The cliff ruins have always been regarded as defensive structures,
sometimes even as fortresses, but in De Chelly whatever value they have
in this respect is due solely to the sites they occupy. There are many
places here where slight defensive works on the approaches to sites
would increase their value a hundredfold, but such works were apparently
never constructed. Furthermore, the ruins themselves never show even a
suggestion of the influence of the defensive motive, except in the two
possible instances already mentioned. The ordinary or dwelling-house
plan has not been at all modified, not even to the extent that it has in
the modern pueblos. If the cliff ruins were defensive structures it
would certainly seem that an influence strong enough to bring about the
occupancy of such inconvenient and unsuitable sites would also be strong
enough to bring about some modifications in the architecture,
modifications which would render more suitable sites available. The
influence of the physical environment on pueblo architecture, and the
sensitiveness of the latter to such influence, has already been
commented on. Moreover, it also has been stated that, so far as known,
but one instance occurs in the canyon where provision was made for the
storage of water; yet without water the strongest "fortress" in the
canyon could not withstand a siege of forty-eight hours. Further,
assuming that the structures were defensive, and well prepared to resist
attack, if necessary, for several days, only a few such attacks would be
required to cause their abandonment, for the crops on the canyon bottom,
practically the sole possessions of the dwellers in the canyon, would
necessarily be lost.
[Illustration: Plate LXII
Navaho Burial Cists]
These are some of the difficulties that stand in the way of the
assumption that the cliff ruins were defensive structures or permanent
homes. If, however, we adopt the hypothesis that they were farming
outlooks occupied only during the farming season, and then only for a
few days or weeks at a time, after the manner that such outlooks are
used by the Pueblo Indians at the present time, most of the difficulties
vanish.
The apparent inaccessibility of many of the sites disappears on close
examination, and we must not forget that places really difficult of
access to us would not necessarily be so regarded by a people accustomed
to that manner of life. Many locations which could not be surpassed as
defensive sites were not occupied, while others much inferior in this
respect were built upon. It was very seldom that the natural conditions
were modified, even to the extent of selecting a route of access other
than that which, would naturally be followed, and, of course, the
easiest route for the cliff dwellers would be also the easiest route for
their enemies. In many cases the easiest way of access, which was the
one used by the cliff dwellers, was not direct. It was not commanded by
the immediate site of the dwellings, except in its upper part, and in
some cases not at all. Enemies could climb to the very doors of the
houses before they could be seen or attacked. The absence of military
knowledge and skill, and of any attempt to fortify or strengthen a site,
or even to fully utilize its natural defensive advantages, is
characteristic of the cliff ruins of De Chelly. If the cliff dwellers
were driven to the use of such places by a necessity for defense, this
absence is remarkable, especially as there is evidence that the
settlements were occupied for a number of, perhaps a great many, years.
Under the head of constructive expedients we have a different result.
The difficulties which came from the occupancy of exceptional sites were
promptly reflected in the construction, and unusual ways and methods
were adopted to overcome them. These methods are the more interesting in
that they were not always successful. It sometimes happened that walls
had to be placed on a foundation of smooth, sloping rock. In such cases
the rock was never cut away, but timbers were employed to hold the wall
in place. In some instances the timbers were laid at right angles to the
line of front wall, at points where cross walls joined it inside. The
front wall thus rested partly on the ends of timbers and partly on rock,
while the other ends of the timbers were held in place by the cross
walls built upon them. An example of this construction is shown in plate
LII. In other instances, where the surface was irregular but did not
slope much, timbers were laid on the wall lines and the masonry rested
partly upon them. An example of this occurs in the Casa Blanca ruin,
shown in plate XLVII. Still another method of using timber in masonry
occurs in a number of ruins. It was seldom effective and apparently was
confined to this region. This consists of the incorporation into the
masonry of upright logs. Figure 69 shows an example that occurs at the
point marked 32 on the map. The site here is an especially difficult
one, as the builders were compelled to place walls not only on sloping
rock foundations, but also on loose debris, and the vertical timber
support is quite common. The three kivas which are shown on the plan
occupied the front of the village, and their front walls have fallen
out. Apparently the same accident has happened at least once, if not
several times, before, and a fragment of a previous front wall has
slipped down 3 or 4 feet, and was left there when the kiva was repaired.
The round dots shown on the plan, two in the wall of the central kiva
and one on the east, represent vertical timbers incorporated in the
masonry. The tops of these logs reach the level of the top of the bench
in the kiva, and their lower ends rest in cavities in the rocks. The
eastern one was removed and was found to be about 2 feet long. The upper
half was charred, although formerly inclosed completely in the masonry,
as though it had been burned off to the required length. The lower end
was hacked off with some blunt implement, and as nearly squared as it
could be done with such means. It was set into a socket or hole pecked
in the solid rock and plastered in with clay. In the outer portion of
the eastern wall of the central kiva there are many marks of sticks,
3 to 4 inches in diameter and placed vertically.
[Illustration: Fig. 69--Retaining walls in Canyon de Chelly.]
Although timbers as an aid to masonry occur in many ruins, they
predominate in those which have been suggested as the sites most
recently occupied; but in the Chaco ruins timber has been used
extensively and much more skillfully than here. Instances occur where a
cross wall has been tied into a front wall with timber, and so effective
was the device that in one instance a considerable section of cross wall
can be seen suspended in the air, being completely broken out below and
now supported wholly by the ties. Instances can also be seen where
partition walls are supported on crossbeams at some distance from the
ground, forming large and convenient openings between rooms; but nothing
of that kind was seen in De Chelly. In the latter region wherever
horizontal timbers are used for the support of masonry they rest on the
bed rock.
[Illustration: Plate LXIII
Kiva in Ruin No. 10, Showing Second-Story Walls]
The same ruin (No. 32) contains an elaborate system of retaining avails,
which are shown partly in figure 69. At first a retaining wall was built
immediately in front of the main kiva, which is now 5 feet high outside.
Apparently this did not serve the purpose intended, for another and much
heavier wall was built immediately next to it. This wall is 4 feet
thick, flush on top and inside, but 10 feet high outside. At half its
height it has a step back of 6 inches. It would seem that even this
heavy construction did not suffice, and still another wall was built
outside of and next to it. This wall is nearly or quite as heavy as the
one described, and its top is on the level of the foot of that wall, but
it is 12 feet high outside. Something of the character of the site may
be inferred from the arrangement of these walls, which have a combined
vertical fall of 27 feet in a horizontal distance of less than 15 feet.
The outer or lower wall has a series of very heavy timbers projecting
from its face; these are placed irregularly. It should be noted that
access to this village was from the bench on either side, and that it
could not be reached from the front, where these walls occur. There are
other walls on the lower slope, similarly reinforced.
A little to the right of the point where these retaining walls occur
there is a room in which horizontal beams have been incorporated in the
masonry. A similar use of timber occurs in ruin No. 16 and is shown in
plate LX. Why timber should be used in this way is not clear. It may be
that when the supply was placed on the ground the builders found that
they had more timber than was needed for a roof and used the excess in
the wall rather than bring up more stone. The posts which were placed
vertically and built into the wall were always short; perhaps they were
fragments or ends cut from roofing timbers that were found to be too
long. In many instances they failed to hold the walls, and possibly the
pit holes in sloping rock, which are numerous on some sites, indicate
places where this expedient was formerly employed.
It is singular that the necessity for such expedients did not develop
the idea of a buttress. On this site such an expedient would have saved
an immense amount of work. In only one place in the canyon was a
buttress found. This was in the Casa Blanca ruin, shown in plate XLVII.
There is no doubt that in this place the buttress was used with a full
knowledge of its principles, and but little doubt that the idea was
imported at a late, perhaps the latest, period in the occupancy of that
site. Had it been known before, it would have been used in other places
where there was great need for it, not so much to prevent the slipping
of walls as to supersede the construction of walls 4 feet thick or more,
and to strengthen outside walls which were likely to give way at any
time from the outward thrust upon them.
Altogether the constructive expedients employed in De Chelly suggest the
introduction of plans and methods adapted to other regions and other
conditions into a new region with different requirements, and that
occupancy of the latter region did not continue long enough to conform
the methods to the new conditions.