The masonry of this region was so roughly and carelessly executed that
little evidence remains in the stone villages of such details of
construction as door and window openings. Destruction of the walls seems
to have commenced at these openings, and while there are numerous
standing walls, some with a height of over 10 feet, no perfect example
of a door or window opening was found. It is probable that the methods
employed were similar or analogous to those used today by the Hopi, and
that the wooden lintel and stone jamb was the standard type.
[Illustration: Figure 302.
Bowlders in footway, cavate lodges.]
[Illustration: Plate XLV.
MASONRY OF RUIN NEAR LIMESTONE CREEK.]
[Illustration: Figure 303.
Framed doorway, cavate lodges.]
In the cavate lodges window openings are not found; there is but one
opening, the doorway, and this is of a pronounced and peculiar type. As
a rule these doorways are wider at the top than at the bottom and there
are no corners, the opening roughly approximating the shape of a pear
with the smaller end downward. The upper part of the opening consists
always of the naked rock, but the lower part is generally framed with
slabs of sandstone. Plate XLIX shows an example that occurs in the upper
tier of lodges at its eastern end. The floor of this lodge is about
2 feet above the bench from which it was entered, and this specimen
fails to show a feature which is very common in this group--a line of
water-worn bowlders extending from the exterior to the interior of the
lodges through the doorway and arranged like stepping stones. This
feature is shown in figure 302, which represents the doorway of group
_E_, shown on the general map (plate XXV) and on the detailed plan,
figure 297. Figure 303 shows a type in which the framing is extended up
on one side nearly to the top, while on the other side it extends only
to half the height of the opening, which above the framing is hollowed
out to increase its width. This example occurs near that shown in plate
XLIX, and the floor of the chamber is raised about 2 feet above the
bench from which it is entered. The illustration gives a view from the
interior, looking out, and the large opening on the right was caused by
the comparatively recent breaking out of the wall. Figure 303 shows the
doorway to the group of chambers marked _E_ on the general map, an
interior view of which is shown in figure 302. In this example the
obvious object of the framing was to reduce the size of the opening, and
to accomplish this the slabs were set out 10 or 12 inches from the rock
forming the sides of the opening, and the intervening space was filled
in with rubble. Plate XXXII, which shows the interior of the main room
in group _D_, shows also the large doorway on the north.
[Illustration: Figure 304.
Notched doorway in Canyon de Chelly.]
[Illustration: Plate XLVI.
MASONRY OF RUIN OPPOSITE VERDE.]
It will be noticed that these doorways all conform to one general plan
and that this plan required an opening considerably larger in its upper
third than in the lower two-thirds of its height. This requirement seems
to be the counterpart or analogue of the notched doorway, which is the
standard type in the cliff ruins of Canyon de Chelly and other regions,
and still very common in Tusayan (Moki). Figure 304 shows a notched
doorway in Canyon de Chelly and figure 305 gives an example of the same
type of opening in Tusayan. The object of this peculiar shape in the
regions mentioned has been well established,[9] and there is no reason
to suppose that similar conditions and a similar object would not
produce a similar result here. This type of opening had its origin in
the time when the pueblo builders had no means, other than blankets,
of temporarily closing door openings and when all the supplies of the
village were brought in on the backs of the inhabitants. In order to
secure protection against cold and storm the opening was made of the
smallest possible size consistent with its use, and the upper part of
the opening was made larger in order to permit the introduction of back
loads of faggots and other necessaries. This purpose would be almost as
well served by the openings of the cavate lodges as by the notched
doorway, and at the same time the smallest possible opening was exposed
to the weather. The two types of openings seem simply to be two
different methods of accomplishing the same purpose--one in solid rock,
the other in masonry. That it was considered desirable to reduce the
openings as much as possible is evident from the employment of framing
slabs in the lower portions, reducing the width of that part generally
to less than a foot, while the upper portions are usually 3 feet and
more in width, and the absence of framing slabs in the upper part of the
openings was probably due to their use as suggested; no slabs could be
attached with sufficient firmness to resist the drag of a back load of
wood, for example, forced between them. The strict confinement of door
openings to one type suggests a short, rather than a long, occupancy of
the site under discussion, a suggestion which is borne out by other
details; and this unity of design renders it difficult to form a
conclusion as to the relative age of the two types of openings under
discussion. So far as the evidence goes, however, it supports the
conclusion that the doorways of the cavate lodges were derived from a
type previously developed, and that the idea has been modified and to
some extent adapted to a different environment; for if the idea had been
developed in the cavate lodges there would be a much greater number of
variations than we find in fact. There can be no doubt, however, that
the cavate lodge doorways represent an earlier type in development,
if not in time, than the notched doorways of Tusayan.
[Footnote 9: A Study of Pueblo Architecture, by Victor Mindeleff:
8th. Ann. Rep. Bur. Eth. for 1886-1887; Washington, 1891, pp. 1-228.]
[Transcriber’s Note:
This article is available from Project Gutenberg as e-text #19856.]
[Illustration: Figure 305.
Notched doorway in Tusayan.]