north rises a low perpendicular -bluff which effectually shelters it in that direction. The union of a -circular and a semicircular tower with, a rectangular ruin is a feature -not common in the McElmo-Yellow Jacket region but appears in Hovenweep -Castle, elsewhere described. Lower down the sides of the basin and near -by are many indications of walls of buildings. - -The pottery in the neighborhood belongs to the same black and white -types commonly found in the Hovenweep and Mesa Verde areas. - -Except for their peculiar relation to the rectangular building the -McLean towers do not differ essentially from others, which leads to -the inference that they were used contemporaneously and for the same -purpose. There is a well-made doorway (fig. 17) in the Round Tower. - - -TOWER IN SAND CANYON - -Sand Canyon, which opens into McElmo Canyon near Battle Rock, has -several types of prehistoric ruins, viz, towers, cliff-houses, and -large rim-rock pueblos. The tower type of architecture represented by -the example here figured (pl. 5, _a_) is isolated from other forms -of buildings. This tower is figured by Doctor Prudden, who mentions -another in the neighborhood which the author did not visit. - - -TOWERS IN ROAD (WICKYUP) CANYON - -[Illustration: FIG. 17.—Doorway in Round Tower, McLean Basin.] - -The nomenclature of the northern canyons of the McElmo has considerably -changed in the last 40 years. What we now call the Yellow Jacket was -formerly known through its entire course as the Hovenweep. A small -canyon opening near its mouth, now known as Road Canyon, was formerly -called the Wickyup. The Old Bluff City Road from Dolores, Colorado, to -Bluff City, Utah, divides into two branches a short distance before -it descends into the McElmo, its left branch passing through Road -Canyon, the right bank of which follows the Yellow Jacket, which the -traveler fords a short distance above its junction with the McElmo. -Wickyup Canyon may be called picturesque, its cliffs being worn into -fantastic shapes by water and sand. It has important antiquities, among -the most striking of which are two towers (pl. 24, _b_), crowning -the tops of low buttes or hills. The walls of these towers are well -constructed, one being a simple structure with a single room, the other -having appended rectangular rooms extending toward the northwest, some -distance along a ridge of rocks. An examination of these two towers, -which are about one-quarter of a mile apart, shows that they belong to -the same type as the simple forms of those above mentioned, and as the -entrance to Square Tower Canyon is not far away, they probably belong -to the same series. The first of the towers, called “Bowlder Castle,” -is situated a few hundred feet east of the road, from which it is -easily seen. This ruin is rectangular in shape and rises from a basal -mass of débris indicating broken-down walls of rooms. At a level with -the top of this débris on its southern side stands a well-constructed -tower with well-made doorway, the threshold and lintel of which are -smooth stones, whose edges project slightly from the surface of the -wall. One remarkable feature of this tower is that the doorway has been -walled up with rude secondary masonry (pl. 25, _a_). The south wall of -this building has tumbled over, as is usually the case, but the north -wall rises several feet above the base. The masonry of the second tower -is also broken down on the south side, but the standing remains of the -north wall, which is circular, are over 10 feet high. The indications -are that the ground plan of this building was oval in shape and that -it inclined inward slightly from foundation to apex. Scattered over -the surface are the remnants of fallen walls, and near it there is a -well-marked depression, not unlike those found in unit type mounds, -indicating kivas. - - -TOWERS OF THE MANCOS - -The author’s examination of the towers in the region considered -embraced likewise a few in the Mancos Canyon and valley. In all -essential features the Mancos towers resemble those of Mesa Verde, the -McElmo, and the Yellow Jacket Canyons, and were evidently built by the -same people who constructed the towers on Navaho Canyon and elsewhere -on the Mesa Verde National Park. A brief reference to two or three -of these Mancos River towers may suffice to point out their general -structure. - - -HOLMES TOWER - -One of the towers figured by Holmes in 1877 is still among the best -preserved in this region and can be visited by following up the Mancos -Canyon from the west about 10 miles from where the Cortez road crosses -the Mancos River before going on to Ship-rock. There is at this point a -bridge and near the crossing an industrial farm of the Ute Reservation -where accommodations were obtained. The Mancos Valley widens after -leaving the canyon, the southern side of Mesa Verde appearing as a -series of high mesas separated by canyons. In the neighborhood of the -western end of Mesa Verde are lofty buttes, one called Chimney Rock, -another the Ute Woman. This valley and the canyons extending into the -Mesa Verde contain numerous piles of stone indicative of buildings of -rectangular shape with numerous circular depressions. No cluster of -mounds like those in Montezuma Valley was seen, but about 40 sites of -buildings were distributed at intervals. None of these have standing -walls above ground. - -Following up the Mancos Canyon is a wagon about 9 miles an arroyo was -encountered and from there horses were taken and the river crossed to -its south bank, above which, on the shelving terrace, is the Holmes -Tower, visible many miles down the canyon. This tower (pl. 29, _a_) is -in much the same condition as when sketched by Holmes over 40 years -ago. It is circular in form, about 10 feet in diameter, and about 16 -feet high, with a broken window on the north side. The sky line is -irregular. It is one of the best preserved towers, but not as high or -as well constructed as some of the Hovenweep specimens. - -Accompanying this tower on the north there are mounds indicative of -rooms and two circular saucer-like depressions. Excavations revealing a -few human bones, including a well-worn human skull, have been made in a -burial place southeast of the tower, where the surface is covered with -fragments of pottery. Except in size Holmes Tower does not differ from -others already described, but, like them, is connected with rectangular -rooms. Farther up the Mancos Canyon there are other towers, one of -which, Great Tower, is mentioned by Holmes in his report. - -On the way up the canyon, perhaps two-thirds of the distance from the -bridge to the Holmes Tower, midway in the alluvial plain and on the -right bank of Mancos Creek, stands a circular ruin which conforms to -Holmes’s description of Great Tower but is too poorly preserved to be -positively identified. All that now remains of this building is a large -pile of rocks with a central depression, but no signs of radiating -partitions, although such may have existed when it was constructed and -for many years after it began to fall into ruin. - - -TOWERS ON THE MANCOS RIVER BELOW THE BRIDGE - -TOWER A - -There are two towers situated on the south side of the Mancos below the -bridge on the Ship-rock Road, one about 6, the other 7 miles distant. -The walls of the first of these (pl. 30, _b_) are visible for some -distance and are about 6 feet high, evidently very much broken down on -the south and east sides. Its shape is round and there is a pile of -stones indicating rooms on the east side separated from the tower by -a depression. It would be a valuable contribution to our knowledge of -these ruins if some one would determine the nature of these pits, which -can hardly be regarded as reservoirs, but suggest kivas. - - -TOWER B - -The tower (pl. 31, _a_) situated farther down the Mancos River has a -more commanding position than Tower A and is conspicuous because it -stands on a projecting precipice, below the rim of which are walled-up -artificial caves. These caves have apparently never been entered by -white men; the walls of masonry are unbroken and there are square -openings, windows or doorways, which can be made out long before -reaching the place. - -This tower (pl. 30, _a_) is almost perfectly round, about 10 feet in -diameter, and stands at least 6 feet high. The south wall has fallen. -In the pile of rocks on that side may be readily seen the top of a -straight wall reaching to the edge of the cliff as if for protection, -but no other fallen walls may now be seen in the neighborhood. The -face of the cliff below this tower (pls. 7, _b_; 31, _b_) is almost -perpendicular, the component strata of soft shale alternating with -harder rocks, the former well fitted for artificial excavations. - -The author was not impressed with the idea that any considerable -number of troglodytic inhabitants dwelt in the small cliff rooms (pl. -31, _b_)[52] dug in it. Farther on there are other caves the walls of -the entrance to which are still in sight. It is true the surface of -the cliff may have been eroded and fallen in the time since they were -abandoned. They appeared to be storage cists rather than inhabited -rooms. - -[52] A good figure of these cavate rooms is given by Holmes, op. -cit. Comparing the photograph with his figure it appears that their -surrounding shale has worn away somewhat in the last four decades. - -Along the valley by the side of the road down the Mancos from the -bridge to the ruins many heaps of stone were noticed in the valley but -none of these were extensive or had walls standing above ground. Nor -were they arranged in clusters as is common in the Montezuma Valley. -On top of these heaps were found large fragments of slag in which was -embedded charred corn, indicating a great fire. Similar slag also with -burnt corn has often been found by the author on the floor of excavated -rooms. - - -MEGALITHIC AND SLAB HOUSE RUINS AT MCELMO BLUFF - -The ruined walls on the bluff situated at the junction of the McElmo -and Yellow Jacket Canyons are archeologically instructive. As the mesa -between the two canyons narrows in a promontory, about 100 feet in -altitude, its configuration reminds one of the East Mesa of the Hopi. -It is inaccessible on three sides, but on the fourth, where the width -of the mesa is contracted, there are remains of a low zigzag wall, -extending from one side to the other. At the western base of this -promontory, on the ledge higher than the river, there are artificial -walls built on bowlders in the sides of which shallow caves are eroded -and near by them circular depressions. There are likewise remains of -a small pueblo with walls much broken down and across the river the -ruins of a community house, one of the largest in the district. The -exceptional character of the ruins on top of this promontory has been -mentioned or described by several visitors, as Holmes, Jackson, and -Morley and Kidder, and various conjectures have been made as to their -character and relation to the other ruins in this neighborhood. - -The ruins on this mesa are of two kinds: small inclosures made of -slabs of stone set on edge and semicircular structures (fig. 18), also -constructed of upright stone slabs or megaliths. Three of the latter -have concentric surrounding walls with a “vestibule” entrance (?) at -the south somewhat like rooms at the bases of towers. One of these is -said by Morley and Kidder to have three concentric walls. The small -box-like structures are numerous, and are rudely constructed, united in -an imperfect ring about the circular rooms. - -In verification of the various theories that have been suggested to -account for these rectangular structures—their interpretation as -storage bins, burial places, and cremation rooms—we have no proof. -Similar rooms of megaliths exist on Sandstone Canyon and at other -places to the north and in Montezuma Canyon to the west. The rude, -massive character of the masonry leads me to refer them to the slab -house culture of Kidder and the imperfect masonry suggests they were -habitations in a period antedating that of the pure pueblo culture. -Such fragments of pottery as were found were, like the architecture, -rude and archaic, adding weight to the interpretation that they -belonged to a very old epoch. - -[Illustration: FIG. 18.—Megalithic stone inclosure, McElmo Bluff.] - -The author regards the structures made of stones set on edge as very -old, possibly examples of the most primitive buildings in the McElmo -region, antedating the pueblos with horizontal masonry farther east. -West of the mouth of the Yellow Jacket, especially on the Montezuma -Mesa, these megalithic walls are more pretentious, as if this was the -center of the earlier phase of house buildings. In the eastern ruins -these slabs of stone set on edge sometimes appear as at Far View House -with horizontal masonry, but more as a survival. - -Since their discovery and description by Jackson and Holmes 40 years -ago, little has been added to our knowledge of these inclosures, -although similar remains have been reported at various points from -Dolores far into Utah. They are called cemeteries and crematories -by the farmers and stockmen, but skeletons or burnt bones do not -occur in them; the charcoal shows wood fiber, and is not bone ash. -More knowledge must be obtained through excavations before their -significance can be determined. Their association with circular rooms -appears in Jackson’s account[53] of the stone structures on the -promontory at the mouth of the Yellow Jacket. He says: - -[53] Tenth Ann. Rept. U. S. Geol. Surv. (Hayden Survey) for 1876, p. -414, 1879. - -“The perpendicular scarp of the mesa ran round very regularly, 50 -to 100 feet in height, the talus sloping down at a steep angle. On -cave-like benches at the foot of the scarp is a row of rock shelters, -much ruined, in one of which was found a very perfect polished-stone -implement. Gaining the top of the mesa with some difficulty, we found -a perfectly flat surface, 100 yards in width by about 200 in length, -separated from the main plateau by a narrow neck, across which a wall -had been thrown, but which is now nearly leveled. Almost the entire -space fenced in by this wall was covered by an extended series of -small squares, formed by thin slabs of sand-rock set on end. All were -uniform in size, measuring about 3 by 5 feet, and arranged in rows, two -and three deep, adjusted to various points of the compass. There were -also a few circles disposed irregularly about the inclosed area, each -about 20 feet in diameter, their circumferences being formed of similar -rectangular spaces, leaving a circular space of 10 feet diameter in -the center. These rectangles occur mainly in groups, and are found -indiscriminately scattered through the whole region that has come under -our observation upon the mesa tops and in the valleys. They all have -the same general shape and size, and are seldom accompanied by even the -faintest indication of a mound-like character. We have always supposed -them to be graves, but have not as yet found any evidence that would -prove them such. Some that we excavated to the depth of 5 and 6 feet in -a solid earth that had never been disturbed did not reward our search -with the faintest vestige of human remains. In nearly every case, -however, a thin scattered layer of bits of charcoal was found from 6 to -18 inches beneath the surface. In one instance, near the Mesa Verde, -the upright slabs of rock which inclosed one of these rectangles were -sunk 2 feet into the earth and projected 6 inches above it.” - -Holmes (op. cit., pp. 385-386) describes similar structures: - -“The greater portion of what are supposed to be burial places occur -on the summits of hills or on high, barren promontories that overlook -the valleys and cañons. In these places considerable areas, amounting -in some cases to half an acre or more, are thickly set with rows of -stone slabs, which are set in the ground and arranged in circles or -parallelograms of greatly varying dimensions. At first sight the idea -of a cemetery is suggested, although on examination it is found that -the soil upon the solid rock surfaces is but a few inches deep, or if -deeper, so compact that with the best implements it is very difficult -to penetrate it. - -“On the west bank of the Dolores, near the second bend, I came upon a -cluster of these standing stones on the summit of a low, rounded hill, -and in the midst of a dense growth of full-grown piñon pines.” - -The rows of stones at this place, according to the same author, -were composed of undressed slabs, many of which had fallen, the -parallelograms averaging 3 by 8 feet in dimensions. Thin layers of bits -of charcoal and pottery occur in the neighborhood. The date these slabs -were placed upright was very early, for trees growing in the inclosures -were estimated to be three or four hundred years old. These stones were -sometimes “embedded in the sides and roots of the trees.” Holmes had -the “impression that these places, if not actually burying grounds, -were at least places used for the performance of funeral rites ... the -remains of the dead being burned or left to decay in the open air.” - -The interiors of the inclosures were found on excavation to be filled -to a depth of about a foot with soil mixed with ashes. There were many -fragments of pottery, and some other objects near them, but nothing -to indicate, as suggested by previous observations, that they were -burial cists or even crematories for burying the dead. No charred -human remains occur, but charcoal is abundant. It may have been that -these places were used as ovens for roasting corn or for some culinary -purposes, the neighboring circular rooms being possibly used for the -same purposes as towers by the people who formerly inhabited this -region. They are not large enough for dwellings and the soil in them is -too shallow for burial purposes. They belong to a type which is widely -distributed over the district visited by the author. Especially fine -examples occur north of Sandstone Canyon district. - -At the base of the great cliff, on the top of which the remains in -question are found, under the shelter of an overhanging bowlder, may be -seen one of the finest collections of pictographs of animals and human -beings. Not far from the last-mentioned bowlder the walls of a large -pueblo can readily be traced along the banks of the McElmo Canyon. -In his studies of the antiquities of this region the author did not -penetrate west of the mouth of Yellow Jacket Canyon, but he was told -by stockmen and sheep herders of the existence of many other ruins -contiguous to the road all the way from this point to Bluff City. The -most important of these have already been described in a general way. - - - - -GRASS MESA CEMETERY - - -Grass Mesa, a plateau with precipitous sides overlooking the Dolores -River, is about 10 miles down the river from Dolores on the right -bank of the stream. There remain few signs of former buildings at -this place, but very many artifacts, pottery, stone implements, and -fragments of well-worn metates occur at various places, some of which -are among the best ever seen by the author. This bluff seems to have -been the site of a settlement, possibly pre-Puebloan, like that on -McElmo Bluff, with rough walls, resorted to for refuge, and later used -as a cemetery. It is well adapted for these purposes, its top being -almost inaccessible on the river side. There are many other similar -sites of Indian settlements farther down the river, but this is one of -the most typical. The scenery along the road that follows the banks -of the river from Dolores is ever to be remembered on account of high -cliffs on each side. - - - - -RESERVOIRS - - -Many artificial reservoirs dating to prehistoric times were observed in -the area covered by the author’s reconnoissance. These fall into two -well-marked types, one form being a circular depression, apparently -excavated and sometimes walled up with earth or stones. The other -form was not excavated by man, but the sloping surface of rock was -surrounded on the lowest level by a bank of earth, forming a dam or -retaining wall. Both types of reservoirs are commonly formed near some -former center of population, but sometimes occur far from mounds, -wherever the surface of the land has a convenient slope and the water -can be compounded by a retaining wall. The height of the bank that -holds back the water of these prehistoric reservoirs has been increased -in some cases by stockmen; the walls of others still remain practically -the same height they were when constructed by the aborigines. One of -the best examples of the second type of reservoir, the retaining wall -of which is shown in plate 32, _a_, is crossed by the road to Bluff -City near the ruins in Holly Canyon, not far from Picket corral. A few -miles north of this reservoir, at the edge of the cedars, the road -crosses another of these ancient reservoirs, whose retaining bank -has been considerably increased in height by stockmen. The ancient -reservoir at Bug Mesa covers fully 4 acres, and the reservoir near -Goodman Point Ruin is almost as large, and, although somewhat changed -from its aboriginal condition, is still used by farmers dwelling in the -neighborhood. The latter belongs to the first type; the former to the -second. Reservoirs of one or the other type are generally found in the -neighborhood of all large heaps of rocks, the so-called mounds that -indicate the former existence of pueblos. The reservoir of the Mummy -Lake village on the Mesa Verde belongs to the excavated type. - - - - -PICTOGRAPHS - - -At many places covered by this reconnoissance there were found -interesting collections of engraved figures of ancient date cut on -bowlders or vertical cliffs. These are generally situated in the -neighborhood of ruins, but sometimes exist far from human remains. They -generally have geometrical forms, rectangular and spiral predominating. -Associated with these occur also representations of human beings, -birds, and animals, and figures of bird tracks, human hands, and bear -claws. There is a remarkable similarity in all these figures which -sometimes occur on the stones composing the masonry of the buildings -which indicates they were contemporaneous. They were pecked on the -stones with rude stone chisels, but as a rule show no indication of -paint. None of these figures could be regarded, without the wildest -flights of the imagination, as letters or hieroglyphics, and there -is no indication that inscriptions were intended. Their general -character, as shown in a cluster (pl. 33), indicates rather clan -symbols; in some instances spiral forms were probably made to indicate -the presence of water. The incised figures on the walls of buildings -were probably decorative in character, the first efforts of primitive -man to embellish the walls of his dwellings, an art which reached -a very high development in Mexico and Central America. There are, -however, indications that these figures were covered with plaster and -were therefore invisible, so that we might suppose them to be masons’ -signs, indicating the clan kinship of those who constructed the walls. -Perhaps the largest group of these pictographs occurs on an eroded -bowlder near the mouth of the Yellow Jacket Canyon, just below the -great promontory separating it from the McElmo, on the surface of which -are the remarkable dwellings composed of slabs of stone set on edge. -Another large cluster, the members of which are of the same general -style as that already mentioned, was seen in Sandstone Canyon, a few -miles south of the road from Dolores to Monticello. There are several -groups of pictographs in the neighborhood of the large towers elsewhere -described. The most noteworthy of these is situated at the head of -the south fork of Square Tower Canyon on a vertical cliff below the -ruined Tower No. 4. The face of the cliff is very much eroded, and the -figures are in places almost illegible. They consist of bird designs, -accompanied with figures of snakes, rain clouds, and other designs, -portions of which are obliterated and impossible of determination. As a -rule, these pictographs resemble very closely those in the cliff-houses -of the Mesa Verde and add their evidence of a uniformity of art design -in these two regions. - -In addition to pictographs cut on the surface of the cliff, we also -find in sheltered caves others not incised but with indications of -color, showing the former existence of painted figures. Some of these, -however, are not ascribed to the Indians who built the towers, but to -a later tribe who camped in this region after the house builders had -disappeared. They were probably made by wandering bands of Ute Indians, -and are not significant in a comparison of the different kinds of -buildings described in this article. - - - - -MINOR ANTIQUITIES - - -The preceding pages deal wholly with the immovable antiquities, as -buildings, reservoirs, and the like. In addition to these evidences of -a former population, there should be mentioned likewise the smaller -antiquities, as pottery, stone objects, weapons, baskets, fabrics, -bone and other implements. No excavation was attempted in the course -of the reconnoissance, so that this chapter in the author’s report is -naturally a very brief one. The few statements which follow are mainly -based on local collections, one of which, owned by Mr. Williamson, -of the First National Bank of Dolores, is comprehensive. The most -suggestive of these minor antiquities are objects of burnt clay or -pottery, which occur generally in piles of débris or accompany human -burials. It was the custom of these people, like the cliff-dwellers, -to deposit, near the dead, food in bowls and other household utensils, -varying in shape, technique, decoration, and color. The most important -fact regarding these ceramics is that they belong to the same archaic -type as those from the ruins of the Mesa Verde. The predominating -colors are white or gray with black figures, within and without, almost -universally geometrical in form. There occurs also a relatively large -number of corrugated vessels, and those made by using coils of clay, -the figures on their exterior being indented with some implement, as a -bone, stone, or even with the finger nail. While the majority belong to -the black-and-white group, the red ware decorated with black figures -is found but comparatively rarely, which is also true of the pottery -of the cliff-dwellers. In the large variety of forms of burnt clay -objects, the most remarkable in shape is a double water jar, connected -by a transverse tube, the ends of which project beyond the opening into -the jar, much in the form of an animal with a head at one end, body -elongated, terminating in a short tail, the legs not being represented. -While the number of unbroken mortuary bowls obtained from this region -thus far known is comparatively small, we find in many places large -quantities of broken fragments, all of which belong to the varieties of -ware above enumerated. - -None of the bowls, vases, dippers, or other ceramic objects from the -region of the ruins described have that significant feature commonly -called the “life line;” the encircling lines are continuous around -the vessel, and not broken at one point. The broken line never occurs -on archaic pottery like black-and-white ware, and we may accept the -hypothesis that the conception which gave rise to it was foreign to the -people of the Mesa Verde and adjacent areas. It would be instructive -to map out the distribution of this custom which was so prevalent -in pottery from the Gila and Little Colorado and its tributaries, -and absent in that from ruins on the San Juan and Mimbres. It occurs -in ware from certain Rio Grande prehistoric ruins, as if it were a -connecting link with the ancient culture of the Little Colorado. - -Of the stone implements found in this region the most characteristic is -the celt called _tcamahia_ which is not found in regions not affected -by the San Juan culture. These objects are found from Mesa Verde to -the Hopi pueblos.[54] A peculiar form of prehistoric chipped chert -implement occurs at Mesa Verde and elsewhere in the area. A flint knife -in the Williamson collection at Dolores was purchased from a Ute woman -who said it was found on a ruin. She wore it attached to her belt by a -buckskin thong fastened to a bead-worked cover. - -[54] The use of these objects as heirlooms in the Antelope altar of the -Hopi supports the tradition of the Snake people that their ancestors -brought them from the San Juan. - -Bone objects were mainly needles, dirks, and bodkins, presenting -in the main no essential differences from those repeatedly -described, especially by Nordenskiöld in his important memoir on the -cliff-dwellers of the Mesa Verde. Objects made of marine shell are -rare. The presence of flattened slabs of stone or metates showing -on the surface evidences of grinding occur with human bones in many -localities, indicating either that a custom still extant among the -Pueblos of burying the metates with the dead was observed, or that the -burials were made under floors of these long-abandoned houses. It would -seem, on the former hypothesis, that these objects were buried with the -women, but as the condition of the skeletal remains is poor the sex -could not be determined by direct observation. - -The unprotected nature of the sites and the condition of the ruins -prevented the preservation of fragile articles like baskets and -fabrics, which frequently occur in caves, in one or two instances -buried under the floors. There is little doubt that excavations in -cemeteries of the open-sky ruins would reveal considerable material -of this nature, which would probably duplicate that which has been -produced from the adjacent cliff-houses. Many parts of wooden beams, -mainly the remains of flooring and roofs, were seen still in the -walls, but these as a rule were fragmentary. The ends of the timbers -still adhering to the walls show that they were cut into shape by -stone implements, aided by live embers. They appear to have been split -by means of wedges made of stone and often rubbed down smooth with -polishing instruments of the same material. The majority of these -wooden beams plainly show the action of fire, but no roof was intact. -From the size of the logs shown in fragments of beams, it is evident -that the roof supports had been brought there from some distance; trees -of the magnitude they imply do not now grow in the neighborhood of some -of the ruins where these beams occur. - - - - -HISTORIC REMAINS - - -The various objects found in the ruins or on the surface of the ground -as a rule are characteristic of a people in the stone-age culture, -ignorant of metals, and therefore prehistoric, but here and there on -the surface have been picked up iron weapons which belonged to the -historic period. The old “Spanish Trail” mentioned in preceding pages -was the early highway from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to the Great Salt -Lake, and followed approximately an old Indian trail that was probably -used by the prehistoric inhabitants or the builders of the towers. Not -far from the head of Yellow Jacket Canyon a ranchman discovered on -his farm a few years ago the blades of two Spanish iron lance heads -or knives, still well preserved, the hilts, however, being destroyed. -These objects, now in Mr. Williamson’s collection at Dolores, may have -belonged to a party of Spanish soldiers who explored this region, but -their form, in addition to the material, is so characteristic that no -one would assign them to aboriginal manufacture. Fragments of a stirrup -of metal, parts of the harness or saddle, also belonging to the Spanish -epoch, have also been found. The indications are that these objects are -historic, but their owners may have been Indians who obtained them from -Europeans. They probably do not antedate the middle of the eighteenth -century, when two Catholic fathers, with an escort of soldiers, made -their trip of discovery from Santa Fe into what is now Utah. They shed -no light on the epoch of the aborigines who constructed the castles and -towers considered in this paper. - - - - -CONCLUSIONS - - -In the preceding pages the author has considered several different -types of buildings, which, notwithstanding their variety in forms, have -much in common and can be interpreted as indicating an identical phase -of pueblo development. A comparative study of their distribution shows -us that they occur in a well-defined geographical area. In comparison -with stone buildings in other parts of the Southwestern States, this -phase shows superior masonry. It is considered as chronologically -antedating the historic epoch and post-dating an earlier, and as yet -not clearly defined, phase out of which it sprung in the natural -evolution from simple to complex forms. - -These buildings express the communal thought of the builders, since -they were constructed by groups of people rather than by individuals. -Architecture representing the thoughts of many minds is conservative, -or less liable to innovation or departure from prescribed forms and -methods. These community houses express the thought of men in groups -at different times, and, so far as archeology teaches, are the best -exponents of what we call contemporary social conditions, while -pottery and other small portable objects, being products of individual -endeavor, furnish little on social organization, or general cultural -conditions of communities. Although determination of cultural areas -built on identity of pottery often coincides with those determined -by buildings, this is not always the case. Specialized culture -areas determined by highly conventionalized designs on ceramics are -localized, more numerous, and as a rule more modern. Hence a culture -area determined by architectural features may include several subareas -determined by pottery. - -The author has thought it possible to differentiate two distinct epochs -or phases of house building in the upper part of the San Juan drainage, -viz. the early and the middle stages of development. There are included -in the early condition certain crude architectural efforts similar -to the non-Pueblos represented in regions adjoining the Pueblo area. -This early condition, though not clearly defined, is beginning to be -revealed by intensive studies of the so-called slab house dwellings -and isolated brush houses. Evidences of this stage have been found -in several localities, as on McElmo Bluff, or combined with walls of -what may be called true pueblo buildings. The differences between some -of the buildings of the early stage and those of the aborigines in -southern California, or of the Utes and Shoshonean tribes, are slight; -resemblances which point to relations are not considered in detail. - -From their advance in house building, it has been commonly stated -that the Pueblo people were either derived from Mexican tribes or, as -was customary in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to suppose, -their descendants had made their way south and developed into the more -advanced Mexican culture as the Aztecs. These conclusions are not -supported by comparison with available architectural data observed -among these two peoples. The basal error is the mistake in considering -the earth houses of the Gila the same as pueblos. The habitations of -the Gila compounds were structurally different from pueblos, and their -sanctuaries or ceremonial rooms had not the same form or relation to -the dwellings. The Gila compounds are allied to Mexican buildings; but -there is little in common between them and pure pueblos. The same is -true of the type of stone dwellings on the Verde, Tonto, and Little -Colorado. Certain likenesses exist between the Casas Grandes of the -Gila and those of Mexico, although little relationship exists between -the temples or ceremonial buildings of the valley of Mexico and the -Casas Grandes of the Gila. The architecture of the Pueblos and the -Aztecs is very different; the habitations of Mexican tribes resemble -those of the Gila. The forms[55] of ceremonial chambers differ, one -being rectangular mounds or pyramids, the other circular, generally -subterranean. - -[55] Temples of Quetzalcoatl, the Plumed Serpent Sun God, are circular -buildings like towers. - - -Rather than seek the origin of the house builders of the San Juan, -or the parent Pueblos, from Mexican sources, the author believes -the custom of building stone houses in the pueblo region was not -derived from any locality not now included in the pueblo area, but -it developed as an autochthonous growth, the earliest stages as well -as the most complex forms being of local origin. Incoming Indians -may have introduced ideas of foreign birth but they did not bring -in the mason’s craft. That custom developed in the Southwest, where -we find the whole series from a single stone-house or a cave with -walls closing the entrance to the most highly developed architectural -production north of Mexico. There are cliff-dwellings in many other -localities in the world but there are nowhere, except in the region -here considered, cliff-dwellings with circular kivas constructed on -this unique plan. It is generally supposed that a type of room called -“small house” was the predecessor of the multiple community dwelling -throughout the Southwest. This type, defined as a simple four-walled, -one story building with a flat roof, is widely spread in New Mexico -and Arizona. The strongest arguments in favor of its greater antiquity -are possibly its simplicity of form and the character of accompanying -ceramics—corrugated, black-and-white, and red pottery. Characteristic -small houses of the Mesa Verde and McElmo Canyon belong to the same -type of pueblo as the largest extensive villages which are more -complicated than the so-called small house. It is what the author -has called the pure type which is structurally different from the -“small house,” the so-called archaic form of the mixed pueblos of the -Rio Grande. This unit type is likewise unlike the small house of the -Little Colorado, including those of the Zuñi Valley and the Hopi Wash, -although the Hopi kivas show the influence of the Mesa Verde culture -in the persistence of the ceremonial opening in the floor called the -sipapu. - -A cluster of small houses or the village such as we find at Mummy -Lake on the Mesa Verde is composed of several scattered members, each -containing for the religious and secular life the “pure type” rooms -constructed on the same plan. In a village like the Aztec Spring House -several unit buildings are united, forming one community house larger -than the rest, which was the dominant one of the village, the remaining -houses being smaller and scattered. Aztec Spring, Mitchell Spring, and -Mud Spring villages show a similar consolidation of units with outlying -smaller houses, and the number of units in such a union is believed -to be indicated by the number of circular rooms, or kivas. Thus, four -kivas might be supposed to indicate four consolidated social units. - -The complete concentration of several unit pueblos into one or more -large communal buildings[56] is also found in several cases in the -area we have studied, but we must look to the great ruin at Aztec or -those on the Chaco Canyon for examples of almost complete amalgamation. -Thus these large pueblos where an almost complete consolidation has -occurred have resulted from a fusion or condensation of what might -have formerly been a rambling village composed of several separate -units. This clustering of small separated houses in a village is not -peculiar to the San Juan but exists elsewhere in the Southwest, as in -the Rio Grande region, where, however, the structure of each component -small house is different. These separate mounds do not indicate the -unit type as defined, and the Rio Grande pueblo of modern date has its -kiva separated from the house masses, which have grouped themselves -in rectangular lines or rooms surrounding courts. There are, perhaps, -examples in this region where a circular kiva is found embedded in -house masses, but these are so few in number that they may possibly be -regarded as incorporate survivals due to acculturation. - -In the Gila Valley compounds, as Casa Grande, and on the Little -Colorado, the unit type is unknown. Several blocks of buildings on the -Gila are surrounded by a rectangular wall which is wanting in ruins of -the Little Colorado and its tributaries. Here one of the units may be -enlarged, following in some respects the conditions at Aztec Spring -Ruin. A surrounding wall also appears in some of the Pueblo villages -and pueblos, but when we compare one of the units of a Casa Grande -compound with that of a Montezuma Valley village, we find little in -common, the main difference, so far as form is concerned, being the -absence of a circular kiva.[57] There is nothing in a Gila Valley -compound we can structurally call a circular kiva, and no morphological -equivalent of the circular kiva in ruins on the tributaries of the Salt -and Gila. On the horizon of the Gila culture area there are no circular -kivas, due to acculturation. There are rooms analogous to kivas used -for ceremonials at Hopi and Zuñi, but they are not true kivas as -we have interpreted them in the San Juan area. Both Hopi and Zuñi -are composite people and have elements derived from Gila and Pueblo -influences, but neither belong to the pure type in the sense the author -defines it. - -[56] The likeness of the Mesa Verde cliff-houses to the pueblos of -Chaco Canyon was long ago suggested by Nordenskiöld. The excavation of -Far View House proved that suggestion to be true. - -[57] This subject is treated at length in my report on Casa Grande in -the Twenty-eighth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. - -The author has attempted to show that the structure of the houses -whose clustering composes villages in the Montezuma Valley is the -same as that of Far View House of the Mummy Lake village on top of -Mesa Verde; and that these architectural resemblances are close enough -to indicate that the villages of the two localities were inhabited by -people of the same general culture. He has proved that the pure type -of such a village as shown in Far View House was constructed on the -same plan as a cliff-dwelling, notwithstanding one is built in the -open, the other in a cave. The geographic extension of this type has -been traced into Utah. Ruined pueblos on the Chaco Canyon or at Aztec -on the Animas, which is geographically nearer the Mesa Verde, are -more concentrated but indicate the same culture. Renewed research is -necessary to determine the southern and western extension of the pure -type; the northern and eastern horizon is fairly well known. - -Granting that the great ruins on the Chaco Canyon belong to the same -people as those on Mesa Verde, the question arises, Which buildings -are the most ancient, those on the Mesa Verde or those on the Chaco? -A correct answer to this question should reveal the cradle of the -culture indicated by the pure or prehistoric type of pueblo. The author -believes that the pure pueblo culture originated in the northern part -of the area and migrated southward to the Chaco Valley in prehistoric -times, ultimately affecting the people of the Rio Grande, where -sedentary people no doubt lived before written history of the area -began. The result was a mixture; the mixed population are the modern -Pueblos. - -In the great cliff-houses of the Mesa Verde and the extensive pueblos -of the McElmo we find towers combined with pure types of pueblos, -either simple or complex. In the Chaco ruins these towers are not found -in this combination. To this may be added the great house type of the -McElmo, also absent in the Chaco. Here there appears to be an essential -difference on which the author ventures a suggestion, but which future -research must elucidate. - -If this pure type originated in the southern tributaries of the San -Juan as the Chaco and migrated to the northern we would expect in the -latter more distinctly southern objects, as shell ornaments, turquoise -mosaics, and a great variety of pottery of a southern type. - -The pure or unit type is believed to be autochthonous in the San -Juan Basin and characteristic of a middle phase of architectural -development, the highest north of Mexico. It is self-centered and has -preserved its characteristics over an extensive area, influencing -regions far beyond. - -The evolution of this type took place in the region mentioned before -the fifteenth century of the Christian era. Traces of its influence -have persisted into the country of mixed pueblos down to the present -time, but the architectural skill has deteriorated and shows evidence -of acculturation[58] from sources outside the San Juan area where it -originated. - -One word in regard to the adjectives, prehistoric and historic, -applied to southwestern ruins. They are relative ones and obtained -from data somewhat diverse in character. Casa Grande on the Gila was -called a ruin when first seen by the European. It was inhabited in -prehistoric times. From documentary evidence the historian learns -that certain other buildings were not inhabited at the advent of the -Spaniards, and if their statements are trustworthy these also are -prehistoric. Legends of modern Pueblos claim that certain other ruins -were inhabited houses of their ancestors before the coming of the white -man. The author sees no good reason to throw this evidence out of court -without investigation because some of the incidents in it betray late -introduction. Many other ruins are classified as prehistoric from the -purely negative, but not decisive, evidence that no objects of European -make have been found in them. The ruin Sun Temple, on the Mesa Verde, -is considered prehistoric from the fact that a tree with over 360 -annual rings of growth was found growing on top of its highest wall. We -are justified in calling this a prehistoric ruin. - -The evidences that villages, cliff-dwellings, castles and towers, -and other types considered in this article antedate the advent of -the white man are as follows: No historian has recorded an inhabited -building of this form in this or other regions; no objects of European -manufacture have been found in them, and the buildings and pottery -which characterize them are different from those of any inhabited when -the Spanish entered the Southwest. - -The complex, which is thought to be the highest form of pueblo -architecture, is composed of the following elements united: (1) Several -“pure types”[59] representing a religio-sociological complexion of -the inhabitants; (2) towers of various forms—round, D-shaped, and -rectangular; (3) the great houses; (4) unit type in cave. In Cliff -Palace these four types occur united in a pueblo built in a natural -cave; in Mud Spring Ruin two and possibly three of these types are -found in one open-air village, more spread out as site permits. In -Aztec Spring and Mitchell Spring pueblos the arrangement is more -defined. In the cluster at the head of South Fork of Square Tower -Canyon we have all the elements united in Hovenweep House and Hovenweep -Castle. Unit type House shows the single-unit type with tower near by; -in Twin Towers we have the great house with cave pueblo and towers -separated. Several other towers isolated from other types also occur. - -[58] These acculturation modifications due to Hispanic influences in -modern pueblos are too well marked to need more than a mention. - -[59] The author uses the words “pure type” instead of “unit type” as a -general term to denote “one-unit types,” “two-unit types,” “three-unit -types,” etc. - -The Holly Canyon group shows the types separated. The great house is -represented by Holly Castle; the towers are situated on huge bowlders. -The unit type of this group is represented by Holly House, the -foundation of part of which has fallen, covering the ruins of another -pueblo of the unit type formerly in the cave below. - -The Hackberry group is also composed of three elemental types -separated; the great house is represented by Hackberry House, the unit -type by the cliff-dwelling below and by the pueblo on the opposite side -of the gulch, and the towers by isolated towers. - -A similar analysis may be made of other ruins. Sometimes the component -types are united; often one type only occurs, the others being absent. -The union of all is best marked in the northern tributaries of the San -Juan, as at Aztec, and in the southern tributaries, as at Chaco Canyon -and Chelly Canyon. These pueblos, whether in the open or in caves, -belong to the pure or concentrated multiple unit type. - -Some light may be shed on the probable process of consolidation of the -individual units of a community house by a comparative study of the -pueblos on the East Mesa of the Hopi. Hano, for instance, was settled -by a group of Tanoan clans about 1710 A. D. The list of Hano clans that -originally came to the East Mesa is known from legends and the present -localization of their survivors has been indicated in the author’s -article on “The Sun’s Influence on the Form of Hopi Pueblos.”[60] -In 1890 Hano was composed of four blocks of rooms, each housing one -or more clans. Earlier there were six, one of which had fallen into -disuse, a few less than the traditional number of clans. When the -colonists arrived, they settled near Coyote Spring, the houses of which -are now covered with drifted sand, but when they constructed their -village on the mesa at the head of the trail each house of a cluster -housed a clan. Increase in population, both internal and external, led -to the union and enlargement of these houses so that they inclosed -a central plaza. A similar growth has taken place in Sichomovi, the -pueblo halfway between Walpi and Hano; first single houses, then rows -of houses with terraces on the south and east sides. Some of the -original houses have been deserted and rebuilt nearer the others. Thus -at Hano the Katcina clan house was north and east of the chief kiva but -is now in the east row. - -[60] Amer. Anthrop., n. s. vol. viii, no. 1, 1906. - -In the same way we may suppose that in a consolidation of a community -dwelling several units may have drawn together and united. There is -evidence of a union of this kind in many ruins in the Southwest. - -The data here published should not be interpreted to mean that the -author regards the builders of the towers and great houses here -described as evidences of a race other than the Indians. Indeed he -believes that in both blood and culture they have left survivals -among the modern Pueblos. He also does not hold that as a whole -they necessarily belonged to a radically different phase of culture, -notwithstanding the buildings they constructed show a greater variety -of form and masonry superior to that of their descendants. - -The evidences are cumulative that there existed and disappeared in -a wide geographical area of the Southwest a people whose buildings -differed so much from those of any other area in North America that the -area in which they occur may be designated as a characteristic one. - -The variety and type of buildings have a bearing on social -organization. A large building composed of many units is probably but -not necessarily later in time than a single house; an isolated single -house would probably be of earlier construction than a collection of -several single houses of the same character compactly arranged in a -village; a complete consolidation of several houses of such a village -into a community house would naturally be more modern than a group of -isolated single houses. - -City blocks postdate hamlets. Between a stage indicated by single -houses and one characterized by consolidated building, there is a -phase in which the buildings are grouped in clusters and are not -united. We may theoretically suppose that the single house was -inhabited by one social unit as a clan or family. As the food quest -became more intensified and defense more urgent, social units, as -indicated by single houses, would be brought together, and as the -population increased the amalgamation would be more complete. This -social organization, in the beginning loose, in the course of time -would become more homogeneous, and as it did so the union of these -separate social units would have been closer; and if we combine with -that tendency the powerful stimulus of protection, we can readily see -how a compact form of architecture characteristic of the buildings here -described was brought about. The element of defense in the villages -with scattered houses does not appear to have been very important, -but might be adduced to explain the consolidation of these into large -community houses. - -If the growth of the large pueblos has followed the lines above -indicated, and if each unit type indicates a social unit as well, we -necessarily have in this growth of the community house the story of the -social evolution of the Pueblo people. Clans or social units at first -isolated later joined each other, intermarriage always tending to make -the population more homogeneous. The social result of the amalgamation -of clans seeking common defense would in time be marked. The inevitable -outcome would be a breaking down of clan priesthoods or clan religions -and the formation of fraternities of priesthoods recruited from several -clans. This in turn would lead to a corresponding reduction and -enlargement of ceremonial rooms remaining. Two kivas suffice for the -ceremonies of the majority of the Rio Grande pueblos; but Cliff Palace -with a population of the same size had 23 and Spruce-tree House, a much -smaller cliff pueblo, had 8. - -One can not fail to notice a similarity in sites of some of the great -houses of the McElmo to neighboring cliff habitations and a like -relation of Sun Temple to the cliff-dwellings in Fewkes Canyon in the -Mesa Verde. Possibly the purpose of these great houses and Sun Temple -was identical. Some of the great houses were probably granaries and Sun -Temple may have been intended partly for a like use. No indications of -remains of stored corn have been observed in any of these buildings, -but Castañeda[61] speaks of a village of subterranean granaries -(“silos”) in the Rio Grande country, which is instructive in this -connection. - -[61] Fourteenth Ann. Rept. Bur. Amer. Ethn., pt. 1, p. 523. This -village is spoken of as “lately destroyed;” in other words it was a -ruin in 1540. - - - - -INDEX - - - ACMEN RUIN, described, 29 - ANTIQUITIES, minor, 66 - ARCHITECTURE, culture areas determined by, 69 - ARCHITECTURE, PUEBLO— - elements of, 73 - of local origin, 70 - AZTEC ARCHITECTURE, unlike that of Pueblos, 69 - AZTEC SPRING, ruins at, 23 - described by Holmes, 24 - described by Jackson, 24 - ground plan of, 26 - - BEAMS, WOODEN, method of shaping, 67 - BLANCHARD RUIN, 23 - BONE, objects made of, 67 - BOWLDER CASTLE, description of, 57 - BOWLS, MORTUARY, 66 - BUG MESA RUIN, description of, 19 - BUG POINT RUIN, excavation of, showing unit type, 29 - BURIAL CUSTOMS, 66, 67 - BURIAL PLACES— - mentioned by Morgan, 21 - near Holmes Tower, 59 - on Grass Mesa, 64 - on the Dolores, 11 - BURKHARDT RUIN. _See_ MUD SPRING RUIN. - BUTTE RUIN, description of, 32 - - CANNONBALL RUIN— - description of, 30 - structural features of, 42 - CASTLES, structural features of, 40 - CAVES— - apparently used for storage, 60 - walled-up, 59 - CEMETERIES. _See_ BURIAL PLACES. - CEREMONIAL ROOMS, Hopi and Zuñi, not true kivas, 71 - CHACO CANYON RUINS, comparative age of, 72 - CIRCULAR RUINS— - distribution of, 31 - structural features of, 31 - CLIFF-DWELLERS— - culture of, 9 - region occupied by, 9 - CLIFF-DWELLINGS— - architectural features of, 37 - classification of, 15 - double, 38 - in Lost Canyon, 40 - small, in the McElmo region, 37 - COMMUNAL DWELLINGS, 71 - preceded by “small house”, 70 - social conditions indicated by, 69 - CONSOLIDATION OF UNITS, process of, 74 - CORN, CHARRED, found embedded in slag, 60 - - DAVIS TOWER— - ground plan, 55 - location of, 55 - DEPRESSIONS INDICATING KIVAS, 42 - DOVE CREEK RUINS, 28 - - EIGHT MILE RUIN, masonry in, 41 - EMERSON, J. W., description of ruin by, 34 - EMERSON RUIN, description of, 33 - ENTRANCES— - to kivas, 42 - to towers, 42 - walled-up, 57 - ERODED BOWLDER HOUSE, description of, 49 - ESCALANTE AND DOMINGUEZ, manuscript diary of, 36 - ESCALANTE RUIN, description of, 36 - - FAR VIEW HOUSE, a pueblo of pure type, 15, 16 - - GIBRALTAR HOUSE. _See_ STRONGHOLD HOUSE. - GILA VALLEY COMPOUNDS, 71 - allied to Mexican buildings, 67 - GOODMAN POINT RUIN, description of, 17 - GRASS MESA, cemetery on, 64 - GREAT HOUSES— - date of construction undetermined, 43 - possible use of, 42, 76 - structural features of, 40 - - HACKBERRY CANYON CLIFF-HOUSE, a “unit type”, 40 - HACKBERRY CASTLE, description of, 52 - HACKBERRY GROUP, elements composing, 74 - HILL CANYON RUINS, 42 - masonry of, 42 - HOLLY CANYON— - ground plan, 52 - ruins of, 52 - HOLLY CANYON GROUP, elements composing, 74 - HOLLY HOUSE RUINS, description of, 53 - HOLMES, W. H.— - on probable use of towers, 42 - on tower at Mud Spring, 20 - report of, as reference work, 11 - report on ruins by, 10, 11 - slab inclosures described by, 62 - HOLMES TOWER, description of, 58 - HOPI CEREMONIAL ROOMS, not true kivas, 71 - HORSESHOE HOUSE— - compared with Sun Temple, 54 - description of, 53 - ground plan, 54 - structural features of, 40 - HOVENWEEP CASTLE— - description of, 47 - ground plan of, 47 - HOVENWEEP DISTRICT— - a proposed National Monument, 44 - canyons of, containing ruins, 44 - ruins of, 44 - HOVENWEEP HOUSE, description of, 46 - - IMPLEMENTS, STONE, 67 - INGERSOLL, ERNEST, newspaper article by, 11 - - JACKSON, WM. H.— - report of, as work of reference, 11 - report of, on ruins, 10, 11 - slab inclosures described by, 62 - JOHNSON RUIN, description of, 18 - - KEELEY TOWERS, location of, 45 - KIDDER, A. V. _See_ MORLEY AND KIDDER. - KIVA OF UNIT TYPE HOUSE, architectural features of, 51 - KIVAS— - double-walled, 39 - entrances to, 42 - indicated by depressions, 42 - indicative of social units, 70 - structural features of, 37 - - LION TOWER— - description of, 55 - ground plan of, 55 - LITTRELL TOWER. _See_ LION TOWER. - LOST CANYON CLIFF-HOUSES, 40 - “LOWER HOUSE,” of Aztec Spring Ruin, 25, 27 - - MCELMO BLUFF, ruins at, 60 - MCELMO DISTRICT— - distinctive feature of ruins of, 15 - investigations in, of 1917, 10 - MCELMO RUINS, latest work on, 14 - MCLEAN BASIN— - ground plan of ruins of, 56 - pottery found in, 56 - ruins of, described, 55 - towers of, 56 - MANCOS REGION, towers of, 58 - MASONRY— - of Hill Canyon Ruins, 42 - skill shown in construction, 40 - varieties of, 41 - MEGALITHIC RUINS, 60 - MEGALITHS, circular structures of, 60 - MESA VERDE— - cliff-dwellings and villages of, 9 - culture of inhabitants of, 9 - MESA VERDE RUINS, comparative age of, 72 - METATES— - found at Surouaro, 17 - with skeletal remains, 67 - MEXICAN TRIBES AND THE PUEBLOS, relation between, 69 - MITCHELL, H. L., notes contributed by, 11 - MITCHELL SPRING RUIN, description of, 19 - MITCHELL SPRING VILLAGE, origin of the name, 12 - MONOLITHS IN WALLS, 30 - MONTEZUMA VALLEY, distinctive feature of ruins in, 15 - MOOREHEAD, WARREN K., ruins described by, 12 - MORGAN, L. H.— - investigation of ruins by, 10, 11 - notes of, on ruins of Mesa Verde, 11 - on Mitchell Spring Ruin, 19 - on Mud Creek village, 21 - MORLEY, S. G.— - excavations conducted by, 30 - work of, 13 - MORLEY, S. G., and KIDDER, A. V., ruins described by, 14 - MOUNDS— - near Mummy Lake, 15 - of Mud Spring Ruin, 21 - MUD SPRING RUIN, description of, 20 - MUMMY LAKE MOUNDS, 15 - - NELSON, N. C., on Pueblo ruins, 17 - NEWBERRY, J. S., on Surouaro, 17 - NORDENSKIÖLD, BARON G., work of, 13 - - OAK SPRING HOUSE, description of, 29 - OLD SPANISH TRAIL, route of, 36, 68 - OPEN-AIR RUINS OF DOVE CREEK, 28 - - PARKER, GORDON, assistance of, 40 - PICTOGRAPHS— - colored, 65 - covered with plaster, 65 - incised on stone, 65 - near Ruin 5, 49 - near slab inclosures, 63 - PIERSON LAKE RUIN. _See_ SQUAW POINT RUIN. - PILASTERS LACKING IN TOWERS, 42 - PLASTERING, interiors covered with, 41 - POTTERY— - culture areas determined by, 69 - description of, 66 - PRUDDEN, T. MITCHELL— - articles by, on ruins of San Juan watershed, 12 - excavations conducted by, 19 - on towers as part of composite ruins, 44 - PUEBLO ARCHITECTURE— - elements of complex, 73 - of local origin, 70 - PUEBLO CULTURE, direction of its migration, 72 - PUEBLO TRIBES, origin of, 69 - “PURE TYPE” defined, 16 - - RESERVOIR GROUP, named by J. Ward Emerson, 34 - RESERVOIRS, INDIAN— - crossed by Old Bluff Road, 45 - natural and artificial, 64 - ROAD CANYON, formerly called the Wickyup, 57 - ROOMS, with megalithic walls, 15 - RUIN 3, description of, 48 - RUIN 4, description of, 49 - RUIN 5, description of, 49 - RUIN 6, description of, 49 - RUIN 7. _See_ ERODED BOWLDER HOUSE. - RUIN 8. _See_ TWIN TOWERS. - RUIN 9, description of, 50 - RUIN 10. _See_ UNIT TYPE HOUSE. - RUIN 11. _See_ STRONGHOLD HOUSE. - RUIN CANYON— - duplication of name misleading, 45 - ruin in, 30 - unit type houses of, 40 - RUINS— - classification of, 14 - evidences of age of, 73 - - SAND CANYON— - cliff-dwellings in, 38 - scaffold in, 38 - tower in, 57 - SCAFFOLD FOR LOOKOUT, 38 - SEMICIRCULAR RUINS, description of, 22 - SLAB INCLOSURES— - described by Jackson, 62 - described by Holmes, 62 - SLAB STRUCTURES— - box-like, 60 - circular, 60 - pottery found near, 61 - theories concerning, 61 - “SMALL HOUSE” TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE, 70 - SOCIAL ORGANIZATION, relation between architecture and, 75 - “SPANISH TRAIL.” _See_ OLD SPANISH TRAIL. - SQUARE TOWER CANYON— - classification of ruins in, 46 - directions for reaching, 45 - map of, 45 - new name for Ruin Canyon, 45 - SQUAW POINT RUIN, described, 28 - STONE ARCH HOUSE, location of, 38 - STRONGHOLD HOUSE, description of, 52 - SUN DIAL PALACE, named by J. Ward Emerson, 34 - SUN TEMPLE— - discovery of, 10 - evidence of age of, 73 - possible use of, 76 - unique ground plan of, 42 - SUROUARO— - description of, 16 - named by Newberry, 12 - signification of name, 17 - - TOWERS— - D-shaped, 44 - date of construction undetermined, 43 - entrance to, 42 - entrance walled up, 57 - forms of, 43 - of Holly Canyon, 52 - of McLean Basin, 56 - of Mancos region, 58 - of Sand Canyon, 57 - of Wickyup Canyon, 57 - possible use of, 42 - structural features of, 40 - windows absent in, 42 - TOWERS AND GREAT HOUSES— - form and construction of, 15 - situation of, 15 - “TRIPLE-WALLED TOWER”— - at Mud Spring Ruin, 20 - condition of, in 1881, 21 - visited by Holmes, 11 - TWIN TOWERS— - description of, 50 - ground plan of, 50 - - UNIT TYPE— - defined, 16, 39 - described by Prudden, 12 - origin of, 72 - unlike small house of Little Colorado, 70 - UNIT TYPE HOUSE— - description of, 50 - ground plan of, 51 - UNIT TYPE HOUSES— - in cave, 39 - in Hackberry Canyon, 40 - “UPPER HOUSE” of Aztec Spring Ruin, 25, 26, 27 - - VILLAGES— - defined, 16 - essential features of, 14, 16 - - WEAPONS, iron, 68 - WICKYUP CANYON— - description of, 57 - towers in, 57 - WOLLEY RANCH RUIN, description of, 22 - WOOD CANYON RUINS, description of, 32 - - YELLOW JACKET CANYON— - formerly known as Hovenweep, 57 - investigations in, 10 - towers of, 54 - - ZUÑI CEREMONIAL ROOMS NOT TRUE KIVAS, 71 - - -[Illustration: PLATE 1 a, BUTTE RUIN] - -[Illustration: b, AZTEC SPRING RUIN] - -[Illustration: c, SUROUARO, YELLOW JACKET SPRING RUIN - -(Photographs by Jacob Wirsula)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 2 a, BLANCHARD RUIN] - -[Illustration: b, BLANCHARD RUIN, MOUND 2] - -[Illustration: c, SUROUARO, YELLOW JACKET SPRING RUIN - -(Photographs by Jacob Wirsula)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 3 a, ACMEN RUIN - -(Photograph by T. G. Lemmon)] - -[Illustration: b, MUD SPRING RUIN - -(Photograph by Jacob Wirsula)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 4 a, BUILDING ON ROCK PINNACLE, NEAR STONE ARCH, -SAND CANYON] - -[Illustration: b, STONE ARCH, SAND CANYON - -(Photographs by J. Walter Fewkes)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 5 a, TOWER IN SAND CANYON] - -[Illustration: b, UNIT TYPE HOUSE IN SAND CANYON - -(Photographs by T. G. Lemmon)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 6 a, STONE ARCH HOUSE, SAND CANYON] - -[Illustration: b, CLIFF-HOUSE, SHOWING BROKEN CORNER - -(Photographs by Jacob Wirsula)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 7 a, SCAFFOLD IN SAND CANYON] - -[Illustration: b, STORAGE CIST IN MANCOS VALLEY] - -[Illustration: c, PICTOGRAPHS NEAR UNIT TYPE HOUSE IN CAVE - -(Photographs by T. G. Lemmon)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 8 DOUBLE CLIFF-DWELLING, SAND CANYON - -(Photograph by T. G. Lemmon)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 9 a, CLIFF-DWELLING UNDER HORSESHOE RUIN] - -[Illustration: b, CLIFF-DWELLING, RUIN CANYON - -(Photographs by Jacob Wirsula)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 10 a, KIVA OF CLIFF RUIN, LOST CANYON] - -[Illustration: b, CLIFF RUIN, LOST CANYON - -(Photographs by Gordon Parker)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 11 a, SQUARE TOWER IN SQUARE TOWER CANYON] - -[Illustration: b, TOWER IN McLEAN BASIN] - -[Illustration: c, RUIN IN HILL CANYON, UTAH - -(Photographs by T. G. Lemmon)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 12 HEAD OF SOUTH FORK, SQUARE TOWER CANYON - -(Photograph by Geo. L. Beam. Courtesy of the Denver & Rio Grande -Railroad)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 13 NORTH FORK OF SQUARE TOWER CANYON, LOOKING WEST - -a, Hovenweep Castle. b, Hovenweep House. c, Tower No. 9. d, Tower on -point at junction of North and South Forks. e, Twin Towers. f, Unit -type House - -(Photograph by Geo. L. Beam. Courtesy of the Denver & Rio Grande -Railroad)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 14 a, HOVENWEEP HOUSE AND HOVENWEEP CASTLE, FROM -THE SOUTH] - -[Illustration: b, HOVENWEEP CASTLE, FROM THE WEST] - -[Illustration: c, HOVENWEEP CASTLE, FROM THE SOUTH - -(Photographs by Jacob Wirsula)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 15 a, WEST END OF TWIN TOWER, SHOWING SMALL -CLIFF-HOUSE - -(Photograph by J. Walter Fewkes)] - -[Illustration: b, TWIN TOWERS, SQUARE TOWER CANYON, FROM THE SOUTH - -(Photograph by Jacob Wirsula)] - -[Illustration: c, TOWER 4, JUNCTION OF NORTH AND SOUTH FORKS, SQUARE -TOWER CANYON - -(Photograph by Jacob Wirsula)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 16 a, HOVENWEEP CASTLE, WITH SLEEPING UTE MOUNTAIN, -SOUTH FORK, SQUARE TOWER CANYON] - -[Illustration: b, ENTRANCE TO SOUTH FORK, SQUARE TOWER CANYON - -(Photographs by Geo. L. Beam. Courtesy of the Denver & Rio Grande -Railroad)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 17 STRONGHOLD HOUSE, SQUARE TOWER CANYON - -(Photograph by Geo. L. Beam. Courtesy of the Denver & Rio Grande -Railroad)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 18 a, HEAD OF HOLLY CANYON] - -[Illustration: b, SOUTH SIDE OF HOVENWEEP CASTLE, SQUARE TOWER CANYON - -(Photographs by Geo. L. Beam. Courtesy of the Denver & Rio Grande -Railroad)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 19 a, HOLLY CANYON GROUP, FROM THE EAST - -(Photograph by Jacob Wirsula)] - -[Illustration: b, GREAT HOUSE AT HEAD OF HOLLY CANYON, FROM THE NORTH - -(Photograph by T. G. Lemmon)] - -[Illustration: c, UNIT TYPE RUIN, FROM THE EAST - -(Photograph by T. G. Lemmon)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 20 a, GREAT HOUSE AT HEAD OF HOLLY CANYON, FROM THE -SOUTH] - -[Illustration: b, RUIN B AT HEAD OF HOLLY CANYON, FROM THE WEST] - -[Illustration: c, GREAT HOUSE AT HEAD OF HOLLY CANYON - -(Photographs by Jacob Wirsula)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 21 a, GREAT HOUSE, HOLLY CANYON] - -[Illustration: b, STRONGHOLD HOUSE AND TWIN TOWERS, SQUARE TOWER CANYON - -(Photographs by Geo. L. Beam. Courtesy of the Denver & Rio Grande -Railroad)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 22 a, HOVENWEEP CASTLE] - -[Illustration: b, SOUTHERN PART OF CANNONBALL RUIN, McELMO CANYON - -(Photographs by T. G. Lemmon)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 23 a, SQUARE TOWER WITH ROUNDED CORNERS, HOLLY -CANYON - -(Photograph by Jacob Wirsula)] - -[Illustration: b, HOLLY TOWER IN HOLLY CANYON - -(Photograph by Jacob Wirsula)] - -[Illustration: c, HORSESHOE HOUSE - -(Photograph by T. G. Lemmon)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 24 a, HORSESHOE RUIN - -(Photograph by Jacob Wirsula)] - -[Illustration: b, BOWLDER CASTLE, ROAD (WICKYUP) CANYON - -(Photograph by T. G. Lemmon)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 25 a, CLOSED DOORWAY IN BOWLDER CASTLE, ROAD -(WICKYUP) CANYON - -(Photograph by J. Walter Fewkes)] - -[Illustration: b, BROKEN-DOWN ROUND TOWER, SQUARE TOWER CANYON - -(Photograph by Jacob Wirsula)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 26 a, NORTH SIDE OF TOWER, SQUARE TOWER CANYON - -(Photograph by Jacob Wirsula)] - -[Illustration: b, D-SHAPED TOWER NEAR DAVIS RANCH, YELLOW JACKET CANYON - -(Photograph by Jacob Wirsula)] - -[Illustration: c, MODEL OF TOWERS IN McLEAN BASIN - -(Photograph by De Lancey Gill)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 27 ROUND TOWER AND D-SHAPED TOWER IN McLEAN BASIN - -(Photograph by J. Walter Fewkes)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 28 a, D-SHAPED TOWER IN McLEAN BASIN, SHOWING CROSS -SECTION OF WALL] - -[Illustration: b, ROUND TOWER IN McLEAN BASIN, SHOWING STANDING STONE -SLAB - -(Photographs by J. Walter Fewkes)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 29 a, HOLMES TOWER, MANCOS CANYON] - -[Illustration: b, LION TOWER, YELLOW JACKET CANYON - -(Photographs by T. G. Lemmon)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 30 a, TOWER ABOVE CAVATE STOREHOUSES, MANCOS CANYON -BELOW BRIDGE] - -[Illustration: b, TOWER ON MESA BETWEEN ERODED CLIFFS AND BRIDGE OVER -MANCOS CANYON ON CORTEZ SHIP-ROCK ROAD - -(Photographs by T. G. Lemmon)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 31 a, TOWER ABOVE CAVATE STOREHOUSES, MANCOS CANYON -BELOW BRIDGE] - -[Illustration: b, ERODED SHALE FORMATION IN WHICH ARE SMALL WALLED -CAVATE STOREHOUSES - -(Photographs by T. G. Lemmon)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 32 a, RESERVOIR NEAR PICKET CORRAL, SHOWING -RETAINING WALL] - -[Illustration: b, KIVA, UNIT TYPE HOUSE, SQUARE TOWER CANYON - -(Photographs by T. G. Lemmon)] - - -[Illustration: PLATE 33 PICTOGRAPHS, YELLOW JACKET CANYON] - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK PREHISTORIC VILLAGES, CASTLES, -AND TOWERS OF SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |