While I understand the commentary is meant to convey how new this site is, and that theories surrounding the site are still speculative, I think it's funny that the structures are repeatedly referred to as defensive in some way, or the artifacts referred to in ways that don't make as much sense to me. Particularly, I was struck by the suggestions for the rocks surrounding the Fortress as either barriers to keep invaders out, or as projectiles to hurl upon them. The inhabitants of these sites lived there about 700 years ago, and that's not so distant in the past. What would I put them there for? Maybe they're there to keep the kids from running around and playing carelessly - a child gate. Maybe the Fremont moved up the sides of the canyons to avoid flash floods, rather than to avoid invaders. Does their art suggest they participated in many tribal wars, because you would think they might record such things, if they did. The "trowel" looks amazingly to me like a bread peel, like the ones used in stone pizza ovens; I would expect a mud trowel to be shaped differently. Maybe it was a paddle for playing a game! I'm not sure that these people would have lived so differently from the way we live now. I'm intrigued to learn more about these sites and the people who lived in them. Good show!

These guys need to double check their facts. They mention the Anaszi trading w/the Freemont at one point. As far as I know we have no evidence that the Anasazi ever existed. They are the mythical ancestors of the Hopi, but we have no evidence that they ever actually existed.