The Cliff Ruins of Canyon de Chelly, Arizona Sixteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1894-95, Government Printing — Reading Notes

Precision in Masonry and Materials

Mindeleff's descriptions of masonry are notably precise, often noting the size of stones, the proportion of mortar, and the presence or absence of plaster. For instance, at ruin No. 46, he records that walls on the west side were "composed of large stones laid in plenty of mud mortar and plastered inside and out," while the eastern portion used "small stones, chinked but not plastered." This attention to variation within a single site reveals a methodical approach: each room is assessed individually, and differences in construction are noted without assigning them to different periods or builders unless evidence supports it. The report also remarks on the use of whitewash, as at the "Casa Blanca" in Tseonitsosi canyon, where the white coating extends over a subordinate room, mirroring a similar pattern in De Chelly. Such observations are presented as facts, not as clues to cultural meaning.

Site Selection and Functional Inference

Mindeleff carefully describes the placement of ruins in relation to topography, often noting elevation, access difficulty, and visibility. Ruin No. 46, for example, sits "300 or 400 feet above the bottom" in a cove at the top of the talus, commanding "an extensive outlook over the bottom lands." He explicitly states that these cliff sites were not watchtowers but "places of abode during the harvest season," where workers could keep fields in view. This functional interpretation is grounded in the physical layout: rooms are often entered only through other rooms or the roof, and direct outside openings were not considered necessary. Mindeleff draws a parallel to contemporary practice, noting that such arrangements "are quite as necessary and quite as extensively practiced now as it was formerly." The inference is cautious, limited to what the structures themselves suggest.

Evidence of Later Use and Modification

Throughout the report, Mindeleff acknowledges that ruins have been altered by subsequent occupants, particularly the Navaho. At site No. 46, he notes that the cove "has been used as a sheep close, and doubtless some of the walls have been covered up." He also observes that later additions may have been made by the Navaho, who "used the building material on the ground," resulting in structures that are "merely a cluster of storage cists." This recognition of post-abandonment modification is typical of Mindeleff's empirical stance: he does not assume that all visible features are original. Similarly, he remarks that heavy deposits of sheep dung might conceal traces of a kiva, acknowledging the limits of his observations. The text thus maintains a clear distinction between what can be seen and what can only be inferred.

Readers approaching this report should attend to the interplay between description and classification. Mindeleff's categories—open sites, bottom-land villages, defensive homes, and cliff outlooks—are not rigid but serve as tools for organizing diverse remains. The text rewards careful attention to the plans and figures, which are integral to understanding the spatial relationships he describes. As a work of late-nineteenth-century ethnology, it exemplifies a commitment to empirical detail over narrative speculation, making it a valuable resource for those interested in the material record of the Pueblo region.

Some books feel like standing quietly among old stones. That survey of Canyon de Chelly lingered with me—those precise notes on walls and openings, without any storytelling. It made me think of a calmer companion guide, How to Observe in Archaeology Suggestions for Travellers in the Near and Middle East — A Reader’s Guide, which settles beside it like a gentle hand on a warm ledge.