Arizona republican., 1901-01-25
4 GEHrLE pRorHsr
Tourists Should Not Bs Deceived By
 Painted" Rocks.

Any person who has resided in Ari- zona for any length of time and who has been sufficiently interested in the characteristics of this region both nat ural and artificial to ascertain what there is to see that Is novel, has heard of the pictured rocks.
 Nearly every tourist or visitor here is at one time or another told by some minimizing resident that he should by all means take drive to the painted" rocks. And so far as the rocks are concerned, he should do so, for these ,hieroglyphics are one of the wonders Of Arizona. They are wonder ful not for their beauty. but because they are one of the things that no one as yet knows anything about. They are even more wonderful than the an- cient ruins of thls valley, for in the ruins there are obtainabie numerous specimens of pottery, stone implements and other things which at least afford a foundation for theory of one kind or another as to the life and work of the prehistoric people.
 The universality of the pictured rocks all over the southwest, in re- gions inhabited by tribes speaking dir ferent languages, and so far back as history goes, having practically noth- ing in common, together with the fact that the same characters appear h nearly all the pictures is good proof that they were placed upon the rocks to bear some message, important or other wise to coming generations. In this Is their value, and for this reason alone they will remain objects of great in- terest for the student till the day oi their reading Is at hand.
 But the object of this article Is not to assert the importance or advance a theory regarding these pictured rocks It is simply to protest against the thoughtless or ignorant use of the
 term painted" in connection with them Thoughtless, on the part or those who have seen them and ignorah'i', though excusably so. on the part oi
 those who have never seen the pc
 lures and speak from having hearu others so refer to them.
 The misnomer Is unfortunate for two or three reasons. When they are gen orally spoken of to the tourist as paint ed rocks, he is always disappointed on
 having them a visit, to discover that they are not painted, but if anytning'
 need painting very much. Then If thelr
 antiquity is referred to, any touris'
 that has two ideas above a beis,an hare. knows that a picture made wi.h
 paint would not withstand the rasa-
 ges of sun and rain for dozen years. Hence he is justified in the belief that
 he is being filled with another hot ar story. "
 As matter of fact, the pictures have been cut in the rocks with some sort or
 A tool, either stone or metal, and must have been there for ages, for pictures similarly made fifteen or twenty years ago, are today practically as bright as they were the day they were sculptur- ed. The sun has not had the effect of | blackening the figure, while with the ancient pictures many of them are blackened and almost obliterated. II | would be much nearer the correct thing | to call the characters hieroglyphics, but if that word Is too big for everyday | use "plctured rocks" is not inappro- priate. But painted" rocks cannot De | allowed to longer pass unchallenged.