The rarity of covered passageways in this village is noteworthy, and emphasizes the marked difference in the character of the Tusayan and Zuñi ground plans. The close crowding of rooms in the latter has made a feature of the covered way, which in the scattered plan of Oraibi is rarely called for. When found it does not seem an outgrowth of the same conditions that led to its adoption in Zuñi. A glance at the plans will show how different has been the effect of the immediate environment in the two cases. In Zuñi, built on a very slight knoll in the open plain, the absence of a defensive site has produced unusual development of the defensive features of the architecture, and the result is a remarkably dense clustering of the dwellings. At Tusayan, on the other hand, the largest village of the group does not differ in character from the smallest. Occupation of a defensive site has there, in a measure taken the place of a special defensive arrangement, or close clustering of rooms. Oraibi is laid out quite as openly as any other of the group, and as additions to its size have from time to time been made the builders have, in the absence of the defensive motive for crowding the rows or groups into large clusters, simply followed the usual arrangement. 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 Zuñi, 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.
Plate XL. Oraibi house row, showing court side.
A further contrast between the general plans of Oraibi and Zuñi is afforded in the different manner in which the roof openings have been employed in the two cases. The plan of Zuñi, [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 Mashóngnavi 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 Shupaúlovi 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 Zuñi 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 Zuñi, and, in consequence, the devices for the admission of light still adhere to the more primitive arrangement (Pls. [XL] and [XLI]).
Plate XLI. Back of Oraibi house row.
The highest type of pueblo construction, embodied in the large communal fortress houses of the valleys, could have developed only as the builders learned to rely for protection more upon their architecture and less upon the sites occupied. So long as the sites furnished a large proportion of the defensive efficiency of a village, the invention of the builders was not stimulated to substitute artificial for natural advantages. Change of location and consequent development must frequently have taken place owing to the extreme inconvenience of defensive sites to the sources of subsistence.