MINDELEFF] OCCUPANCY OF INACCESSIBLE SITES all 
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 us 
defensive sites were not occupied, while others much inferior in this 
respect were built upon. * It was very seldom that the natural con- 
ditions 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 wallin place. In some instances the tim- 
bers 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 LI. 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 xLyir. 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 débris, and the vertical timber support is quite common. 
