[18] We have in Hill Canyon ruins a good illustration of an all but universal custom, among prehistoric people, of dual types of rooms, one ceremonial, the other domiciliary, each constructed on different architectural lines.
[19] 28th Annual Report, Bureau of American Ethnology, pp. 198, 199.
[20] A complete discussion of these prehistoric towers would lead to a morphological comparison with the Chulpas of Peru, the Nauregs of Sardinia, Irish and other similar religious structures.
[21] A more extended discussion of towers is reserved for a monograph, now in preparation, on “Prehistoric Towers of the Southwest.” The author has made several new observations on these structures some of which differ considerably from those of his predecessors.
Morgan, “Houses and House Life of the American Aborigines” (Contr. to Amer. Ethnol., Vol. IV), has pointed out, page 191, that the round tower at the base of Ute Mountain must have been entered through the roof, as no lateral doorways were visible, and Montgomery’s observations on towers in Nine Mile Canyon point the same way. These facts tell in favor of the theory that towers and kivas are morphologically identical, as Morgan indicates. An absence of pilasters on the inner walls of towers indicates that the roof was not vaulted, as in most Mesa Verde cliff dwellings and in the pueblo, Far View House, of the Mummy Lake group. Towers belong to what I have designated the second type of kivas, or those with flat roofs, and are less abundant in the San Juan area.
[22] Op. cit., also, The Circular Kiva of Small Ruins in the San Juan Watershed. Amer. Anthr. Jan.–March, 1914.
[23] The intra-rectangular kivas of such pueblos as Zuñi are comparatively modern, but their position is explained in a very different way from that of the intra-mural circular kivas characteristic of the ruins of the San Juan.
Transcriber’s Notes:
- Blank pages have been removed.
- Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected.