The gaps present in Figures 6 and 7 are again composed mostly of single sherd-catalog entries, but note the number of items inventoried in 1998 for Kivas F and G are greater than the number of items cataloged. This is probably because there were a number of reconstructable vessels from the Lowry Ruin collections, and when glued, these may not have been counted by individual sherd. The Martin Project counted each the individual sherd.

Catalog Book- 1934. There are 73 entries, including:

1 Awl, 2 Beads, 7 Bowls, 7 Charcoal fragments, 1 Chipped Stone, 1 Chipped Stone Tool, 1 Effigy, 1 Faunal Remains, 1 Flesher, 6 Jars, 2 Ladles, 3 Pitchers, 6 Projectile Points, 1 Ring, 1 Rubbing Stone, 2323 Sherds 1 Tube, 1 Worked Sherd, and 4 pieces of Worked Stone

---

Table 4 presents the total number of artifacts catalogued with those found during the Martin Project inventory and indicates the percentage change therein. Figure 9 and 10 presents the same data graphically.

The discrepancies indicated for Rooms 30 and 31 (Table 4; Figures 8 and 9) are due to large collections of sherds that were cataloged, but were counted as a single item, when if fact the 1998 inventory counted 65 and 120 artifacts, respectively. For the rest of the proveniences, there were one to three catalog numbers assigned, but numbers of artifacts are missing from these lots for various, undetermined reasons. The provenience "West of Room 04" (WofRm04) has three missing artifacts, including a flesher, a worked stone, and a projectile point.

DISCUSSION

Of the 5034 artifacts cataloged from Lowry Ruin, 4293, or 85%, are still on the shelves and available for study. The fact that 741 artifacts are missing from the Lowry Ruin collection is disconcerting, but 679 (92%) of the missing artifacts are individually cataloged potsherds. Four bowls (Cat. Nos. 45335, 45414, 45415, and 45571; see memo 1376) were exchanged to a University in Mexico in 1951. With regard to some of the major artifact categories, the situation is as follows:

129 whole vessels included in catalog, 115 (89%) found; 45 bone awls in catalog, 39 (87%) found; 5 effigies cataloged, 3 (60%) found; 11 projectile points cataloged, 8 (73%) found; 5 pieces of chipped stone cataloged; 5 (100%) found; 4680 sherds cataloged, 4004 (86%) found.

PUBLISHED RECORDS

Martin et al. (1936:54-78) published data on a number of non-ceramic artifact categories, but note that "surprisingly few stone objects were recovered from either the pueblo or rubbish heaps. Table 5 compares the number of objects published by Martin et al. (1936), cataloged by Museum staff after excavation in the 1930s, and the number of objects inventoried by Martin Project staff in 1998. These data are presented graphically in Figure 11.

The most disturbing aspect of the Table 5 and Figure 10 is the fact that the manos and metates were excavated from Lowry Ruin were never cataloged and cannot be found. This suggests that these artifacts were not returned to the Museum after they were excavated. The metates are described in Martin et al. (1936:56-60), and they may have simply been described in the field and left there. The "bone tube" category is equally problematic, given that these are small and should have been returned to the Museum, though it is possible that all the bone tubes are subsumed within the "worked bone" category used in the cataloging process. Further examination is required at this point.

The most egregious aspect of Table 6 and Figures 11 and 12 is that the floor assemblage counts published for Rooms 08, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 have no material counterparts in Museum storage. Rooms 08 and 10 were excavated in 1930; Rooms 17 and 18 were excavated in 1931; Rooms 19, 20, 21, and 28 were excavated in 1933; and Rooms 32-37 were excavated in 1934. This suggests that there was no systematic purge of the collections after an excavation year that could account for these losses. Artifact counts for Rooms 05, 11, 13, and 15, decline between published data, cataloged artifacts, and those inventoried by the Martin Project, suggesting a process of attrition from field to office to storage (assuming that the floor assemblage numbers were determined at Lowry Ruin prior to return to the Museum). The tabulations for Rooms 04, 12, Kiva C, and the Great Kiva, seem to indicate a pattern that, perhaps, is to be expected if cataloging occurred prior to publication-- the numbers should go down due to stochastic loss. The assemblage for Kiva F is anomalous, at least when compared to other Lowry proveniences, because the number of items cataloged is less than the number published and inventoried.

The discrepancies between the published numbers, the numbers recorded in the catalog books, and the number of artifacts inventoried in 1998 cannot be easily reconciled. In the absence of more detailed documentation, it is likely as not that the sources of error will never be understood.

CONCLUSION

Martin assembled the Lowry Ruin portion of his Collection during excavations in 1930, 1931, 1933, and 1934, a period in which his archaeological technique seems most antiquated. Some of the excavations were conducted using English rather than metric measurements, fill was removed with pick and shovel at best and horse team and scraper at worst, and was not screened. These techniques are in keeping with standard archaeological practice of the times, but it is indeed curious that so few chipped stone and groundstone objects were recovered from a pueblo as large as Lowry Ruin. Changes in Martin's recovery methods are evident in 1933 and 1934, in which the number of sherds, and sheer number of artifacts collected, increases dramatically.

The artifact collection from Lowry Ruin remains a significant national resource worthy of further analysis. Though there are significant gaps in the artifact tabulations presented above, when all is said and done, the collection from Lowry Ruin is one of the most completely cataloged sites excavated by Martin and his associates. Most of the discrepancies between the number of items cataloged and number inventoried are due to the loss/discard of single sherd-catalog entries, yet 85% of the collection cataloged remains on the shelf and is available for additional research.

Lowry Ruin was declared a National Landmark in 1967. It has been partially restored and is now open to the public for visitation.

REFERENCES CITED

Fewkes, Jesse W.

1919 Prehistoric Villages, Castles, and Towers of Southwestern Colorado. BAE Bulletin 70.

Martin, Paul S.

1930a Kiva Revealed on Lowry Ruin. Field Museum News 1(9): 1.

1930b Archaeological Expedition to the Southwest. Field Museum News 1(11): 3.

1931a Important Discoveries Made by Southwest Expedition. Field Museum News 2(9): 3.

1931b Expedition to the Southwest Returns with Collections. Field Museum News. 2(11): 3.

1931c Recent Archaeological Excavations in Southwestern Colorado. Pan American Magazine 44(3): 228-236.

1932 Expedition to the Southwest Returns with Collections. Field Museum News 4(11): 2.

1933 Expedition Excavates One of the Largest and Oldest Kivas of Prehistoric Indians. Field Museum News 5(12): 3.

Martin, Paul S., Roys, Lawrence, and Gerhardt von Bonin.

1936 Lowry Ruin in Southwestern Colorado. Fieldiana Anthropology 23(1):1-216.