of the five
kivas are planned on a southwest and northeast line, following the
general direction of the mesa edge, while the remaining one faces
southeast. The difference in this last case may have been brought about
by exigencies of the site on the mesa edge and the form of the cavity in
which the kiva was built. Again at Hano and Sichumovi (Pls. XVI and
XVIII) on the first mesa this uniformity of direction prevails, but,
as the plans show, the kivas in these two villages are few in number.
The two kivas of Shupaulovi will be seen (Pl. XXX) to have the same
direction, viz, facing southeast. In Shumopavi (Pl. XXXIV) there are
four kivas all facing southeast. In Mashongnavi, however (Pl. XXVI), the
same uniformity does not prevail. Three of the kivas face south of east,
and two others built in the edge of the rocky bench on the south side of
the village face west of south. In the large village of Oraibi there is
remarkable uniformity in the direction of the many kivas, there being a
variation of only a few degrees in direction in the whole number of
thirteen shown on the plan (Pl. XXXVI). But in the case of the large
kiva partly above ground designated as the Coyote kiva, the direction
from which it is entered is the reverse of that of the other kivas.
No explanation is offered that will account for this curious single
exception to the rule. The intention of the builders has evidently been
to make the altar and its attendant structural features conform to a
definite direction, fixed, perhaps, by certain requirements of the
ceremonial, but the irregularity of the general village plan in many
cases resulting from its adaptation to restricted sites, has given rise
to the variations that are seen.

In Zuni there was an evident purpose to preserve a certain uniformity of
direction in the kiva entrances. In house No. 1 (Pls. LXXVI and LXXVII)
there are two kivas, distinguishable on the plan by the large divided
trap door. The entrance of these both face southeast, and it can readily
be seen that this conformity has been provided intentionally, since the
rooms themselves do not correspond in arrangement. The roof opening is
in one case across the room and in the other it is placed
longitudinally. As has been pointed out above, the general plan of
arranging the kivas is not so readily distinguished in Zuni as in
Tusayan. Uniformity, so far as it is traceable, is all the more striking
as occurring where there is so much more var