Archeological investigations in New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah — Reading Notes

Scouting vs. Excavation

Fewkes distinguishes his approach from the intensive digs common in Southwestern archaeology. He calls his work "archeological scouting"—a term that signals rapid survey rather than systematic excavation. The excerpts show he prioritizes locating and describing ruins over recovering artifacts. For instance, he notes that the Utah ruins were "new to science" and visited from the Ouray agency. This reconnaissance method means the text is rich in architectural observation but sparse on material culture. Readers should expect ground plans, masonry descriptions, and site locations rather than pottery typologies or burial data.

Architecture as Primary Evidence

The report's core is architectural description. Fewkes categorizes ruins by form: circular enclosures, tower-like structures, and dug-out dwellings. He provides precise measurements—ruin A in Hill Canyon is "about 25 feet in diameter" with walls "about 13 feet high." He notes construction techniques, such as walls made of "natural slabs of rock, rudely fashioned by fracture" and adobe mortar washed from joints. The dug-out type, with roofs formed by "a flat slab of rock projecting horizontally," is contrasted with freestanding masonry. These details allow readers to visualize structures without relying on the 14 plates mentioned in the title.

Comparative Masonry and Regional Variation

Fewkes frequently compares ruins across regions. He likens the Hill Canyon towers to the "so-called 'towers' of the McElmo Canyon" but notes their masonry is poorer, lacking "dressed in cubical blocks." He also references a "Tower ruin" found by Prof. Montgomery in Nine Mile Canyon. These comparisons build a regional typology. The author observes that lower courses of stone are larger and more dressed than upper courses—a detail that hints at construction sequence or structural necessity. Such comparative observations are the backbone of Fewkes's argument for the need to map ruin distribution before solving larger archaeological problems.

The Role of Local Knowledge

Fewkes acknowledges assistance from local residents and officials, such as "Mr. Kneale, who aided us in outfitting at Ouray." He also references Hopi migration legends to contextualize the New Mexico work, though the excerpts do not elaborate on these stories. This reliance on local informants and indigenous oral tradition is woven into the scouting methodology. Readers should note that Fewkes treats these legends as leads to investigate, not as proof. The text thus balances empirical description with an awareness that indigenous knowledge guided his search for ruins.

Fewkes's report rewards readers who attend to masonry details and site plans. The text is best approached as a field notebook: dense with observation, light on interpretation. The 14 plates, though not reproduced here, are integral to understanding the structures described. For those interested in Southwestern archaeology, this work offers a snapshot of early twentieth-century survey methods and the raw data that later syntheses would build upon.

I keep thinking about those old stone towers, how the report maps them like quiet questions across the desert. It reminded me of that other volume on northern tribes, where brick and bone tell similar stories of shelter and time. There’s a gentleness in The Native Races of British North America — Context and Discussion that feels like sitting beside someone who has watched the land long enough to speak softly of its people.