NO. I ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS FEWKES 33 



last mentioned, the view from their tops stretches several miles in 

 both directions up and down the canyon. 



Ruin on Leaning Pinnacle 



The author's limited visit to this region made it impossible to 

 record all the various shapes of eroded pinnacles bearing buildings 

 found in Hill Canyon, but one of the most remarkable of these foun- 

 dations was observed to lean very perceptibly to one side (pi. 13) 

 so that one side of the ruin barely falls within the line of stable equi- 

 librium. The top of this leaning pinnacle was inaccessible, the height 

 being about 50 feet from the base, which rose from a narrow ridge 

 over 200 feet above the plain. The author's idea of the ground plan 

 and character of the masonry in this ruin is limited to what could 

 be seen from the road, but its general appearance from that distance 

 is the same as the preceding ruin. 



In this account the author has mentioned a few of the more promi- 

 nent mushroom rock ruins, confining himself to those which can be 

 observed in a hurried visit to the canyon. It is undoubtedly true, as 

 reported by several cowboys, that the side canyons, difficult of access, 

 concealed many others which a longer visit would bring to light. The 

 characteristics of the ruin crowned pinnacles, or leaning buttresses 

 of rock in Hill Canyon are shown in plate 13. 



CONCLUSIONS 



As artifacts were not found in or near the buildings on the Hill 

 Canyon cliffs, and as the ruins show no evidence of former habitation, 

 it is evident that they were not dwellings. Their use and the kinship 

 of the people who built them can be judged only by what is left of 

 their walls and the character of their masonry. As has been pointed 

 out, the most prominent of these ruins are circular rooms or towers, 

 arranged in clusters, for an interpretation of which we may look to 

 similar architectural forms found elsewhere in the Southwest. 



Their commanding position suggests that these towers were con- 

 structed for lookouts and for defense, but the questions might very 

 pertinently be asked, Why should either of these uses necessitate 

 three or four almost identical buildings grouped together, when one 

 would be sufficient? Why are some of them in places where there is 

 no broad outlook ? 



The massive character of the walls suggests a fortification, but why 

 if defense were the only explanation of their use would not one large 



