MINDELEFF] DETAILS OF CASA BLANCA TUL 
The front wall of the main room is 12 feet high in front and was 
stepped back 6 inches at half its height from the ground. The step- 
back is continued through the front wall of the small room on the 
west. Near the center of the main room there is a well-finished door- 
way, directly over the point where a cross wall in front of it comes in. 
This opening was originally a double-notched or T-shape doorway, 
but at a later period was filled up so as to leave only a rectangular 
orifice. The principal entrance to the upper ruin was in front of this 
opening and a little to the left of it. It will be noticed from an inspec- 
tion of the plan that the room into which this entrance opened was 
divided at a point about 4 feet back from the cliff edge by a stone wall 
not more than half the thickness of the walls on either side of it. This 
cross wall is still 6 feet high on the side nearest the cliff, but there is 
no evidence of a doorway or opening through it. The back rooms must 
have been reached by a ladder in front, thence over the roof of the 
room. The cliff entrance was a narrow doorway left in the front wall. 
The ends of the walls on either side were smoothly finished, as in the 
western doorway. : 
There are many lumps of clay scattered about on the ground, some 
showing impressions of small sticks. Apparently they are the débris of 
roots. There are also some fragments of pottery, principally corru- 
gated ware. The adobe walls in the upper ruin rest generally on rock, 
sometimes on ashes and loose débris; in the lower ruin they rest usu- 
ally on stone foundations. The occurrence in this ruin of many fea- 
tures that are not aboriginal suggests that it was one of the last to be 
abandoned in the canyon, but there are certain features which make it 
seem probable that the upper portion continued to be inhabited for 
some time after the lower portion. The contrivance for closing open- 
ings is identical with examples found in the Mesa Verde region, and it 
is probable that an intimate connection between the two existed. 
III—HOME VILLAGES LOCATED FOR DEFENSE 
The distinction between home villages located on bottom lands abso- 
lutely without reference to the defensive value of the site, and other 
villages located on defensive sites, is to some extent an arbitrary one. 
The former, which are always located at the base of or under an over- 
hanging cliff, sometimes occupy slightly raised ground which overlooks 
the adjacent land, and the latter are sometimes so slightly raised above 
the bottoms they overlook as hardly to come within the classification. 
Moreover, ruins in their present condition sometimes belong to both 
classes, as in the example last described. Yet a general distinction 
may be drawn between the classes, in that the former are generally 
located directly upon the bottom land and invariably without thought 
or regard to the defensive value of the site, while in the latter the 
effect of this requirement is always apparent. 
The class of ruins which has been designated as the remains of vil- 
lages located for defense comprises all the most striking remains in the 
