The
crowding that brought about the use of the covered way was due in Walpi
to restricted site, as nearly all the available summit of its rocky
promontory has been covered with buildings. In Zu?i, on the other hand,
it was the necessity for defense that led to the close clustering of the
dwellings and the consequent employment of the covered way.
A further contrast between the general plans of Oraibi and Zu?i is
afforded in the different manner in which the roof openings have been
employed in the two cases. The plan of Zu?i, Pl. LXXVI, shows great
numbers of small openings, nearly all of which are intended exclusively
for the admission of light, a few only being provided with ladders. In
Oraibi, on the other hand, there are only seventeen roof openings above
the first terrace, and of these not more than half are intended for the
admission of light. The device is correspondingly rare in other villages
of the group, particularly in those west of the first mesa. In
Mash?ngnavi the restricted use of the roof openings is particularly
noticeable; they all are of the same type as those used for access to
first terrace rooms. There is but one roof opening in a second story. An
examination of the plan, Pl. XXX, will show that in Shupa?lovi but two
such openings occur above the first terrace, and in the large village of
Shumopavi, Pl. XXXIV, only about eight. None of the smaller villages can
be fairly compared with Zu?i in the employment of this feature, but in
Oraibi we should expect to find its use much more general, were it not
for the fact that the defensive site has taken the place of the close
clustering of rooms seen in the exposed village of Zu?i, and, in
consequence, the devices for the admission of light still adhere to the
more primitive arrangement (Pls.
Pages:
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139