In a general way it may be stated that the masonry of the village ruins of this region is much inferior to that of the San Juan region, and in its rough and unfinished surfaces, in the use of an inferior material close at hand rather than a better material a short distance away, and in the ignorance on the part of the builders of many constructive devices and expedients employed in the best examples of pueblo masonry, the work of this region may be ranked with that of the Tusayan--in other words, at the lower end of the scale. [Illustration: Figure 301. Walled front cavate lodges.] There is but little masonry about the cavate lodges, and that is rude in character. As elsewhere stated, walled fronts are exceptional in this region, and where they occur the work was done very roughly. Figure 301 shows an example that occurs in the group of cavate lodges already described. It will be noticed that little selection has been exercised in the stones employed, and that an excess of mortar has been used to fill in the large interstices. Figure 290 (p. 221), which shows a storage cist attached to the group of cavate lodges, marked _D_ on the map (plate XXV), exhibits the same excessive use of adobe or mud plastering. At several other points in the area shown on this map there are short walls, sometimes inside the lodges, sometimes outside. In all cases, however, they are rudely constructed and heavily plastered with mud; in short, the masonry of the cavate lodges exhibits an ignorance fully equal to that of the stone villages, while the execution is, if anything, ruder. It is singular that, notwithstanding the excessive use of mud mortar and mud plastering in the few walls that are found there, such plastering was almost never used on the walls in the interiors of the lodges, perhaps because no finer finish than the rough surface of the rock was considered desirable. [Illustration: Plate XLIV. BOWLDER FOUNDATIONS NEAR LIMESTONE CREEK.]