fW^§^i^i:^M^f''-'

J

Return tl
Latest C

Theft, mii
are reasa
result in
Unii

u\ii\

!C[ '^

before the
below.

ng of books
ion and may
iversity.
library

.Wv-A-

(/

L161— O-1096

Map 1. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF LOWRY PUEBLO AND GREAT KIVA

Anthropological Series
Field Museum of Natural History

Founded by Marshall Field, 1893

Volume XXIII Number 1

LOWRY RUIN IN SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO

BY

Paul S. Martin

CURATOR, DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY

WITH REPORTS ON

Masonry of Lowry Ruin and of the Southwest

BY

Lawrence Roys

AND

Skeletal Material from the Lowry Area

BY

Gerhardt von Bonin, M.D.
assistant professor of anatomy, university of illinois

the JULIUS AND AUGUSTA N. ROSENWALD ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION FUND

112 Plates, 54 Text Figures, 4 Maps

Publication 356 ,, ^'^'^^ffy op ru

CHICAGO, U.S.A.
1936

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BY FIELD MUSEUM PRESS

CONTENTS

PAGE

List of Illustrations 7

Preface 13

I. Introduction 15

Location 15

i Physiographic and Biotic Conditions 15

$ History of the Site 20

/O Appearance of Ruin before Excavation 21

^ Problems 22

^ Methods of Excavation 23

fO II. Description of Pueblo Details 26"

5: Walls 26

-5 Foundations 26

^ Dimensions 26

^ Construction 26

Types of Masonry 28

Materials Used 28

Surfaces 29

Joints 29

Spalls 29

Mortar 29

Plaster 30

Appearance 30

Doors 30

Ventilator Openings and Cupboards 31

Wall Plates 31

Recessed or Built-in Post 31

^^ Floors 31

v^ Material 31

p^ Alterations 32

_ Bins 32

Firepits 32

Pottery and Artifacts in situ 32

Ceilings 33

Height 33

~^ Types 33

Description of Beams 34

Secondary or Extra Vertical Supports 34

■> General (Arrangement of Parts) 35

Number of Rooms 35

Use of Rooms 35

Number of Stories 35

^ Alterations 37

Sealed Doorways 38

Bonded Corners 38

^ Secondary Walls 39

'_2 Miscellaneous Notes ' 39

III. Description of Kiva Details 40

Small Kivas 40

vj Number of Kivas 40

ffi Position in Pueblo 40

.^^ Masonry 40

6^

Contents

PACE

Roofs 40

Vaults 42

Shelves 42

Mural Decorations 42

Various Kiva Details 44

Entrances 46

Ceremonial Deposits 46

The Great Kiva 46

Position 46

The Fill 46

Dimensions 46

Masonry 46

Floor 47

Roof 47

Peg(?) or Beam(?) Sockets in Kiva Wall 48

Vaults 48

Pits 49

Firepit 49

Deflector and Ventilator 49

Sipapu 49

Niches 49

Bench 50

Recessed Stairway 50

Other Great Kivas 51

Peripheral Rooms of Great Kiva 51

Number and Location 51

Dimensions 51

Masonry 52

Pole-and-Brush Room 52

Floors 53

Firepit 53

Roofs 53

Remarks on Great Kiva and Peripheral Rooms 53

IV. Artifacts of Lowry Pueblo 54

Objects of Stone 54

Stone Implements with Secondary Chipping on All Major Faces 54

A. Projectile Points and Knives with Stems 54

B. Aberrant Form 54

Ground or Pecked Stone Objects 54

Grooved Axes 54

Maul(?) 54

Notched Implement 56

Problematical Grooved Implement 56

Shouldered Implement 56

Pot Polishers 56

Stone Balls 56

Metates and Manos 56

Zoomorphic Image of Stone 60

Problematical Object 60

Stone Pendants 60

Stone Ring(?) 60

Hemispherical Object 60

Buttons!?) 60

Medicine Cylinders 60

Anthracite Coal 62

Contents 5

PAGE

Objects of Clay 62

Effigy of Human Head 62

Worked Potsherds 62

Tobacco Pipes 62

Objects of Bone 69

Implements 69

Awls 69

Mammal Leg Bone 69

Head of Bone Intact 69

Head of Bone Partly Worked Down 69

Head of Bone Wholly Removed 69

Whole Bird Bone 69

Needles 69

Polishers 69

End Scrapers or Fleshers 69

Made from Metatarsals of Bison or Elk 69

Made from Humeri of Mountain Sheep 69

Made from Humerus of Ungulate 69

Made from Phalange of Deer 69

Problematical Bone Object 70

Whistle 70

Bone Tubes 70

Miscellaneous 70

Perforated Disk 70

Portion of Curved Ornament 71

Objects of Antler 71

Digging Stick Blade(?) 71

Implements(?) of Elk Horn 71

Objects of Wood 71

Cylindrical Stick 71

Prayer-Sticks (?) 71

V. Pottery of Lowry Pueblo 79

Classification Used 79

Pottery Types Found at Lowry Ruin 79

Lowry Pottery Types 79

Trade Wares 80

Definition of Mancos Black-on-White Pottery 80

A. Painted Pottery 80

Vessel Shapes and Sizes 80

Bowls 80

Jars 83

Ladles 83

Slip 84

Paint 84

Decoration 85

Zone of Decoration on Bowls and Ladles 85

Exterior Walls 85

Interior Walls 85

Continuous Band Patterns 85

Divided Band Patterns 85

Quartered Patterns 88

All-over Pattern 88

Aberrant Patterns 88

Zone of Decoration on Jars 88

6 Contents

I'ACE

Paste 88

Surface Texture 88

Thickness of Body Wall in Cross Section 94

Rim Forms 94

Chronological Position 94

B. Corrugated Pottery 94

Vessel Shapes and Sizes 94

Jars 94

Pitchers 94

Paste 98

Surface Finish 98

Thickness of Body Wall in Cross Section 98

Rim Forms 98

Stratigraphy 98

Stratigraphic Tests 98

Refuse Areas 109

Discussion and Summary of Lowry Pottery 110

VI. Lowry Ruin as an Introduction to the Study of Southwestern

Masonry, by Lawrence 7?o?/s 115

Masonry Analysis at Lowry Ruin 116

Lowry Chaco-like Masonry Technique 119

Lowry Block-like Masonry Technique (non-Chaco) 120

Summary 122

The Mechanics and Principles of Wall-Building 123

Summary 128

Supplementary Notes 130

Wall Dissection at Lowry Ruin 130

Surface Appearances 134

Positive Results of Wall Analysis 135

Possible Sources of Masonry Traits 138

VII. The Skeletal Material from the Lowry Area, by Gerhardt von

Bonin, M.D 143

Introduction 143

The Long Bones 148

The Skull 164

Conclusions 177

Appendix 179

VIII. Synthesis 194

Mechanics of Lowry Growth 194

First Addition 195

Second Addition 196

Third Addition 198

Fourth Addition 200

Fifth Addition 200

Population 202

Architectural Knowledge 202

Masonry Classification 203

Results of Stratigraphic Study 203

Comparison with Other Ruins 203

Conclusions 204

; Inferences 206

Bibliography 210

Index 215

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

I.

II.

III.

IV.
V.

VI.

VII.
VIII.

IX.
X.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

XV.
XVI.

XVII.

XVIII.

XIX.

XX.

XXI.

XXII.
XXIII.
XXIV.

XXV.
XXVI.

XXVII.

XXVIII.

XXIX.

XXX.

XXXI.

XXXII.
XXXIII.

XXXIV.

PLATES

View to the south from Lowry ruin; Ute or El Late Mountains in

background.
South end of Lowry ruin before excavation.
East side of Lowry ruin before excavation.
West side of Lowry ruin before excavation.
Great Kiva before excavation ; looking west.
North trench; looking southwest.
South trench; looking northwest.

Mine dump-car and chute at south end of Lowry ruin.
Showing method of caring for debris excavated from Lowry Pueblo.
Photographic tower, 35 feet high, placed on a base 8 feet high.
Room 10; south half.
Rooms 1 and 2; looking north.

Lowry Pueblo; Kiva A in foreground. Looking north.
Lowry Pueblo; Rooms 14 and 15 in foreground. Looking south.
Room 19; looking east.
Lowry Pueblo; Kiva D (Room 18) in foreground

southwest.

Lowry Pueblo; upper part of Room 17 in foreground,
northwest.

Looking
Looking

Room 21 ; looking east.

Room 27; looking southwest.

Lowry Pueblo; looking west from tower situated on south edge of

Great Kiva. Prior to excavations in Rooms 31-37.
Lowry Pueblo; looking west from tower situated on south edge of

Great Kiva. After excavations in Rooms 31-37.
Chaco-like masonry; Room 15. Height of section shown, 4 ' 2 feet.
Chaco-like masonry; west wall, Room 32.
Chaco-like masonry; south wall. Room 18. Three-foot square

outlined in chalk.
Chaco-like masonry; Kiva B. Distance between chalk marks, 3 feet.
Chaco-like masonry; west wall, Room 32. Distance between stadia

rods, 3 feet.
Non-Chaco or block-like type of masonry; east wall. Room 1.

Height of section shown, 3^ feet.
Non-Chaco or block-like type of masonry; south wall. Room 9.

Distance between chalk marks, 3 feet.

Intermediate type of masonry; south wall. Room 12. Distance
between chalk marks, 3 feet.

Intermediate type of masonry; south wall. Room 31. Divisions

on stadia rod, 1 foot each.
Intermediate type of masonry; east wall, Room 4. Distance

between chalk marks, 3 feet.
T-doorway; west wall, Room 9. Overall height, 7 feet.
Rectangular doorway; east wall, Room 8. Overall height, 5 feet

2 inches.
Rectangular doorway; west wall. Room 15. Overall height, 3 feet

5 inches.

List of Illustrations

XXXV. Diagonal bonding; southeast corner, Room 20.
XXXVI. Looking west into space between Rooms 14 and 16; showing circular
opening in background where wall plate was inserted in north
wall, Room 15.
XXXVII. Semi-circular bin; Room 11.

XXXVIII. Entrance and portion of bin; Room 10. Looking south.
XXXIX. Firepit (foreground) and secondary roof support (background);
Room 13. Looking west.
XL. Firepit "A"; Room 35.
XLI. Firepit "B"; Room 35.
XLII. West wall, Room 15; showing sockets for main roof beams and ledge
on which rested tertiary beams.
XLIII. Room 27; remains of main, secondary, and tertiary roof beams.
XLIV. North wall, Room 18 (Kiva D); showing method of enlarging room
by extending wall. Gap between new and old walls (center) was
only fortuitously discovered, so cleverly was it chinked up with
mud-mortar and spalls.
XLV. Sealed T-doorway between Kiva H and Room 9. In foreground

kiva pilaster which is part of seal.
XLVI. Secondary wall, east face; Room 14.

XLVII. Kiva A; looking south. In foreground are bins built after kiva
was abandoned.
XLVIII. Looking north through Kiva A into Kiva B.
XLIX. Kiva H; looking north. Diameter, 11 feet.
L. Ventilator shaft; Kiva H.
LI. Kivas A and B; looking south. In background are lateral venti-
lator openings for Kiva A; in foreground is sub-floor ventilator
opening for Kiva B.
LII. Masonry, Kiva C. Distance between chalk marks, 3 feet.
LIII. Masonry, Kiva D. Two-foot square outlined in chalk.
LIV. Masonry, Kiva F. Distance between chalk marks, 3 feet.
LV. Masonry, Kiva G. Three-foot square outlined in chalk.
LVI. Kiva F. Holes in floor around circumference once held roof posts.
LVII. Sub-floor vault, west side of firepit; Kiva C.

LVIII. Looking southwest into Kiva B; showing sub-floor ventilator, fire-
pit, southern recess, and inter-pilaster shelves.
LIX. Inter-pilaster shelves; southwest quadrant, Kiva B. Distance

between pilasters, 4 feet.
LX. Painted design on banquette; southwest quadrant, Kiva A. This
decoration was underneath that shown in Plate LXI.
LXI. Painted design on banquette and recess for post; northwest quad-
rant, Kiva A.
LXII. Painted design on banquette, and niche; southwest quadrant,
Kiva B. Width of niche, 5 inches.
LXIII. Painted design on banquette, and inter-pilaster shelves; northwest

quadrant, Kiva D.
LXIV. Painted design on banquette; northwest quadrant, Kiva D. This
decoration was underneath that shown in Plate LXIII. Width
of niche, 6 inches.
LXV. Great Kiva; looking north. View taken from 50-foot elevation

(see Plate X).
LXVI. Southwest quadrant, Great Kiva; showing west terrace, bench,
and southwest pillar base.

List of Illustrations

LXVII. Northwest quadrant, Great Kiva; showing peg(?) or beam(?)
sockets and northwest pillar base.
LX VIII. Southwest quadrant, Great Kiva ; showing west vault.
LXIX. Southwest quadrant. Great Kiva; showing niches.
LXX. Great Kiva; looking north at recess which had contained stairway.
Length of trowel, 9 inches.
LXXI. Great Kiva; looking north at recess, with stairway restored.
LXXII. Great Kiva; looking north at peripheral Rooms I-IV.
LXXIII. North wall, peripheral Room III, Great Kiva.
LXXIV. Great Kiva; looking east at post-holes in peripheral Room IV.
LXXV. Metate and mano; trough of metate open at both ends. Length,
1 foot 4 inches. Found on floor of Kiva F.

LXXVI. Metate and mano; trough of metate open at one end only. Length,
1 foot 8 inches. Found in Basket Maker III(?) house, under
floor, Room 11.

LXXVII. Mancos black-on-white ware. Figs. 1, 3. Bowls from floor, Room
16. Fig. 2. Upperportionof jar, from floor, Room 15. Diameter
of Fig. 1, 11 inches.

LXXVIII. Potsherds from uppermost cut (Cut 1); Room 8.
LXXIX. Potsherds from Cut 4; Room 8.
LXXX. Potsherds from Cut 6; Room 8.

LXXXI. Potsherds from uppermost cut (Cut 1); refuse area west of Rooms
4 and 28.
LXXXII. Potsherds from Cut 4; refuse area west of Rooms 4 and 28.
LXXXIII. Mancos black-on-white ladles. Diameter of Fig. 1, 4 inches.
LXXXIV. Portion of Lino gray ware jar. Found in remains of Basket Maker
III house, just east of Room 10. Height, 17 ' •, inches.
LXXXV. Male ulna and humeri.
LXXXVI. Male and female femora.
LXXXVII. Male and female tibiae.

LXXXVIII. Pathological long bones: post-mortem deformation of fibula; healed
fractures of radius and ulna; abscess of distal epiphysis of femur.
LXXXIX. Male skull. Norma frontalis. Norma lateralis, and Norma verti-
calis with skull oriented in Frankfurt horizontal.
XC. Female skull. Norma frontalis, Norma lateralis, and Norma verti-
calis with skull oriented in Frankfurt horizontal.
XCI. Extended burial. From small refuse mound, southeast of Great
Kiva.

XCII. Flexed burial. From small refuse mound, east of Great Kiva.
XCIII. Portion of demolished wall (right edge of plate), "X" area.
XCIV. Room 16; looking north. Abutment of two types of masonry may

be seen in left background; in center, remains of bases of two

roof pillars.

XCV. Mancos black-on-white ladles. Found on floor. Room 10. Diam-
eter of Fig. 1, 412 inches.
XCVI. Black-on-white bowls. Found on floor. Room 10. Fig. 1. McElmo
black-on-white. Diameter, 12 inches. Fig. 2. Mancos black-
on-white.

XCVII. Black-on-white bowls. Fig. 1. Chaco black-on-white. Diameter,
11^2 inches. From floor, Kiva C. Fig. 2. Red Mesa (?) black-
on-white. From burial in refuse area west of Room 28.
XCVIII. Black-on-white bowls. Fig. 1. Red Mesa(?) black-on-white.
Diameter, 8 inches. From floor, Kiva F. Fig. 2. Puerco(?)
black-on-white. From floor, Kiva F.

10

List of Illustrations

XCIX. Black-on-white pottery. Fig. 1. Chacoan(?) type effigy jar, from
burial east of Great Kiva. Fig. 2. Red Mesa(?) black-on-white
seed jar (similar to Plate 13b, Roberts, 1931). Diameter of
orifice, 4 inches. From burial in refuse area west of Room 28.
C. Black-on-white pottery. Fig. 1. McElmo black-on-white mug.
Height, 4'2 inches. From passageway to Room 10. Fig. 2.
Mancos black-on-white pitcher. From passageway to Room 10.
CI. McElmo black-on-white mugs. From floor. Room 10. Height of

Fig. 1, 41.4 inches.

CII. McElmo black-on-white mugs. Fig. 1. Height, 3I/4 inches. From

burial east of Great Kiva (mug has double bottom with space

between containing clay pellets). Fig. 2. From late bin, Room 10.

cm. McElmo black-on-white bowls. From upper portion of (second

story?) fill. Room 10. Diameter of Fig. 1, 10 inches.
CIV. McElmo black-on-white bowls. From upper portion of (second

story?) fill, Room 10. Diameter of Fig. 1, 9^2 inches.
CV. McElmo black-on-white bowl. From passageway leading to
Room 10. Diameter, 5 inches.
CVI. Kana-a black-on-white ware. From burial in refuse area, west of

Room 28. Diameter of bowl, 8,14 inches.
CVII. Black-on-red bowls. Fig. 1. Kayenta I (?) black-on-red. Diameter,
8 inches. From burial in refuse area west of Room 28. Fig. 2.
Tusayan black-on-red. From upper portions of fill. Room 8.
CVIII. Mancos black-on-white bowls. Diameter of Fig. 1, 6 inches.
CIX. Black-on-white ladles. Fig. 1. Basket Maker III. Fig. 2. Mancos

ware. Greatest diameter of Fig. 2, 4 ' 2 inches.
ex. Pottery as found in situ; floor of Room 10. See Fig. 32.
CXI. Top view of Chaco-like wall; Room 15. Length of section shown,
3 feet.
CXII. Top view of non-Chaco wall; Room 14. Length of trowel, 9 inches.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

TEXT FIGURES

PAGE

Lowry District 17

Detail of township plat showing location of Lowry Pueblo . ..... 19

Sample of plans and four-elevation drawings (Room 10 illustrated),

showing method of mapping rooms 25

Schematic drawings of masonry types and spalls at Lowry Pueblo ... 27

Detail plan and sections of Room 18 and Kivas D, E, and F 41

Detail plans and sections of Kivas A and B 43

Detail plan and section of Kiva C 45

Projectile points, a-c, Expanding stem narrower than shoulder; d-i,
Expanding stem as wide as, or wider than, shoulder, slender form,

narrow notches. Length of a, 1 ' 2 inches 55

Miscellaneous objects of stone, a, Projectile point with broad stem and

large notches; b. Problematical object of steatite; c, Tablet of

felsite; d, e. Pot polishers of quartzite. Length of a, 2 1^4 inches . . 57

Miscellaneous objects of stone. a~c. Stone pendants; d, Zoomorphic

image of stone; e. Crescent-shaped object of chalcedony;/, Ring(?)

of trachyte. Diameter of a, 15/16 inch 59

Grooved objects of stone, a, b, Axes; c, Maul(?); d, Problematical

object. Length of a, 5 inches 61

Miscellaneous objects of stone, a, Notched implement; b, c, Stone

balls. Length of 0, 5]i inches 63

Shouldered implement of silicified tuff. Length, 8/8 inches 64

List of Illustrations 11

PAGE

14. Miscellaneous objects of pottery and stone, a, c, Worked potsherds;

b, Pottery-effigy of human head: d, "Buttons" (?); e, Hemispherical

object;/, "Medicine cylinders." Diameter of a, 1>^ inches. ... 65

15. Tobacco pipes of pottery. Length of o, 2 '•_. inches 66

16. Awlsof mammal leg bones; head of bone intact. Length of a, 8 ^/g inches 67

17. Awlsof mammal leg bones; head of bone intact. Length of o, 4 %! inches 68

18. Awls of mammal leg bones; head of bone partly worked. Length of a,

5% inches 70

19. Awls of mammal leg bones; head of bone partly worked. Length of a,

9 inches 72

•20. Awls of mammal leg bones; head of bone wholly removed. Length of t,

8 ' 2 inches 73

21. Awls of bird bone. Length of a, 5J-8 inches 74

22. Miscellaneous objects of bone, a, Needles; b, Polishers(?) ; c, Perforated

disk; d, Problematical object; e, Whistle(?); /, Portion of curved

ornament. Length of a, 5 ^8 inches 75

23. End scrapers. Length of a, 5^ inches 76

24. Bone tubes. Length of a, 3 J^g inches 77

25. Objects of antler, a, Digging stick blade(?); 6, Implement3(?) of elk

horn. Length of a, 7 inches 78

26. Bowl forms of Mancos black-on-white pottery 81

27. Bowl forms of Mancos black-on-white pottery 82

28. Mancos black-on-white jar. Height, 7 inches 83

29. Mancos black-on-white jar. Height, 16 inches 84

30. Mancos black-on-white ladles. Length of a, 5 inches 86

31. Mancos black-on-white bowls. Diameter of a, 5% inches 87

32. Mancos black-on-white bowls. Diameter of a, 8 inches 89

33. Mancos black-on-white ladles. Diameter of a, 5 inches 90

34. Mancos black-on-white bowls. Diameter of a, 7 '2 inches 91

35. Mancos black-on-white bowls. Diameter of 0, 7 inches 92

36. Mancos black -on-white bowls. Diameter of a, 7 3^ inches 93

37. Bowls, a, McElmo black-on-white ware; b, c, Mancos black-on-white

ware. Diameter of a, 8 ' •> inches 95

38. Mancos black-on-white bowls. Diameter of a, 5^4 inches 96

39. Mancos black-on-white ladles. Diameter of a, 4' 2 inches 97

40. Mancos black-on-white bowl rim profiles 99

41. Corrugated-neck pitchers. Height of a, 6}4 inches 100

42. -Jar. Indented-corrugated ware. Height, 11 inches 101

43. Graph representing distribution (in percentages) of the principal pot-

tery types found in the successive strata in Room 8 103

44. Graph representing distribution (in percentages) of the principal pot-

tery types found in the successive strata in Room 28 105

45. Graph representing distribution (in percentages) of the principal pot-

tery types found in the successive strata in the refuse area west

of Rooms 4 and 28 106

46. Undecorated pottery, a, b, Unpainted pitcher and bowl; c, Plain cor-

rugated-neck jar. Height of a, 4 3-1 inches 107

47. Potsherds of plain corrugated ware 113

48. Mid-sagittal, transverse, and horizontal contours of skull 21 ... . 167

49. Mid-sagittal, transverse, and horizontal contours of skull 22 ... . 169

50. Mid-sagittal, transverse, and horizontal contours of skull 23 ... . 171

51. Mid-sagittal, transverse, and horizontal contours of skull 47619 . . . 173

52. Superimposed mid-sagittal, transverse, and horizontal contours of skull

47619 and Dyak male type 175

12 List of Illustrations

PAGE

53. Plan showing growth of Lowry Pueblo, a, Earliest stage; b, First addi-

tion; c, Second addition 197

54. Plan showing growth of Lowry Pueblo, a, Third addition; b, Fourth

addition; c, Fifth addition 199

MAPS

1. Topographic map of Lowry Pueblo and Great Kiva Frontispiece

FACING
PAGE

2. Ground plan of Lowry Pueblo 20

3. Cross sections of Lowry Pueblo 32

4. Ground plan and cross section of Great Kiva, Lowry Pueblo 48

PREFACE

This publication embodies the results of archaeological research
made at Lowry ruin in southwestern Colorado during the years
1930-31 and 1933-34 by the Field Museum Archaeological Expedi-
tion to the Southwest. This area was chosen because little intensive
work has been carried on there. Permission to excavate at this site,
situated on federal public domain, was obtained from the Secretary
of the Department of the Interior.

The Expedition, with myself as leader, was financed from the
income of a fund donated by the late Julius and Augusta N.
Rosen wald.

Mr. Stephen C. Simms, Director of the Museum, and my former
chief, the late Dr. Berthold Laufer, recognized the desirability of
undertaking archaeological research in the Southwest and encour-
aged me in every possible way. To both I am very grateful.

The success of any expedition depends largely on its personnel.
This Report would be incomplete if I failed to acknowledge my
indebtedness to those persons who served without pay and who,
by their loyalty, resourcefulness, and keen observation, made
possible any success which the Expedition may have achieved.

I particularly wish to mention the following individuals: Mr.
Clyde Allan; Dr. Gerhardt von Bonin, Assistant Professor of
Anatomy, University of Illinois College of Medicine, who carefully
excavated the few skeletons found and whose report on them appears
in this publication; Mr. Robert Burgh, of the National Park Service,
who served as surveyor and cartographer for the Expedition and whose
excellent maps are included in this Report; Professor Pierce Butler,
of the University of Chicago, who very generously permitted me to
use his Gurley Transit, with which all the survey work was done, and
who made many valuable suggestions concerning the mapping and
the excavating; Mr. Paul Cooper; Mr. Carl T. Lloyd, my adminis-
trative assistant, who had charge of the field photography and who
developed the films under very adverse conditions; Mr. Vergil C.
Lohr, then of the University of Chicago, who acted as camp-cook
for one summer; Mr. Frank McArthur; Mr. Lawrence Roys, who
helped me institute a thorough study of pueblo masonry and whose
report on this undertaking is published in this Report; Mr. Michael
Sapir; Mr. Watson Smith, who assisted in several legal problems

13

14 The Lowry Ruin

and who took charge of potsherd stratigraphy^ and wall constructions;
and Mr. Richard P. Wheeler, who helped work out certain
problems about the Great Kiva. Mr. Wheeler also checked over the
statistics on masonry.

Most of the digging was done by paid workers who live near the
ruin. For their interest and painstaking work, I wish to thank
Mr. Al Lancaster and Mr. Marion Clark, both of whom acted as
my foremen, and Messrs. S. T. Bangs, Laurence Campbell, Roy
Herren, Harold Long, Graham Marr, Emory Retherford, Jack
Shrader, and Jack Yates.

I owe more than I can ever repay to Mr. and Mrs. Clyde D. Long,
who permitted us the unlimited use of their log cabin, their cistern,
their tools, and their horses. At all times we had free use of the ranch.
Mr. Long, although a semi-invalid, was always willing to help us
construct and carry out any plan that I conceived, be it a 50-foot
photographic tower or a cellar. Mrs. Long provided us with excellent
food and was always able, by means of some legerdemain known
only to her, to find enough to accommodate unexpected guests;
and this, despite the fact that we had no ice-box and that we were
thirty-five miles away from a grocery store.

This opportunity is taken to express the appreciation of the
Museum and of myself to Mr. Jesse L. Nusbaum, then Director
of the Laboratory of Anthropology, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and
Consulting Archaeologist for the United States Department of the
Interior. In dealing with the violent opposition of a misinformed
homesteader, who believed he had the right to bar us from working
in the ruin, Mr. Nusbaum aided me by conducting negotiations
with the United States Land Office officials, so that the disputes
were settled amicably and expeditiously.

The excavations were greatly expedited in 1934 through the aid
given by the Montezuma County Emergency Relief Administration,
which furnished from six to ten men for a period of nine weeks.
Special thanks are due to Mrs. Alice Van Diest, Director of Colorado
State Relief, and to Mr. Harry R. Kauffman, Administrator of the
Montezuma County Emergency Relief Administration, and his.
associates, for their helpful cooperation.

Drawings in this Report signed C.F.G. were done by Mr. Carl

F. Gronemann, Illustrator on the Museum staff; and those signed

R.L.Y., by Mr. Robert L. Yule, Assistant in the Department of

Anthropology.

Paul S. Martin

LOWRY RUIN IN SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO
I. INTRODUCTION

Location

Lowry ruin is situated on a mesa top in Long. 108° 54' W., Lat.
37° 37' N., about thirty-two miles northwest of the town of Cortez
and nine miles west of the Ackmen Post Office, in the northwest
Quarter of Section 2, Township 38 North, Range 19 West, N.M.P.M.,
lots 6 and 7, Montezuma county, Colorado (Figs. 1, 2). The altitude,
as given by an altimeter which was corrected and later checked
eight times, is 6,900 feet above sea level. According to Gladwin's
system of designating ruins (Gladwin, 1928), it is situated in Colorado
A:5.

Physiographic and Biotic Conditions

The region about the ruin is a gently rolling, dissected plateau
of a type common in the Southwest. Although fairly fiat over great
areas, the surface in many places has been cut by streams into narrow,
steep-walled, and sometimes deep, canyons, which are dry except
after heavy rains. A few wind-eroded caves have been formed and
in them I have noticed small cliff-pueblos.

The country near the ruin is open in all directions for some
distance; but farther away and to the north lie the La Sal Mountains;
to the east, the San Miguel and the La Plata Mountains; to the
south, the Ute or El Late Mountains (Plate I); and to the west,
the Abajo Mountains (known locally as the Blue Mountains).

Drainage is to the southwest. There are no rivers in the im-
mediate vicinity; but forty miles south of the ruin flows the San
Juan River, and about thirty miles east, the Dolores River.

The geology of the ruin area is comparatively simple, consisting
of a series of horizontally bedded sandstones, shales, conglomerates,
impure limestones, and cherts of the Jurassic and Cretaceous ages.
The Jurassic, which lies unconformably under the Cretaceous, is
represented by the McElmo formation, and the Cretaceous, by the
"Dakota." Outcrops of these formations of varying thicknesses
may be observed in the walls of the adjacent canyons. The Mancos
and Mesa Verde formations (Cretaceous), which occur about thirty
miles to the southeast at Mesa Verde National Park, are locally
absent (Coffin, 1921, p. 28).

15

16 The Lowry Ruin

Climatological data for four years obtained from the nearest
United States Weather Bureau Observation Station, at Northdale
(Dolores County), which is about twenty miles in an airline north-
west of Lowry ruin, are as follows:

Degrees F.

Highest temperature 98 . 0

Lowest temperature -42 . 0

Mean annual temperature 43 . 1 to 47 . 8

Inches

Greatest annual precipitation (1931) 16.58

Least annual precipitation (1934) 7 .03

Greatest total snowfall (1931) 67.40

Least total snowfall (1934) 13.00

Mean annual precipitation 10 to 15

Number of clear days 160 to 182

Number of cloudy or partly cloudy days 184 to 205

Prevailing direction of wind S. to S.W.

Per cent

Relative humidity (noon) about 35

From these data it may be observed that the range of temperature
is great and that the precipitation is scanty.

It is not surprising, then, to find that springs are widely scattered.
At present, there is an intermittent seep near the head of the canyon
which lies east of the ruin. This well, which was dug in recent times,
may yield in the summer fifty or sixty gallons daily. In the floor
of the canyon west of the ruin there is another modern well. This
spring may produce in the summer as much as 150 gallons daily.
It is quite likely that the Indians, who lived in former times in this
region, had as much difficulty in obtaining water as do the farmers
today. Most people living in the vicinity of Lowry Pueblo must haul
their stock and domestic supplies of water from three to nine miles.
The water for Field Museum camp was brought in barrels from a can-
yon spring four miles distant. In 1934 the local branch of the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration drilled a well 500 feet deep; but
the project was abandoned at that depth as hopelessly unpromising.

I know of no ancient well in the canyons adjacent to Lowry
Pueblo. About five miles east of the pueblo, however, an ancient
spring was located and cleaned out by Mr. Courtney Dow, who lives
in the neighborhood and who first interested me in Lowry Pueblo.
Upon cleaning the well, its original dimensions were found to be
about six feet square. The sides were timbered with ancient logs
laid crib-fashion. Six pieces of Mancos black-on-white pottery and
about fifty prayer-sticks were dredged from the bottom. I assume
that these artifacts were thrown into the spring as offerings.

17

18 The Lowry Ruin

The most conspicuous trees and shrubs of the area about the ruin
are pinyon (Pinus edulis), juniper {Juniperus monosperma), yucca
(Yucca haccata), Southwestern cottonwood (Popidus Wizlizeni), gray
saltbush or "chico brush" (Atriplex canescens), round-leaved saltbush
(Atriplex confertifolia), grease-wood (Sarcohotus vermiculatus) , Rocky
Mountain bee plant or Guaco {Cleome serrulata), prickly pear
{Opuntia sp.), sagebrush {Artemisia tridentata), and rabbit brush
(Chrysothammis sp.)-

A list of the more important mammals which were or still are
present would include the buffalo, antelope, mule deer, mountain
sheep, western white-tailed jack rabbit, Texas jack rabbit, Rocky
Mountain cottontail, Colorado cottontail, porcupine, Moki kangaroo
rat, golden pocket gopher, two species of wood rats, mountain or
pack rat, tawny deer-mouse, pale grasshopper mouse, cliff mouse,
Gunnison prairie dog, rock squirrel, antelope squirrel, two species
of chipmunks, badger, Great Basin spotted skunk, ring-tailed raccoon,
black bear, gi^ay fox, gray wolf, coyote, bobcat, mountain lion,
brown bat, little California bat, long-eared bat, and western bat
(Gary, 1911; Edward R. Warren, 1910).

Some of the most characteristic breeding birds are the sage hen,
ash-throated flycatcher, Woodhouse jay, magpie, pinyon jay,
canyon wren, chestnut-backed bluebird, cedar waxwing, western
blue grosbeak, house finch, Arkansas goldfinch, canyon towhee, and
desert sparrow.

Batrachians and reptiles are not very common. The following,
however, occur within the area: the spade-foot toad, collared lizard
or mountain boomer, desert lizard, horned toad, whip-tailed lizard,
garter snake, bull snake, and rattlesnake.

Irrigation was not practiced, so far as I could discover, by the
builders of Lowry Pueblo. I should, however, like to call attention
to the shallow, dry foss or ha-ha about one foot in depth and from
fifteen to twenty feet wide. This ditch lies between the Great Kiva
and the Pueblo extending for a half mile or more north and south
beyond the ruin. I was unable to determine whether or not this
shallow depression was of a natural or an artificial origin or to
determine its purpose. I never observed any water in it.

Located at the place where an arroyo drains into the east branch
of Cow Canyon and about two miles southeast of the ruin is a large
crescent-shaped prehistoric dam, which still effectively impounds
the surface drainage waters. Its base is formed of stones, irregularly
placed, and the upper portion, of adobe. It measures six feet from

19

20 The Lowry Ruin

base to top and 225 feet from tip to tip. After a heavy shower, a
body of water, perhaps half an acre in extent and fifteen inches deep,
is caught and is retained, because the floor of this reservoir is of rock.
Agriculture was undoubtedly practiced in ancient times by
these pueblo Indians, for burned maize, squash, and beans have
been found in several rooms. But exactly where the fields lay is
not known. It is possible that the planting may all have been con-
fined to the floors of the canyons, which here are broad and shallow.
Frost, however, generally strikes first these lowland spots and thus
renders them less desirable for cultivation. Agriculture may also
have been practiced on the mesa tops, where, today, fair crops of
maize and beans are produced.

History of the Site

Lowry Pueblo was apparently not visited by any of the members
of the Dominquez-Escalante Great Basin Expedition, although
they camped not more than eight miles from it, probably on
August 13, 1776.

In the summer of 1859, another expedition, called the Exploring
Expedition from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to the Junction of the Grand
and Green Rivers of the Great Colorado of the West, following more
or less closely what is now a state highway, passed within six or seven
miles of the pueblo (Newberry, 1876).

Both Jackson, in 1874, 1875, and 1877, and Holmes, in 1875-76,
were in southwestern Colorado and both have written brief reports
on the ruins they observed in McElmo and Hovenweep canyons,
which lie from eighteen to twenty miles south of Lowry Pueblo
(Jackson, 1876, 1878; Holmes, 1878).

I find, however, in Hayden's Atlas of Colorado (Hayden, 1881),
that a 6,800-foot contour-line is drawn through the spot on which
Lowry Pueblo is located. Although the surveyors must have passed
within one-eighth of a mile of the ruin, if not over it, I cannot find
any reference to this ruin in their text.

According to Miss Anna F. Robison, who has been gathering his-
torical data from the pioneers of Montezuma County, Lowry ruin
must have been seen by many cowboys who rode all through that
vicinity in the 1880's. Those cowboys, however, who have been
interviewed by Miss Robison do not remember the ruin.

As far as I can ascertain, Fewkes was the first to report and to
photograph Lowry ruin. In his report, he calls it "Acmen Ruin,"
(Fewkes, 1919, p. 29) and says:

01

KEY

^P WALL ABUTMENT
o POST HOLE

I

SEALED DOORWAY

BOND OF OLD

AND NEW WALLS Ml

WALL PLATE

TRUE MERIDIAN

25 FEET

Map 2. GROUND PLAN OF LOWRY PUEBLO

Introduction 21

"Following the Old Bluff Road and leaving it about five miles
west of Acmen [now spelled Ackmen] post office, one comes to a
low canyon beyond Pigge ranch. The heaps of stone or large mounds
cover an area of about ten acres, the largest being about fifteen feet
high. East of this is a circular depression surrounded by stones,
indicating either a reservoir or a ruined building.

"The top of the highesf mound — no walls stand above the sur-
face— is depressed, like mounds of the Mummy Lake group on the
Mesa Verde. This depression probably indicates a circular kiva
embedded in square walls, the masonry of which, so far as can be
judged superficially, is not very fine. . . ."

The ruin is actually about nine miles west of Ackmen Post Office.
I am somewhat surprised that Fewkes was not more impressed with
the circular hollow lying to the east and that he did not suspect its
true nature — the ruin of a Great Kiva. The plate reproduced in
Fewkes' report is a photograph of the ruin looking west and north
and is similar to Plate II of this Report. The depression in the top
of the highest mound is Kiva A on my ground plan.

In 1928, I examined Lowry ruin and described it briefly (Martin,
1929, pp. 5-6). I overestimated the depth of the debris in the largest
mound by fifteen feet. Excavations have likewise shown that the
first-story rooms are not well preserved, as they are at Aztec ruin,
Aztec, New Mexico, and that the outside diameter of the Great
Kiva finally proved to be twenty feet less than I had estimated.

Appearance of Ruin before Excavation

Lowry ruin consists of a pueblo, the long axis of which runs north
and south, and a Great Kiva, which lies about 200 feet to the east.

Before excavation, the ruin appeared as an oval-shaped mound
(Plates II-IV). It had been formed partly by dust carried from the
southwest by storms and partly by the gradual disintegration and
collapse of the dirt-covered log roofs and of the upper portions of
the walls. The mound was overgi'own with sagebrush and was
strewn with potsherds and wall stones. It rises thirty feet above the
plain east of the Great Kiva, although the tallest walls, none of
which were visible prior to excavation, stand only thirteen feet high.
This apparent discrepancy is due to the fact that the pueblo was
erected on a natural knoll. Just east of the Pueblo ruin is the Great
Kiva, which before excavation resembled a small crater. The rim
was covered with building stones. It was approximately eight feet
above the lowest point in the center (Plate V).

22 The Lowry Ruin

Problems

This Report is intended to present for interpretation the data
gathered and to describe the results of the excavations along with my
explanations and my personal opinion. Possibly this work will con-
tribute towards the discovery of some of the forces which caused the
gradual rise of the Pueblo Indians from a low to a higher cultural
state. I likewise hope that this study may perhaps be one of the
tesserae which will be used in combination with others for completing
the mosaic of Pueblo history which archaeologists working in the
Southwest are slowly composing.

This general synthesis, however, can not be produced without
facts. Facts must be gathered in as scientific a manner as possible,
and they, together with the specimens recovered, must be subjected
to close study and must be carefully compared, described, and classi-
fied. But the mere gathering and presenting of facts will not alone
accomplish this purpose; insight into these facts must be acquired.
Then, and in this way, historical conclusions must be sought and may
be achieved.

In 1930, after a lapse of twenty years, Field Museum resumed
archaeological research in the Southwest. Colorado was chosen
because, with the exception of the somewhat limited excavations
undertaken by a few archaeologists (Morley, 1908; Kidder, 1910;
Prudden, 1914, 1918; Martin, 1929, 1930; Woodbury, 1932; Brew,
in preparation) little work had been done in the thousands of ruins
which are scattered over the mesas lying west and north of Mesa
Verde National Park, in southwestern Colorado and southeastern
Utah.

Lowry ruin was selected because the region in which it is located
is rich in prehistory and may be the area in which pueblo architecture
and kivas developed. Also, the mound and refuse heaps were suffi-
ciently large to allow the use of stratigraphic methods for determin-
ing the sequence of pottery types for this region. Such a coordination
might be of great value in allotting the many small ruins in that
vicinity to their proper, relative places.

Moreover, investigation of Lowry ruin was prompted by still
another reason, for cropping out in a region which was traditionally
considered to be a Mesa Verde culture-district, were several Chacoan
features: Chaco-like potsherds and a large depression which looked
as if it might be a Great Kiva, a type hitherto associated only with
Chaco architecture. Yet, when work was started on this ruin (1930),
the known range of Chaco culture-traits was limited to Chaco Can-

Introduction 23

yon, where they reached their highest speciaHzation, to Aztec
Ruin, to the area about Gallup, New Mexico, and to the region near
Pagosa Springs, Colorado (Kidder, 1924, pp. 55-56). Thanks to
the recent work of Gladwin (1931, 1934) and Roberts (1932) our
information concerning the distribution of Chaco culture-traits is
now more complete. Reference to this subject will again be made in
Chapter VIII.

Thus I hoped, by exploring as intensively as possible, to secure
many data. Then, by arranging them in an orderly temporal se-
quence, I might attain a historical perspective which would permit
me to solve specific problems, such as the mechanics of the growth
of a particular pueblo, the classification of masonry, the architectural
skill of these Pueblo Indians, the size of the population at various
periods and its changes, the length of time that the pueblo was in-
habited, the pottery sequence, and the cultural and chronological
relationship of this pueblo to other large villages in New Mexico
and in Arizona.

Methods of Excavation

Two long trenches were first dug, one of these, 200 feet long, run-
ning northwest and intercepting the main ruin at its southeastern
corner; the other, 100 feet long, running southwest to the north-
eastern side of the ruin (Plates VI, VII). By means of these two
main and several branch trenches I was able to chart in a rough way
the location of some of the outside walls and corners and the general
shape of the ruin. As stated previously, I also found out that the
pueblo had been erected on a natural knoll and that the terrain east
of the ruin sloped naturally upwards and that it was not composed
entirely of debris and refuse, as I had imagined.

Excavation in the rooms, kivas, and refuse heaps was conducted
in such a way that a careful record of all potsherds was obtained, the
sherds yielded by each well-defined layer or by each foot of ground
being separately sacked and catalogued. Fallen roof timbers and all
specimens were photographed in situ. Digging in the upper portions
of the rooms, which were filled with rocks and very hard dirt, had to
be done with a pick and shovel. Since these upper layers, however,
were always sterile and represented the fill of the last few centuries,
there was little chance of harming any specimens with the picks.
After these hard strata had been disposed of, the soft dirt below was
carefully troweled and spaded over and then thrown out for a team
and scraper to haul away. I found that the use of a mine dump-car
and tracks did not serve my purpose very well and this equipment

24 The Lowry Ruin

was used only in 1930 (Plates VIII, IX). Floors were easily located
because they were much harder than the dirt which lay immediately
above. When they were struck, the workmen used trowels only until
they were certain that no pottery, burials, or other valuable material
was present. After the floors had been cleaned with whiskbrooms,
and after photographs, notes, and measurements had been secured,
a trench was cut through the floorings to virgin soil.

Photographs of the rooms were taken from a 24-foot tower; those
of the Great Kiva, from a 35-foot tower placed on a base 8 feet
high (Plate X). A standard photograph of a 3-foot-square area of
masonry was obtained for each room. This was accomplished by
delineating the 3-foot area with chalk and by placing the camera
lens each time 5 feet 4 inches distant from the wall-area. General
photographs were taken upon frequent occasions. By recording the
direction of each view, I secured pictures which have supplemented
my notes very effectively. An Eastman 5x7 View Camera provided
with a Zeiss Protar lens was used. All films were immediately
developed in the camp darkroom cellar by Photographer Lloyd.

Mapping was done from time to time by Cartographer Burgh,
who made a plan and four-elevation drawing (which records all
measurements, openings, beam holes, and niches) for each room.
A sample drawing is reproduced herewith (Fig. 3).

Leaning or bulging walls were braced with wooden supports. I
had originally planned to cap the tops of all walls with cement. Lack
of money, however, forced an abandonment of this plan. Wherever
possible, therefore, the rooms were back-filled at the end of the season.
Kiva B was back-filled almost immediately to preserve the mural
decorations found therein (see Chapter III).

The skeletal material was not well preserved and therefore
presented great difficulties in excavating. Trowels, whiskbrooms,
small knives, orange sticks, camel's-hair brushes, and even a tire-
pump were employed for cleaning and preparing the skeletal remains
for photography.

\^ALL PLATE

'/8=/

WALL. PLATE .

c.-_-_-i4

□ D D n D D a

ROOM /O

Fig. 3. Sample of plana and four-elevation drawings (Room 10 illustrated), showing method
of mapping rooms.

25

11. DESCRIPTION OF PUEBLO DETAILS

(For general views of Pueblo, see Plates XI-XXI and Maps 1-3.)

Walls
foundations

Foundations extend from 4 to 18 inches below floor levels. They
are either as wide as the walls proper or appear as projecting plat-
forms or footings from 6 to 15 inches wider than the walls. Those
belonging to primary or main walls are built of large, rough, un-
dressed stones solidly laid; while those belonging to late and secon-
dary walls are constructed of cut and uncut stones indifferently
placed, and are bottomed on ash or other soft fill. In a few instances
walls spring directly from the floor level with no bases whatsoever.
In those places where substructures exist it is evident that they were
intended to provide a solid base on which the walls might rest.

DIMENSIONS

Thickness of walls Feet inches

Greatest width (Room 8) 3 0

Least width (secondary wall, Room 15) 0 4

Average width 1 9

Height of standing walls above floors

Greatest height (south wall, Room 10) 12 6

Least height (south wall, Room 1) 1 1

CONSTRUCTION

Corners formed by two contemporaneously constructed cardinal
walls (as opposed to partitions) are generally bonded. It should be
noted that bonding might be present on both the inside and outside
of a corner or on one angle only. It is generally assumed that bond-
ing implies synchronal construction. However, at Lowry ruin I
believe that I found two corners (the southwest corner of Room 26
and the northeast corner of Room 17) where earlier and later walls
are bonded. Certainly, two types of masonry are united at these
corners. Inbond or header stones are rare.

With the exception of one wall (southeast quarter of south wall of
Room 16) which is a through stone wall, that is, a wall built entirely
of stones which extend through the full thickness of the wall, all
walls are built with a core and faced on both sides with surfaced
stones. The hearting is composed of small, uncut stones, or rubble
and copious amounts of adobe mortar.

26

Flc. 4. Schematic drawings of masonry typos and spalls prevalrnt af l,owry Pueblo and the differ-
ent features of masonry technique shown by dissecting a wall, o, Essential points found in a Chaco-like
wall. Note the mud cushions separating the stones and the spalls, the consistent use of "stop" spalls
to hold back the mud mortar, and the natural tendency towards coursing. 6, Non-Chaco or block-like
technique in which the wall-load is transmitted downward mostly through the stone-to-stone contacts,
the mud merely filling the voids, c, The technique that appears somewhat like both types (/ and ().
Drawn to a larger scale, sketches d and e bring out the characteristics of the two kinds of spalls:
d shows a "false" spall, which is wedge-shaped; c shows a "stop" spall which is (lake-like.

27

28 The Lowry Ruin

types of masonry

After much discussion and study Mr. Roys and I have decided
to divide the type of masonry at Lowry Pueblo into three large
groups: Chaco-like, non-Chaco, and Intermediate (Fig. 4; see also
Chapter VI for Mr. Roys' analysis of masonry).

The Chaco-like masonry is again subdivided into three classes
for which it is difficult to find names. The earliest Chaco-like ma-
sonry at Lowry Pueblo as exemplified in the "nucleus" (Rooms 10,
15, 19, and 21) consists of rather thick slabs and thin, "stop" spalls
laid up with a thin mud-cushion (Plates XXII, XXIII). The second
class of Chaco-like masonry (found in Rooms 16 and 18j is made up
of long, thin slabs, the edges of which have been flaked or chipped off
(Plate XXIV). This same type of masonry also occurs at Pipe-
Shrine House, Mesa Verde National Park. The third class of Chaco-
like masonry (found in Rooms 26, 27, south wall of 7, and in Kivas
B, D, and F) consists of long, very thin slabs and thin "stop" spalls
laid up in a thick mud-cushion (Plates XXV, XXVI).

The non-Chaco type of masonry is constructed of block-like
stones (as opposed to thin slabs) and true-bearing spalls (Plates
XXVII, XXVIII).

The third type of masonry, which I have designated herein as
"Intermediate" or "modified Chaco," embraces characteristics of
both the Chaco-like and non-Chaco types of masonry (Plates
XXIX-XXXI).

A complete description and discussion of these types of masonry
follow in Chapter VI, which was written by Mr. Lawrence Roys.

MATERIALS USED

Stone used in the pueblo is of two kinds: (1) a well-laminated,
hard, ferruginous Dakota Cretaceous sandstone varying in thickness
from 3^-inch to 4 inches; (2) a massive, block-like, soft calcareous,
Dakota Cretaceous sandstone often occurring as blocks 6 inches high
and 10 inches long. The laminated stones appear almost exclusively
in the Chaco-like masonry (for e.xample. Rooms 10, 15, 27, and
Kiva B). Walls built of such ferruginous material are naturally dark
brown. The block-like calcareous stones occur exclusively in the
masonry of Rooms 1, 2, and 9 and are used in varying amounts in
other rooms. These sandstones are found in the canyons which
are immediately adjacent to the pueblo. The ferruginous, laminated
sandstone occurs at the surface. No quarries were located.

Description of Pueblo Details 29

surfaces

As noted previously, both block-like and laminated stones were
employed. The block-like stones appeared to have been hewn some-
what and their faces were often dimpled or rubbed. These "worked"
stones, however, are very deceptive, for all the faces are fairly rough.
It is, therefore, surprising that the walls look so well when they are
composed of stones, the exposed faces of which are but little more
shaped than the other sides.

Laminated stones were generally untooled and were used as they
came from the quarry. Sometimes when re-used in later walls, their
faces were dimpled, although this practice was not common because
such ferruginous material is refractory and very hard. Sometimes,
however, whole walls would be composed of laminated stones, the
edges of which had been flaked or chipped. This same phenomenon
occurs in some of the walls at Pipe Shrine House in Mesa Verde
National Park.

JOINTS

Bed or horizontal joints vary in width from J^ inch (between
laminated stones) to 13^2 inches (between block-like stones) and are
either raked (intentional?) flush or beaded. I did not observe many
broken joints.

SPALLS

Stone spalls were ordinarily employed, although a few sherd
spalls were observed. The spalls fall into three classes:

(1) False spalls, which are roughly shaped like wedges, were
inserted in the joints to swell the mud mortar against the ad-
joining wall stones and to keep the mud from cracking. These
spalls usually did not touch the wall stones (Fig. 4, d).

(2) Stop spalls, which are always flat, thin, laminated pieces of
stones, were inserted as the wall was laid up and are flush with the
joints. Such spalls, together with the thin mud-cushions embedding
them, served as dams or stops which prevented the interior layers
of mud from being squeezed out when the wall was built (Fig. 4, e).

(3) True-bearing spalls, which are jagged stone fragments of
irregular shape, were incorporated within the wall. These touch the
stones above and below and transmit the pressure of the upper stones
downward.

MORTAR

The color of the mortar is either gray or a pinkish red — the
natural color of the local adobe. The mortar in rooms which had

30 The Lowry Ruin

burned is generally red and is very much harder than that which
occurs in unburned rooms. As a rule, however, all mortar was sur-
prisingly tough and firm. No grog or "tempering" was observed.

PLASTER

Mud plaster occurs on the wall of only one room. It is not pos-
sible to state whether any other rooms were plastered or not. Ex-
ternal plaster was not noted.

APPEARANCE

Pronounced coursing is evident in those walls constructed of
laminated or tabular sandstone; it is not so well-defined in walls
composed of block-like stones. The neatest and most pleasing walls
are those built of laminated stones.

DOORS

T-DooRS Rectangular Doors

Total number in pueblo 7 9

Largest door Feet inches Feet Inches

Height 7 0 5 2

Top width 3 9 2 4

Base width 1 10 2 4

Smallest door

Height 4 3 3 5

Top width 2 3 2 3

Base width 1 8 2 3

The largest T-door is in the west wall of Room 9 (Plate XXXII);
the smallest, in the east wall of Room 27. The largest rectangular
door is in the east wall of Room 8 (Plate XXXIII); the smallest, in
the west wall of Room 15 (Plate XXXIV).

The greatest distance between sill and floor is 3 feet 8 inches
(Room 10); the least distance is 5 inches (Room 9); the usual dis-
tance is about 20 inches.

Most doorways are centered in the side or end walls of the rooms;
but in Room 15 (north end of east wall, second story) an entrance is
located at one end of the side wall at the corner.

No corner doorways cut diagonally (such as are found at Pueblo
Bonito) exist, although in the southeast corner of the second story of
Room 6 and in the southeast corner of the first story of Room 20
there is a marked and peculiar diagonal bonding of the masonry,
which protrudes four or five inches from the corner and which closely
resembles a sealed corner-doorway. There is no sign of a doorway,
however, on the other sides of these corners. These peculiar diagonal
bondings may possibly be vestigial corner doorways, with which the
builders may have been familiar (Plate XXXV).

Description of Pueblo Details 31

All doorways but two had been provided with both stone and
wooden lintels. The wooden lintels consist of three to five small
poles about 2 inches in diameter (Plate XXXIV).

ventilator openings and cupboards

There are eleven ventilator openings in the pueblo, the largest of
which is 1 foot 6 inches square (Room 8), and the smallest, 1 foot
square (Room 10). The sills are usually about 6 feet above the floor.
These openings are provided with both stone and pole lintels. The
location and number of these openings per room do not seem to
follow any order. Some of them are near doors, while others are
not; some rooms have several, while others have none. All of them
are near the ceiling; none are near the floor. It is possible that a
few of these apertures served as beam sockets, but it is not likely,
for all of them are rectangular and are roofed with stone as well as
pole lintels.

WALL plates

Wall plates are horizontal beams laid in walls to carry the ends
of other timbers. Fragments of such log plates were found in a few
places (north and south ends of Room 10 and north wall of Room 15;
Plate XXXVI). These timbers, which measure 7 or 8 inches in
diameter and which were built in the rubble core, shared with the
wall-facing the task of carrying the ends of the rafters or joists. This
was a departure from the customary roofing technique. Wall plates
are not ordinarily found and beam ends seem usually to rest either in
sockets in the wall face or on posts. Wall plates also occur in Pueblo
Bonito, in Cliff Palace, and in Far View House.

RECESSED OR BUILT-IN POST

A single recess or vertical channel occurs in the north wall of
Room 13. This recess may be described as a vertical slot 6 inches
wide and 5 inches deep. In it were the rotted fragments of a built-in
post, the exposed face of which was flush with the inside face of the
wall. The post may have supported one end of the principal roof
beam. The reason for recessing this particular post and not others,
which probably served also as roof supports, is unknown.

Floors

material

The floors are all composed of adobe, from 1 to 3 inches thick,
which had been laid wet, packed hard, and rubbed smooth and level.

32 The Lowry Ruin

Room 18 (a late addition built on top of the debris in Kiva D) was
paved with stone slabs. These slabs varied in thickness from Yi to
2 inches, in length from 6 to 17 inches, and in width from 5 to 11
inches.

ALTERATIONS

In general, the original floors stood without any changes. A few
floors were resurfaced four or five times by spreading additional coat-
ings of adobe. There is no method of telling how much time elapsed
between these renovations. Three floor-levels in Room 32 were
uncovered. The second level was 18 inches above the first; the third,
20 inches above the second.

BINS

Six storage bins occur. Their sides are constructed of stones
which are faced on the inner surface and unfaced on the outer, and
their floors, of tightly laid stone slabs. All of them had been built in
late times on 3 or 4 feet of debris within already abandoned rooms
(Plate XXXVII). The dimensions of the bins vary; the smallest
measures roughly 2 feet by 2 feet and is 7 feet deep; the largest,
about 4 feet by 7 feet. Entrance to the bin in Room 10 was gained
by means of a T-doorway which had formerly served Room 10 (Plate
XXXVIII). Corncobs, burned corn, and burned beans were recov-
ered from the bin in Room 11.

No grinding bins were found.

FIREPITS

Firepits are found in only three rooms; namely, 13, 32, and 35.
The firepit belonging to Room 13 is terraced, the lower level being
slab-lined and measuring 2 feet in width, 2 feet 7 inches in length,
and 2 feet 5 inches in depth (Plate XXXIX). Large pieces of sage-
brush and juniper charcoal were recovered from the lower level. The
firepit in Room 32 was merely a small hollow in the floor in which
were found a few ashes. Room 35 possesses two firepits: "A" has a
slab floor and slab sides, and is 3 feet wide, 3 feet 7 inches long, and 1
foot 10 inches deep; the other, "B," has sides of masonry and slabs
and an earthen floor and measures the same as the former, except
that it is only 1 foot deep (Plates XL, XLI). No soot was noticed on
any of the walls of any of these rooms.

POTTERY AND ARTIFACTS IN SITU

Potsherds were recovered from the fill and from the floors of all
rooms. Complete or mendable pieces of pottery were obtained from

33

ris in
n the

eT/^

I

were
lanos

ebris,

?d in

sured
-n 11)
ns, as
7 feet

ed at

meter
ere so

?th of

neter.

meter,

ion to

Dorted

11).

gether

ormed

nches.

IS only

pueb:

15 I I 6 r 20 I 19 yfli^ I

21

^^v:^7:^^^^0imi^^m-^'--^^^^ ^<mm///j^^^mM'W-^.^M.

26 ll ll ^ 'I '° I

30

15

16

y^^^iiiiaffiia\\\^<yA^v^j8^T/»7^^^^

I 2^ IJ ■ ^^^

PSSv^ 69/5-

25 FEET

Map 3. CROSS SECTIONS OF LOWRY PUEBLO

Description of Pueblo Details 33

the floors of Rooms 8, 9, 10, and 16; from second-story debris in
Rooms 4, 8, 16, and 19; from the northwest bin in Room 10; from the
passageway between Rooms 11 and 12; and from graves.

A few stone artifacts, such as projectile points and axes were
found in the room fill, but rarely on the floors. Metates and manos
were discovered on the floors of Rooms 11, 13, 15, 16, and 18.

Bone artifacts were recovered in refuse heaps, in room debris,
and on the floors.

All of these materials are fully discussed and described in
Chapter IV.

Ceilings

height

The height of the main-beam sockets above the floor, as measured
from floor to base of socket, varies from 6 feet 8 inches (Room 11)
to 8 feet 6 inches (Room 5). The sockets for the secondary beams, as
measured from floor to base of socket, vary in height from 7 feet
4 inches (Room 4) to 9 feet 2 inches (Room 27).

types

There are five types of ceiling construction to be noted at
Lowry ruin.

Type 1 (as found in Rooms 10 and 15):

(a) Two socketed main beams from 9 to 12 inches in diameter
which crossed the narrow way of the room. They were so
spaced as to divide the length of the room into thirds.

(6) From 7 to 9 socketed beams which spanned the length of
the room and which measured from 5 to 8 inches in diameter.

(r) From 20 to 25 small, socketed poles, 2 to 3 inches in diameter,
which crossed the short span of the room. In addition to
being socketed, the ends of these poles were also supported
by means of a step-back in the wall (Plates XLII, XLIII).

(fl) Wooden slabs or splints laid crisscross and tightly together
on top of these three layers of beams.

(e) Cedar-bark and, finally, several inches of adobe, which formed
the floors of the second-story rooms.

The overall thickness of such a ceiling would be about 18 inches.

Type 2 (as found in Rooms 4 and 26) :

This type is much the same as type 1, except that there was only
one large main beam instead of two.

34 The Lowry Ruin

Type 3 (as found in Rooms 7 and 8) :

(a) No large main beams, but several smaller poles, 4 to 6 inches
in diameter, which extended across the short span of the room.
These were socketed about 2 feet apart.

(b) Wooden slabs or splints laid tightly together across the
stringers.

(c) A covering of cedar-bark and, finally, several inches of adobe.
Type 4 (as found in Rooms 12 and 14) :

(a) From 2 to 4 principal large roof beams supported at one end
by vertical posts set in floor and, at the other end, either by
vertical posts set in floor or by beam sockets.

(6) Poles laid closely together at right angles to main beams.

(c) Wooden slabs or splints packed closely together and laid in
both directions.

(d) A covering of cedar-bark and adobe.
Type 5 (as found in Room 16) :

(a) Two large principal beams which were not socketed, but
which were supported at the ends by means of four stone
pillars. These pillars were 24 inches wide, projected 18
inches, and stood 7 feet 8 inches high.

(b) Six or seven stringers placed in sockets spaced about 2 to
23^ feet apart and set at right angles to principal beams.

(c) From 30 to 40 small poles placed close to one another at
right angles to the stringers.

(rf) Wooden slabs or splints laid tightly together and at right
angles to the small poles.

(e) A layer of cedar-bark and several inches of adobe.

DESCRIPTION OF BEAMS

The largest beams were of yellow pine and measured 14 inches
in diameter. Secondary beams were found to be yellow pine, juniper,
and pinyon, and varied in diameter from 3 to 6 inches. The ends
of all the beams were bluntly conical as if gnawed off by beavers.

SECONDARY OR EXTRA VERTICAL SUPPORTS

Extra vertical roof supports, consisting of wooden posts from 6
to 10 inches in diameter, were observed in Rooms 8, 11, 13 (two
posts), 19, 21, 26, and 35. These posts were placed in the center
of the room (Room 26), or in front of a doorway (Rooms 19 and 21),

Description of Pueblo Details 35

or near a wall (Room 11), or were set in a recess in a wall (north wall,
Room 13). I cannot determine whether these extra roof supports
were set when the roof was constructed or whether they were placed
at a later date to prevent a weak roof from collapsing (PlateXXXIX).

General (Arrangement of Parts)

number of rooms

The pueblo is composed of at least 37 ground-floor rooms. Of
this number all were excavated except Rooms 22, 23, 24, and 25.
I feel fairly certain that further digging would disclose more rooms
and that the total number of ground-floor rooms might run as high
as 50.

USE OF ROOMS

It is impossible to state with any certainty for what purposes
these rooms were used. I believe that those rooms having ground-
floor doorways served as living quarters (Rooms 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 19, 21, and 27). It seems likely that those ground-floor rooms
without lateral doorways were entered by means of hatchways or
trap doors in the roofs and that they may have been used as storage
chambers (Rooms 1, 2, 4, 16, 17, 20, 26, 31, 32, 33, 36, and 37).

Room 16 is without lateral doorways or ventilators and had
probably served as a granary, for in it were found a great quantity
of burned, shelled corn and three metates with end-to-end troughs.

Rooms 34 and 35 were apparently left open towards the east.
The side walls are neatly finished at the ends and no vestige of a cross
wall on the east side was discovered. Room 35 contains two fire-
pits and it therefore may have served as a "summer-kitchen." I
have no guess as to why these two particular rooms were constructed
in such fashion. No others of this type were uncovered.

Room 3 is not a room in the strict sense of the word, but is
merely the enclosure resulting from the construction of Kiva B
within a rectangular area. The filling material in this space was a
very soft dirt mixed with ashes and charcoal and was evidently
intentionally placed there by the builders.

NUMBER OF STORIES

I believe that no part of Lowry Pueblo was ever more than
three stories high. This conclusion was arrived at in the following
manner.

36 The Lowry Ruin

It is probable that the roof timbers gradually rotted and then
collapsed in the middle where the strain was greatest. The wall
above the beam ends then would have been pried up somewhat
and probably the inner facing and some of the core would tumble
down within the room. It seems reasonable, then, to assume that
about half of the wall would fall inside the room and half, outside.

Therefore, by computing the cubic content of the fallen mud
mortar and stone within a room (exclusive of wind-blown material)
and then by estimating how many running feet of wall could be
constructed from this mass (if it were re-used without waste) it is pos-
sible to reckon how much higher a given wall may once have stood.

For example, let us take Room 10, which measures 10 by 19 feet
inside. The walls are 2 feet thick and now stand 12 feet 6 inches
high; the debris (fallen stones, etc.) within the room was found to
be 4 feet in depth. The volume of debris is obviously 10x19x4 or
760 cubic feet. This same volume in the form of a standing wall
would be the area of horizontal cross section multiplied by the height.
The former is simply the effective perimeter of the wall (58 feet inside
plus a foot for each corner) or 62 feet multiplied by the thickness of
that part of the wall falling inward, which is 1 foot (one-half of the
wall thickness of 2 feet) or an area of 62 square feet. The height
of the fallen portion of the wall would be derived by dividing 760
cubic feet by 62 square feet or 123^ feet in vertical dimension. By
adding this 12 3-^ feet of height of fallen wall to the 12 feet 6 inches
now standing, the total height of the original wall is obtained, in
this case 24^4 feet. This distance of approximately 25 feet would
easily provide space for three stories of about 8 feet each, but would
not provide for a fourth story.

This is a rough method for calculating the probable height of
fallen walls, but is as accurate as the data warrant. Color, however,
is lent this idea by the fact that at present there still remain 13^2
to 5 feet of wall above the ceiling levels of the rooms which I believe
were variously of two or more stories. Unless there were a roof
parapet, this masonry would have been superfluous; and I have
been unable to find any record of parapets in pueblo architecture.
Moreover, the stone debris within each room is undoubtedly con-
stituted of collapsed walls.

Therefore, I think it is reasonable to assume that for these
reasons Rooms 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 26, and 27
were at one time three or possibly two stories high. And conversely,
because of the lack of much stone debris or of walls standing above

Description of Pueblo Details 37

ceiling levels, all the other rooms were only one or two stories in
height.

ALTERATIONS

Lowry Pueblo as it stands today does not represent a homo-
geneous unit built at one time. It is, rather, a heterogeneous
conglomeration of rooms erected at intervals during the course of
many years. There is evidence for believing that the site may have
been abandoned from time to time and then reoccupied. It is in-
evitable that these cycles of habitation and desertion should have
wrought great changes.

It is not surprising, therefore, to find partially destroyed walls
which once formed sides of rooms and which were later torn out
or on which new walls were erected. Nor does it seem unnatural
to discover new rooms added haphazardly; to come upon sealed
doorways and flimsy partitions; and to note many other alterations.
Rooms 10, 15, 19, and 21, which form the "nucleus" of the pueblo
and which were all built at one time, are probably the only ones
which remained more or less intact during the various changes.
But even these rooms were constructed on top of older house walls,
and were later modified by newcomers.

The square now containing Kivas A and B as well as Rooms
3, 7, 17, 26, and 27 included at one time a kiva of unknown size
(the vestiges of this kiva may be observed on the wall just south
of the ventilator shaft of Kiva A; see ground plan, Map 2) and
several rooms, also of unknown sizes. At a later date, this kiva and
some of the rooms just referred to were wrecked and Kiva B (lower
kiva) was constructed in that same area. At the same time. Room 7
was formed by adding a south cross wall. The east and west ends
of this wall abutted partitions already in existence. The fourth
side was the south wall of Room 8.

After a time, Kiva B fell into decay and became partially filled
with wind-blown dust particles which rains and snows cemented
together. Following this, the inhabitants of the pueblo filled up
the remainder of Kiva B and erected a slightly larger one, Kiva A,
over the older one.

It seems certain that Kiva A was altered from time to time.
Because the walls were bottomed on soft fill, they slumped. It
then became necessary to add a secondary supporting wall in the
north quadrant and to erect posts to prevent the supporting wall
from slipping out of place. The ventilator tunnel was likewise
changed in Kiva A. Originally it had been the sub-floor type. At

38 The Lowry Ruin

a later date, it was reconstructed so that the tunnel opening was
above the floor and was flush with the wall of the southern recess.
Room 18 also underwent several changes. It first served as an
ordinary, secular room and was somewhat smaller than it now is.
The roof of that room burned. The room was then enlarged by
adding a short span of wall on the north and south sides and a
kiva (Kiva D; Fig. 5) was inserted in this space. The enlarge-
ment of this room may be seen on the ground plans by observing the
additions of walls at the west ends of the north and south walls of
Room 18 (Plate XLIV). Later, the kiva roof burned and then the
upper part of that space was used as house-room, the floor of which
was composed of slabs.

SEALED DOORWAYS

Sealed doorways occur in secular rooms which surround a kiva
incorporated within the pueblo building (as in the case of Kivas
A and B). The doorways of such secular rooms were blocked up
with masonry seals and the rooms were then filled completely with
dirt and refuse. Consequently, the kiva could technically be con-
sidered subterranean, and thus was orthodoxy satisfied. Sealed
doorways may be noted in Rooms 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 27 (see ground
plan, Map 2; Plate XLV).

BONDED CORNERS

When two walls are bonded at a corner, archaeologists generally
conclude that such walls were built simultaneously. At Lowry ruin,
however, there is clear evidence for believing that such an assumption
is not always justified. In the southwest and northeast corners of
Room 26 and in the northeast corner of Room 17, bondings of two
indubitably different types of masonry occur. These articulations,
when closely scrutinized, are not clear-cut vertical joints, but are
jagged, irregular, and sloping. It seems quite apparent, then, that
a segment of an older wall of unknown length had been torn out
and that a new bit of dissimilar masonry had been spliced to the
old in much the same manner as a weaver would skillfully introduce
into a torn textile new strands of weft.

This practice of tying a new wall to an old one may not be
uncommon; but so little attention has been paid to masonry by
archaeologists that I am unable to judge how common the practice
is. In the report on Pueblo Bonito (Pepper, 1920, pp. 17 and
388-389) mention of new walls being spliced or joined to old ones,
is made. Judd (1928, p. 72; Plate III, Fig. 2) refers to the junction

Description of Pueblo Details 39

of second- and fourth-period walls as an abutment. Judged solely
from the plate which appears with this reference this junction
appears to be a bond and not an abutment.

SECONDARY WALLS

Crudely built, secondary walls occurred in Rooms 5, 12, 14, 19,
21, 26, 27, 28, 31, and Kiva A (Plate XLVI). Such walls were
bottomed on debris, were thin, and were flung up for the purpose
of subdividing large rooms into smaller ones.

Miscellaneous Notes
The only burned roof which was found was in Room 16.
The debris within the rooms, excluding that made up of fallen
walls, was of two kinds: artificial or man-made fill which was very
soft and ashy (Rooms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 17, 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, and 33); and natural or wind-blown fill, which was always hard
and which contained few if any sherds. The fill in Room 8 was
composed mostly of ash of which there were about 2,500 cubic feet.
Mixed with the ash were thousands of potsherds from which an
excellent stratigraphic sequence of pottery was obtained.

III. DESCRIPTION OF KIVA DETAILS

Small Kivas
(See page 44 for table of details.)

NUMBER OF KIVAS

Eight small kivas were excavated at Lowry Pueblo. These
are lettered on the ground plan from A to H inclusive (Maps 2, 3;
Figs. 5-7; Plates XLVII-L).

POSITION IN PUEBLO

Kivas A, B, D, and H are incorporated within the building;
Kivas E and F adjoin the pueblo; and Kivas C and G are detached.
The floor of Kiva C lies 7 feet below ground; that of Kiva G,
10 feet. Kivas B, D, F, and H were built at ground level. Kiva A
was constructed over an earlier kiva (B) (Fig. 6; Plate LI) and Kiva
E, on ashy fill.

The exterior wall of Kiva F is smooth-faced — an unusual
occurrence. It is possible that this kiva stood in the open.

MASONRY

The masonry of the kivas is much the same as that found in
the houses. Some of it is excellent; some of it is inferior (Plates
LII-LV). The description of the masonry of the pueblo as given
in chapters I, II, and VI also applies to that of the kivas. In the
table below (p. 44), the classification of masonry of the various kivas
is given. Kiva walls were erected without any foundations.

ROOFS

There is no doubt that all the small kivas, except Kiva F, were
roofed by means of short beams laid crisscross, the first set resting
on the pilasters. Cribwork roofing of this type was common in
the area (Kidder, 1924, p. 60).

The system of roofing Kiva F is not precisely known. In lieu
of the orthodox pilasters of masonry, six wooden posts had been
substituted. These posts had measured 7 inches in diameter, had
been placed in the ground about a foot, had been set out from
the wall 6 to 8 inches, and had been held upright by means of stones
placed about the edges of the post-holes (Plate LVI). There is
no evidence of any banquette in this kiva. The upper ends of

40

,(| ({ UflfJ.TO'

41

42 The Lowry Ruin

these upright posts may have been forked, thus providing a rest
for the large roof beams.

VAULTS

Kiva C is the only small kiva containing a subfloor vault. It
is located on the west side of the fireplace (Plate LVII). This
vault is not masonry-lined, but is merely a pit which measures
6 feet 6 inches long, 2 feet wide, and 1 foot 5 inches deep. The debris
within it was the same as that found on the kiva floor; namely,
wind-deposited dust and some refuse.

SHELVES

In Kivas B and D inter-pilaster shelves occur (Map 2; Plates
LVIII, LIX). These shelves span the inter-pilaster recesses (except
the southern recess) and consist of trios of poles, the ends of which
are built into the sides of the pilasters. The upper surfaces of each
set had been smoothly plastered with mud. The distance between
each set is about a foot and there are three sets to each recess.

Shelves such as these probably occur at other sites, although
I have been unable to find any reference to them. Mr. Burgh
informs me that he has observed them in kivas at Oak Tree House
and Painted Kiva House, Mesa Verde National Park.

MURAL DECORATIONS

Painted designs were discovered on the banquette faces of Kivas
A, B, D, and H (Plates LIX-LXIV). Two different types of deco-
ration were uncovered in Kiva A; one type consisted of vertical,
black stripes with white dots at the upper ends; and the other,
of a terraced design done in white on brown mud-plaster. Both
of these design units were continuously repeated all the way around
the banquette face. Also in Kiva A the face of the deflector towards
the fireplace was decorated with a geometric design.

The paintings in Kivas B, D, and H are likewise made up of
terraced designs.

The composition of the paints used in these murals is not known.
My guess is that the black paint was probably similar in content
to that used in decorating pottery, and the white paint was probably
made from gypsum. These pigments were applied to the adobe
plaster.

Paintings in kivas are fairly common, although it is unusual to
find any paintings so well preserved in an open site as they were
in Kiva B. Roberts (1932, pp. 78-80) mentions several sites in
which painted rooms have been found.

Fig. 6. Detail plans and sections of Kivas A and B.

43

44

The Lowry Ruin

VARIOUS KIVA DETAILS

Kiva Kiva Kiva Kiva Kiva Kiva Kiva Kiva

ABCDE FGH

Greatest inside

diameter 21' 0" 19' 0" 16' 6" 16' 6" 17' 4" 14' 8" 22'? c.l2'

(above bench)

Height of kiva wall 6' 0" 7' 6" 6' 6" 9' 0" 4' 4" 5' 0' 10' 0' 4' 0'
Thickness of kiva

wall 1' 6" 2' 0" 1' 8' 1' 6' 1' 6" 3' 7" 2' 0" 2' 0"

Bench:

Depth 1'2" 1'3" 1' 0" 1' 6" 1' 2" .... 1' 6" ....

Height 3' 4" 2' 7" 2' 6" 3' 0" 1' 1" .... 3' 6" ....

Southern recess:

Depth 5' 0" 4' 8" 3' 0" 1' 0" ? .... ?

Width 8' 0" 6' 8" 6' 6" 4' 6" ? .... ?

Height above

floor O'O" O'O" 2' 6" 0' 0" ? .... ?

Number 8 7 6(?) 6(?) 6(?) .... ? 6

Depth 1'2" O'll" I'O" 1'6" 1' 0" .... 2' 0" 1' 0"

Width 1'8" I'll" 2'0'' 1'6" 1' 1" .... I'O" 1' 3"

Present height. . 2' 0" 4' 4" 3' 7" 2' 0" 2' 0" I'O" 2' 0"

Chordal distance

between 5' 0" 5' 0" 6' 0" 4' 6" 4' 8" 7' 6" 3' 6"

Estimated roof
height

(above floor)... 7' 0" 8' 7" 7' 0" 6' 0" 6' 0" 7' 0" 10' 0" 6' 0"

Floor adobe adobe adobe adobe adobe adobe adobe adobe

Fireplace:

Diameter 2' 5" 2' 6" 3' 0" 2' 0" 2' 0" 3' 0" ? 2' 0"

Depth I'O" 0' 8" 0' 6" 0' 6" 0' 6" 0' 8" ? 0' 6"

Type of lining. . adobe adobe adobe adobe adobe adobe adobe

Type of coping stone adobe adobe stone adobe ? slabs

Deflector:

Type mas'y slab? ? slab ? ....

Thickness I'O" ? ? 0' 1" ?

Width 2' 6" ? ? 3'0" ?

Height 1' 10" ? ? 1'6" ?

Ventilator:

Type sub- sub- lateral lateral ? lateral ? sub-
floor & floor floor

Size interior inlet 1' 0" 1' 7" 1' 4" 1' 6" ? 1' 5" ? 1' 6"

X X X X X X

2'0" 1' 7" 1'6" I'O" 1'8" I'O"

Sipapu:

Diameter 0' 3" ? ? ? ? ?

Depth 0' 5" ? ? ? ? ?

Niches:

Number 2 .... 1 ? 3 ? 2

Average depth 0' 9" .... 0' 6" ? 0' 8" ? I'O"

Average width 0' 5" .... 0' 5" ? 0' 7" ? 2' 6"

Average height 0' 5" .... 0' 4" ? 0'4i2" ? I'O"

plocfpr'

Number of coats . 25 8 4 10

Thickness 0' 5" 0'2^" .... 0' 1" 0' 3"

Color brown brown .... brown brown

Type of masonry . . Chaco Chaco non- Chaco non- Chaco Chaco non-

Chaco Chaco Chaco

Note: Kivas E and G not conapletely excavated; mouth of sipapu of Kiva C filled with jar neck.

^i\

'=Pr.

^i

-a-

=j*

KIVA C

Fig. 7. Detail plan and section of Kiva C.

45

46 The Lowry Ruin

entrances
Entrance to these kivas was probatly gained by means of a
smoke-hole which was usually placed in the center of the roof. No
special entry ways were observed.

CEREMONIAL DEPOSITS

No ceremonial deposits of shell or turquois were found in any
of the kivas.

The Great Kiva
(Plates LXV-LXXII)

POSITION

The center of the Great Kiva at Lowry Pueblo lies approxi-
mately 200 feet east of the east wall of Room 36.

THE FILL

The fill was 4 feet deep in the central part of the Great Kiva
and 7 feet deep in the outer zone. The upper portion of the fill
was composed of rocks and wind-blown dust and was very hard.
Near the floor-level large masses of burned roof beams and some
potsherds were encountered.

DIMENSIONS

Feet

Greatest inside diameter (above bench) 47

Present height of kiva wall (above central floor) 8

Thickness of kiva wall 1 ^

Depth of central floor below ground level 6

MASONRY

The masonry is similar to that of Rooms 16 and 18. Most of
the rocks are slabs, the edges of which have been chipped and
flaked. Chinking and spalling are rare, although I observed three
small areas where chinking and false spalls occur (as in Lowry
Intermediate masonry) and two small places where Chaco-like flat,
"stop" spalls may be observed. The individual stones, for the most
part, are crude and untooled. Even irregular stones and rounded
boulders are to be seen. Some of the better blocks measure 9 by
10 inches. The slabs measure about 2 inches in thickness and 11
to 14 inches in length. By actual count, the wall contains 66%
per cent slabs and 33)^ per cent blocks.

Although the walls now stand only 8 feet high, it is probable
that they may have been from 4 to 6 feet higher, since the debris
in the outer zone contained many wall stones.

Description of Kiva Details 47

FLOOR

The floor, which is of hard-packed adobe, consists of a central
portion {i) and two terraces (h). The terraces are situated in
the east and west segments of the kiva and He between the sub-
floor vaults (d) and low walls of masonry (e) and the kiva bench (6)
(Map 4; Plate LXVI). These terraces {h) are 2 feet higher than
the central floor (?). The low walls (e) on the east and west sides
of the kiva which serve as retaining walls for the terraces consist
of five courses of masonry. Each of them surrounds two pillar
bases and a vault. Jutting out from each of the four pillar bases
are other low, thin walls (g) which extend to the bench (6), thereby
forming irregularly shaped enclosures (j).

ROOF

The four pillar bases (c) which are symmetrically placed about
equidistantly from the bench, consist of alternate courses of juniper
poles and masonry. Similar construction was discovered at Aztec
(Morris, 1928, p. 117) and at the Village of the Great Kivas (Roberts,
1932, p. 87).

The dimensions of the pillar bases are:

Northwest and northeast pillar bases 3' 0" x 3' 3"

Southwest and southeast pillar bases 2' H"x3' 2"

All four bases rise 2 feet 6 inches above the level of the central
floor. Since all of them are of the same height and since they are
all flat, smooth, and well-finished on top, it seems likely that these
pillar bases were never built up any higher than they now are. If
this assumption be correct, it is then necessary to suppose that
large posts, which supported the roof, stood atop these bases. I
did not have an opportunity to dig beneath these bases to see if
they rest on large, circular stone disks, such as were exposed at
Aztec and at Chetro Ketl, New Mexico.

As stated previously, these bases are surrounded by low, second-
ary (?) walls, which serve as facings for the two terraces. It is
possible that these walls also had other functions, which are not
now understood.

If one may judge from the position in which the burned roof beams
lay on the floor, it seems probable that the plan and construction of
the roof of this Great Kiva were practically the same as that described
and figured by Morris for Aztec Ruin (Morris, 1928, pp. 128-129).

I do not know, however, whether the roof was flat or vaulted; nor
can I guess at its former height. It is possible that (1) the kiva roof

48 The Lowry Ruin

was only as high as the kiva wall (about 8 feet) and that the periph-
eral rooms (see page 51) were separately roofed; or that, (2) the
kiva roof was high enough (approximately 15 feet) to include under
one cover both the Great Kiva proper and the peripheral rooms. I
believe that the former possibility is the more probable, but this
is only a guess.

There is no doubt in my mind that the central part of the Great
Kiva, as well as the bench-terrace zones, was roofed, for as many
burned roof timbers were recovered from the debris of the central
portion of the kiva as from that of the outer zone.

PEG(?) OR BEAM(?) SOCKETS IN KIVA WALL

In the wall of the Great Kiva above the bench level are 25 round
peg(?) or beam(?) holes or sockets (Plate LXVII). The function of
these sockets is unknown. Each one contained the rotten or burned
fragments of the butt of a juniper(?) pole. If these sockets occurred
at regular intervals in the kiva wall and if they were all located at
about the same distance above the bench, I should perhaps conclude
that they might have contained secondary roof beams. However,
the holes are irregularly spaced horizontally, some being only 1 foot
apart and others, 7 feet; they are unevenly spaced vertically, some
being 8 inches above the bench, others, 3 feet; and most of them were
constructed to hold horizontal poles, although a few might have
housed pegs which tilted upwards.

The following data concerning these sockets are available. For
the purpose of taking notes, the Great Kiva was divided into
quadrants by drawing a diameter through the west edge of the fire-
pit and the west side of the recessed stairway and by drawing
another diameter at right angles to the first. In the northwest
quadrant there are 9 holes; in the northeast, 2; in the southwest
quadrant, 7; and in the southeast quadrant, 7. Some of the holes
are 1 foot 4 inches deep and others, 3 feet. The diameters vary
from 1 to 4 inches.

VAULTS

The vaults (d) lie between the pillar bases on the east and west
sides of the Great Kiva. The dimensions of the east vault are:

Feet Inches

Overall inside length 7 2

Greatest inside width 2 2

Least inside width 1 0

Length of north offset 1 10

Length of south offset 2 0

Depth 1 0

Description of Kiva Details 49

The west vault is not well preserved and the form is somewhat
different (Plate LXVIII), but the length is the same as that of the
east vault.

The floor of the east vault is above the level of the central floor;
the floor of the west vault is at the same level as that of the cen-
tral area.

The sides of both vaults are lined with masonry and the floors
are of adobe.

No pits or receptacles were observed, nor were any ceremonial
deposits recovered from these vaults.

PITS

At each end of both vaults ((/) and lying between them and
the pillar bases is an irregularly shaped pit (k) about 5 inches deep.
The function of these pits is unknown.

FIREPIT

The firepit (/) is nearly centered between the southern pillar
bases. It is not a box composed of masonry, but is an oblong pit,
with its sides plastered with adobe and its top flush with the floor
level. There is a coping of slabs on three sides. When uncovered,
this firepit contained a quantity of fine ash.

The dimensions are as follows:

Feet Inches

Length (north and south) . 5 0

Width 3 4

Depth 0 8

Distance of cast edge from southeast pillar 4 6

Distance of west edge from southwest pillar 5 0

DEFLECTOR AND VENTILATOR

No deflector or ventilator was found.

SIPAPU

No sipapu was located.

NICHES

Above the bench in the kiva wall are seven niches (Plate LXIX).
They are distributed as follows: one in the northwest quadrant; two
in the northeast quadrant, so situated one above the other that the
right side of the lower is aligned with the left side of the upper; two
in the southeast quadrant, so situated one above the other that the
right side of the lower is under the center of the upper; and two in

50 The Lowry Ruin

the southwest quadrant, so situated one above the other that the
left side of the lower is aligned with the right side of the upper.

It should also be noted that the single niche in the northwest
quarter is in front of the southwest corner of peripheral Room IV;
that those niches in the northeast quadrant are in front of peripheral
Room VI; and that those niches in the southwest quadrant are in
front of peripheral Room V.

When uncovered, the niches were filled with dirt. They are
crudely constructed and are capped with stone slabs.

The dimensions of the niches are given in the following table:

Dimensions of Niches in Great Kiva

Height Above

Bench Width Height Depth
Feet Inches Inches Inches Inches

Northwest quadrant

One niche 2 0 4 3 10

Northeast quadrant

Lower niche 0 4 8 5 9

Upper niche 1 4 7 5 10

Southeast quadrant

Lower niche 0 0 8 5 11

Upper niche 1 8 8 7 10

Southwest quadrant

Lower niche 0 0 7 6 10

Upper niche 1 6 6 4 9

BENCH

A crudely constructed bench, built against the inner face of the
kiva wall, almost completely encircles the Great Kiva. About
13 feet of this bench are missing from the east portion of the north-
west quadrant. The missing section had obviously been torn out
in ancient times. There are no niches in the face of the bench.

The height of the bench varies considerably. Where it skirts the
terrace floor, it ranges in height from 8 inches to 1 foot 6 inches;
where it adjoins the central floor, it ranges in height from 2 feet
2 inches to 2 feet 6 inches.

RECESSED STAIRWAY

In the northeast quadrant of the Great Kiva is a recess which
once contained a stairway (Plates LXX, LXXI). This stairway
evidently consisted of five wooden steps, each of which was composed
of three poles. The ends of these poles were embedded in the masonry
and the rotted butts were still in place when the kiva was exca-
vated. The steps had a rise of about 11 inches each. The back of

Description of Kiva Details

51

the recess sloped outward from bottom to top. The dimensions
of the recess are:

Feet Inches

Width 1 10

Depth at bottom 1 9

Depth at top 4 8

The bench constituted the lowest or first step.

OTHER GREAT KIVAS

Roberts (1929, pp. 73-81; 1932, p. 96) lists seven other Great
Kivas; namely, Casa Rinconada, the Great Bowl at Chetro Ketl,
the Great Kiva at Pueblo Bonito, and the Great Kiva at Shabik'-
eshchee Village, all in the Chaco Canyon, New Mexico; another at
Aztec Ruin, Aztec, New Mexico; and two at the Village of the Great
Kivas, Zuiii Reservation, New Mexico. At Wupatki National Monu-
ment, Arizona, is another large, circular structure with walls of
masonry. This building may also be a Great Kiva (Hargrave, 1933).

Of these eight Great Kivas, seven have been excavated. The
Great Kiva at Lowry Pueblo is the ninth to be reported and the
eighth to be excavated.

Peripheral Rooms of Great Kiva
number and location

Six peripheral rooms were uncovered (Map 4; Plate LXXII).
Rooms I, II, III, and IV border the kiva to the north; Room V is
adjacent to the kiva on the west and Room VI, to the east. Excava-
tions to the south revealed a rectangular block of crude masonry,
but no room.

These rooms are all situated on the rim which surrounds the
Great Kiva. The floor levels are about 8 feet higher than the central
floor of the Great Kiva. The kiva was connected with Room II by
means of the recessed stairway.

The dimensions of these rooms are as follows:

DIMENSIONS

Room

Greatest

Width

OF Room

Greate^st
Length
of Room

Thickness

OF

Side Walls

Present
Height of
Masonry

Feet

Inches - Feet

Inches

Feet

Inches

Feet

Inches

I

6

5

15

0

1

6

1

0

II

4

3

6

2

0

8

1

0

Ill

9

0

10

6

1

6

1

10

IV

10

0

12

0

7

7

-

—

(Pole-and-brush room)

V

11

6

15

6

2

5

1

4

VI

9

0

15

0

1

1

0

UI^lVtRSny OF ILLINOIS

52 The Lowry Ruin

MASONRY

The masonry of peripheral Rooms I, II, III, V, and VI is
crude. It consists of four or five courses of masonry or of mixed
masonry and unworked stone slabs set on end (Plate LXXIII).
In some places the masonry rests on adobe walls, which serve as
foundations.

As shown above in the table of dimensions, none of the walls
stand very high. It is entirely possible that they never were built
up to any great height and that the upper parts of the walls of these
rooms were composed of poles and brush.

POLE-AND-BRUSH ROOM

Room IV is unlike the other peripheral rooms, because three of
its walls were composed solely of poles and brush or wattle-work.
The poles were not carefully aligned. They had been set in the
ground at depths varying from 10 to 14 inches and had measured
from 6 to 8 inches in diameter. There had been five of these poles in
the north wall, four in the west wall, and two in the south wall. The
west wall of Room III formed the fourth wall (Plate LXXIV).

The evidence for all this was found fortuitously.

I had expected to uncover a series of arc-shaped, peripheral
rooms such as Morris had found at Aztec (Morris, 1928, pp. 115-138).
Quite by chance, Rooms I, II, and III were the first peripheral rooms
to be excavated. In digging further, however, to the west of Room
III, it became apparent that there were no more walls of masonry.
But, in searching for such walls, quantities of charred poles and
burned clay, bearing the imprint of branches and poles, had turned
up. Since this digging was being done on the crest of the kiva rim,
from 6 to 8 feet above the surrounding terrain, these burned logs
and pieces of baked clay could not have drifted up there. I reasoned,
therefore, that a pole-and-brush structure had once stood in that
area. Forthwith, that whole space now marked as IV on the ground
plan was carefully worked over, with the result that eleven post-
holes were discovered. From each of them were recovered frag-
ments of an upright post, a fill composed of fine dirt and small rocks,
and a small, discoid stone bead.

Further, in every trench that was cut through the kiva rim,
pieces of charred poles and bits of burned clay were observed. It is
entirely possible, therefore, that peripheral Rooms I to VI were
joined by a series of pole-and-brush enclosures (like Room IV), thus
making a complete series of rooms around the Great Kiva.

Description of Kiva Details 53

FLOORS

The floors are of hardened adobe which had been neatly rubbed
and smoothed.

FIREPIT

Room III contains a firepit which is Hned with adobe plaster
and has no coping. The diameter of this pit is 3 feet and the depth
1 foot. Ashes were found in it when it was uncovered.

ROOFS

Post-holes, one to each rear corner, were found in the floors of
Rooms I, III, V, and VI. These holes were about 1 foot deep and
contained the decayed butts of upright poles, the diameters of which
had ranged from 6 to 8 inches. From tlie bottom of each hole a
small, discoid stone bead was recovered.

It seems fair to assume that these posts supported the pole-and-
brush portion of the walls and the roof. If so, it is possible that the
upper ends of these roof posts were forked and that the crotch thus
made provided a rest for the roof beams.

REMARKS ON GREAT KIVA AND PERIPHERAL ROOMS

At the present time, none of the walls of the peripheral rooms
abut on the outer kiva wall. It is, therefore, impossible to state
whether they were enclosures set apart from the kiva or whether
they were an integral part of the kiva structure and included under
the kiva roof. It is equally impossible to assert that there were
doorways opening from these peripheral rooms into the Great Kiva
as there are in the Great Kiva at Aztec, New Mexico (Morris, 1928,
p. 130).

In the eastern part of Room V is a secondary wall, the base of
which is higher than that of the west wall of this room. I do not
understand what purpose this secondary wall served.

A pit sunk into the floor of the northwest quadrant of the Great
Kiva disclosed the remains of another circular building which may
also have been a Great Kiva.

IV. ARTIFACTS OF LOWRY PUEBLO

Objects of Stone

Surprisingly few stone objects were recovered from either the
pueblo or the rubbish heaps.

The classifications given herewith are after Kidder (1932). Mr.
Sharat K. Roy, Assistant Curator of Geology of Field Museum,
made the macro-examination of these stone objects.

STONE IMPLEMENTS WITH SECONDARY CHIPPING
ON ALL MAJOR FACES

A. Projectile Points and Knives with Stems

(1) Expanding stem narrower than shoulder. Three specimens
of chert, one with serrated edges. Range in length from ^i inch to
13^ inches; range in weight from 0.8 grams to 2.3 grams. Found in
Mancos black-on-white rubbish heap (Fig. 8, a-c).

(2) Expanding stem as wide as, or wider than, shoulder.
Subtype a; slender with narrow notches. Six specimens of chert.

Range in length from ^ inch to 134 inches; weights range from 0.4
grams to 1.5 grams. Found in Mancos black-on- white rubbish
(Fig. 8, d-i).

Subtype h; broad with larger notches. One specimen of chert.
Length 23^ inches; weight 9.5 grams. Found in Mancos black-on-
white rubbish (Fig. 9, a).

B. Aberrant Form

Crescent-shaped object of white chalcedony. Length 2 1/16
inches; weight 4.5 grams. Found on surface of Room 11 (Fig. 10, e).

GROUND OR PECKED STONE OBJECTS

Ax of quartzite with plain, narrow, shallow gi'oove, set at right
angles to long axis; groove deeper on edges than on faces; poll bat-
tered ; edge dull ; faces polished. Length 3 3^ inches, width 23^ inches,
thickness l^i inches; weight 12 ounces. Found in Mancos black-
on-white rubbish, near floor of Room 6 (Fig. 11, b).

Ax of fine-grained, pink granite with plain, broad, shallow groove;
poll battered; edge sharp; faces polished. Length 5 inches, width
23/^ inches, thickness 2 inches; weight 1 pound 4 ounces. Found in
Mancos black-on-white rubbish near floor of Room 6 (Fig. 11, a).

Mcml{T) of spherulitic basic igneous rock with all-around plain
groove; faces and groove smooth but not polished; specimen bat-

54

M

''%'^:

^^B

m

55

56 The Lowry Ruin

tered and damaged. Length 3^4 inches, width 2% inches, thickness
1?4 inches; weight 12 ounces. Found in Mancos black-on-white
rubbish near floor of Room 8 (Fig. 11, c).

Notched implement of highly calcareous sandstone, notched on
either side near middle; ends rounded, blunt, and scarred; made
from worn-out, wedge-shaped mano. Length 5li inches, width 33/2
inches, thickness 1}4 inches; weight 1 pound 4 ounces. Found on
floor of Kiva A, near firepit (Fig. 12, a).

Prohlernatical grooved imflement of quartzite with completely
encircling, plain, broad, shallow groove set at right angles to long
axis; poll square and polished; other end pointed and polished;
faces and edges (except in groove) polished. On one face, near
conical end, two tiny, drilled pits, set ]/^ inch apart, 3/16 inch in
diameter and 1/16 inch deep; protuberance or shoulder on one edge
just above groove. Length ^'^.^ inches, width at notch 2}/^ inches,
thickness 1)4 inches; weight 15 ounces. Found on floor of Kiva A
near firepit. Use unknown; form suggests a fetish(?) (Fig. 11, d).

Shouldered implement of silicified tuff; turquois blue-green color
produced by ferrous silicate; haft end incomplete and narrowed by
shoulders or offsets; blade beveled and slightly polished; faces and
edges smooth but unpolished. Length SJ/g inches, greatest width
4^ inches, thickness Y^ inch; weight 12 ounces. Found with several
bone implements wrapped in remains of twilled cedar mat, three
feet under south wall of Room 16. Use unknown; very fragile and
unsuited for utilitarian purposes, but may be similar to a tcamahia
(Fig. 13).

Pot polishers of quartzite; four found, two brown, one gray, and
one black; probably picked up in some stream bed; all highly pol-
ished. Lengths vary from 13^ inches to 2 inches. Probably used
for finishing vessel surfaces. Two brown ones found in Mancos
black-on-white rubbish; the other two on banquette of Kiva A
(Fig. 9, d, e).

Stone hall of quartzite; an egg-shaped, smooth river pebble.
Length 33^ inches; width 2}4 inches. Found on floor of Kiva A.
Use unknown (Fig. 12, c).

Stone ball of ferruginous sandstone; ovaloid in shape; surface is
very rough and shows pecking marks; hole drilled through from end
to end. Length 23^^ inches, width 23^ inches. Found on floor of
Kiva A. Use unknown (Fig. 12, b).

Metate (the nether element of the Pueblo corn mill) of conglom-
erate; upper side troughed, the trough open at both ends; rectangular

0<M

11

to

57

58 The Lowry Ruin

with rounded ends; under side flat and unworked. Length 1 foot
4 inches, width 1 foot 2 inches, thickness 4 inches. Mano (the upper
element of the Pueblo corn mill) of sandstone; wedge-shaped; single
grinding surface; upper surface rough; grinding surface convex;
rounded end. Length 8 inches, width 4 inches, thickness 1}^ inches.
Both metate and mano found on floor of Kiva F near firepit
(Plate LXXV).

Metate of conglomerate; upper side troughed, the trough open
at one end only; rounded ends; under side rough and unworked.
Length 1 foot 8 inches, width 1 foot 3 inches, thickness 6 inches.
Mano of sandstone; wedge-shaped; single grinding surface; upper
surface rough; grinding surface convex; roundish end. Length
9 inches, width 4 inches, thickness IJ^ inches. Both metate and
mano found three feet under floor of Room 11 in the remains of
a Basket Maker III(?) house (Plate LXXVI).

Metate of conglomerate; one side troughed, the trough open at
both ends; the other side flat and untroughed; ends roundish. Length
1 foot 5 inches, width 1 foot, thickness 5 inches. Metate, without
any mano, found on floor of Room 13.

Metate of conglomerate; upper side troughed, the trough open
at both ends; under side unworked; ends rounded. Length 1 foot
6 inches, width 1 foot 1 inch, thickness 3 inches. Two manos of
sandstone; wedge-shaped; single grinding surface; upper surface
rough; grinding surface convex; rounded end. Dimensions of first
mano: length 8 inches, width 4 inches, thickness 2 inches. Dimen-
sions of second mano : length 9 inches, width 4 inches, thickness 1 J^
inches. Metate and both manos found on floor of Room 15.

Three metates of conglomerate; upper sides troughed, the troughs
open at both ends; under sides flat and unworked; rounded ends.
Lengths vary from 16 inches to 20 inches, widths from 13 inches to
16 inches, thicknesses from 3 inches to 5 inches. These metates
without manos found on floor of Room 16.

Three metates, two of conglomerate and one of sandstone; upper
sides troughed, the troughs open at both ends; under sides flat and
rough; rounded ends. Lengths vary from 14 inches to 21 inches;
widths from 12 inches to 15 inches, thicknesses from 3 inches to 6
inches. Also, three manos of sandstone; wedge-shaped; single grind-
ing surface; upper surface rough; grinding surface convex; rounded
end. Lengths vary from 8 inches to 11 inches, widths from S}4
inches to 5 inches, thicknesses from ly^ inches to 2}/^ inches. These

3j3

59

Si
Si

5

60 The Lowry Ruin

metates and manos found on slab floor of Room 18 (room over
Kiva D).

Two metates of conglomerate; upper sides troughed, the troughs
open at both ends; under sides flat and unworked; ends rounded.
Lengths 16 and 18 inches, widths 13 and 15 inches, thicknesses
5 inches. These two metates, without manos, found on floor of
Great Kiva.

Total number recovered: 12 metates and 7 manos.

Tablet of felsite; green in color; incomplete but rectangular in
shape; sides and faces well polished. Length 1^4 inches, width 1}4
inches, thickness 3/16 inch; weight 21.9 grams. Found in Mancos
black-on-white rubbish heap. Use unknown (Fig. 9, c).

Zoomorphic image of felsite; probably represents a bird;
bulging eyes; hole drilled through from side to side; well polished.
Length ^4 inch. Found in Mancos black-on-white rubbish heap.
Use unknown, but probably served as a pendant (Fig. 10, d).

Problematical object of steatite; edges and faces well polished;
one end tapered, other end squared. Length 1 9/16 inches, width
}4 inch, thickness 1/16 inch. Found in Mancos black-on-white
rubbish heap. Use unknown (Fig. 9, b).

Stone pendants; two of limestone, one of trachyte; round; smooth
but not polished; drilled for suspension. Diameters are 15/16 inch,
3/^ inch, and % inch; thickness of all three, 1/32 inch (Fig.
10, a-c).

Stone ringC!) of trachyte; smooth but not polished. Diameter
^ inch, thickness y^ inch. Found in Mancos black-on-white rub-
bish heap. Use unknown (Fig. 10, /).

Hemispherical object of limestone; highly polished; no perfora-
tions; looks somewhat like a cat's-eye; gray in color. Diameter
11/16 inch. Found in Mancos black-on-white fill in Room 3
(Fig. 14, e).

Two buttons{Z} of sandstone; form of an oblate spheroid with
equatorial bulge or, more accurately, form of a circular spindle;
smooth but not polished. Perforated just below "equator." Diam-
eters at bulge ^ inch and % inch. One of these found on floor of
Room 10; the other, on floor of Room 3. Use unknown (Fig. 14, d).

Two "medicine cylinders," one of limestone and one of sand-
stone; polished; brown in color. Lengths 11/16 and ]/s inch; diam-
eters of both 7/16 inch. Found in Kiva A on banquette of west
quadrant (Fig. 14, /).

Fig. 11. Grooved objects of stone, a, b, Axes; r, Maul(?); d. Problematical object. Length of a,
5 inches.

61

62 The Lowry Ruin

Anthracite coal, unworked. Length 1 inch, width % inch, thick-
ness 7/16 inch. Found near floor of Room 10. Use unknown.

Objects of Clay

Effigy of human head; round face, eyes, and mouth represented
by horizontal sHts; nose modeled with pair of punctations at lower
end to represent openings of nostrils; ears lacking. Across forehead
is a painted line; over and at side of mouth is a bit of design in min-
eral paint; almost entire back of head is covered with black mineral
paint. In vertical axis is a perforation which runs completely
through. Object appears not to have been attached to any vessel.
Height 1}4 inches, width 1}4 inches, thickness 1 inch. Found on
floor of Kiva A. Use unknown (Fig. 14, 6).

Worked potsherd; roundish; perforated near edge; smooth edge;
made from bowl sherd of black-on-red (?) ware, but red paint mostly
scraped off. Diameter 13^ inches. Found in Mancos black-on-
white rubbish (Fig. 14, c).

Worked potsherd; roundish, perforated near edge; smooth edge;
made from bowl sherd of Tusayan black-on-red ware. Diameter
1^ inches. Found in McElmo black-on-white rubbish in Room 8
(Fig. 14, a).

Tobacco pipe; elbow type with stem; bowl with obtuse angle to
stem; unslipped but decorated with two black bands (mineral paint)
one around rim of bowl and one at junction of bowl and stem; smoke
passage off-center; part of mouthpiece missing. Length 2}/^ inches,
bowl height 1 inch, bowl diameter 1 inch, bore % inch. Found in
McElmo black-on-white rubbish level in Room 8 (Fig. 15, b).

Tobacco pipe; elbow type with stem; bowl at obtuse angle to
stem; slipped white and decorated with seven black bands (mineral
paint). Length 3}/2 inches, bowl height 1}4 inches, bowl diameter
1 inch, bore }/s inch. Found at bottom of ventilator shaft of Kiva A
(Fig. 15, c).

Tobacco pipe; fragmentary; elbow type with stem; bowl at right
angle to stem; slipped (?) white and decorated with squiggly hatch
and an "x" and vertical lines, all done with mineral paint; smoke
passage off-center; portions of bowl and mouthpiece missing. Length
2^ inches (plus), height undeterminable, bowl diameter about
1 inch, bore },i inch. Found on floor of Room 15 (Fig. 15, a).

No dottel was recovered with these pipes nor are the interiors
blackened by smoke.

63

4-7554^

Fig. 13. Shouldered implement of silicified tuff. Length, 8Ji inches.

64

r-mti

miimiir

3 O

0) o

« e

65

4a'¥?

,.-*

■S&IL3

66

<^

T

Fig. 16. Awls of mammal leg bones; head of bone intact. Length of a, S^i inches.

67

▼

/

Fig. 17. Awls of mammal leg bones; head of bone inuct. Length of o. 4»i inches.

68

Artifacts of Lowry Pueblo 69

Objects of Bone

(Unless otherwise specified, all these objects came from Mancos
black-on- white rubbish.)

I. Implements.

A. Awls.

(1) Mammal leg bone.

(a) Head of bone intact; made from ulnae, metapodials,
and femora of elk, deer, moose, and carnivores; range
in length from 23/^ inches to 8% inches; average about
5 inches (Figs. 16, 17) 14

(6) Head of bone partly worked down; made from meta-
podials of deer and elk(?); range in length from 2 13/16
to 9 inches; average about 4 inches (Figs. 18, 19) . . . 13

(c) Head of bone wholly removed; probably made from
metapodials of deer and elk; range in length from 2}i
inches to 83/^ inches; average about 43^ inches
(Fig. 20) 11

(2) Whole bird bone; tibia and metatarsals of turkey used;
range in length from 2% inches to 53/^ inches; average
about 4 inches (Fig. 21) 7

B. Needles; shorter one made from bird bone; length S^i inches;
eye 13/16 inch long and 3/16 inch wide. Longer one made
from mammal leg bone; length 5% inches; eye 9/16 inch long
and 3/16 inch wide. Eyes probably made by both drilling
and cutting (Fig. 22, a) 2

C. Polishers(?) probably made from splinters of mammal leg-
bones. Length of shorter one 33<4 inches and width 11/16
inch. Length of longer one 4 inches, and width J4, inch
(Fig. 22, &) 2

D. End scrapers or fleshers.

(1) Made from metatarsals of bison or elk; both lengths I'tJ-^
inches; articular surface of one split in half. Found in
cache under south wall of Room 16 (Fig. 23, 6, c) 2

(2) Made from humeri of mountain sheep; lengths 5 inches
and bH inches (Fig. 23, a, f/) 2

(3) Made from humerus of ungulate; length 43^ inches

(Fig. 23, e) 1

(4) Made from phalange of deer; length IJi inches

(Fig. 23,/) 1

70

The Lowry Ruin

E. Problematical bone object; made from mammal bone; deli-
cate and well-polished; length 2}/2 inches (Fig. 22, d) 1

II. Whistle{?); made of bird bone; pierced by single hole produced
by cutting through a notch; length 1 inch, outside diameter 3^
inch (Fig. 22, e) 1

«

■o

Fig. 18. Awls of mammal leg bones; head of bone partly worked. Length of a, 5?4 inches.

III. Bove tubes; made from bird wings; range in length from
% inch long to 3J^ inches; diameters all about }4 inch. These
may have been employed as beads because of the worn and
polished appearance of their ends and sides (Fig. 24) 11

IV. Miscellaneous.

A. Perforated disk; made from mammal bone; diameter 11/16
inch, thickness 3^ inch. Diameter of perforation, which was
drilled from one side only, is 3/16 inch (Fig. 22, c) 1

Artifacts of Lowry Pueblo 71

B. Portion of curved ornament(?); probably made from mammal
bone, steamed and bent; small perforation at one end. Chor-
dal length ly^ inches; width 7/16 mch (Fig. 22, /) 1

Total number of bone objects 70

Objects of Antler

Diggwg stick blade {1) of mountain sheep horn; blade somewhat
beveled and slightly worn; length 7 inches, width 2^4 inches. Found
with shouldered implement of tuff under south wall of Room 16
(page 56 and Fig. 25, a).

Im'plements{1) of elk horn: 2 pieces (portions of main beams?)
with wedge-shaped tips; the burr and a small part of the main beam,
the tip of which is beveled on one side; and a tine with unmodified
tip. Found, along with whole pottery, on floor of Kiva F. May
have been portions of a head-dress, but more probably served as
general utility tools (Fig. 25, h).

Objects of Wood

Cylindrical stick of pinyon(?); surface smooth and devoid of
bark or knots; ends convex and well worked. Length 12 inches,
diameter 1 inch. Found on bench of Kiva B. Use unknown, but
may have served as a gaming(?) stick.

Praijer-sticksil) of willow. These fragments of prayer-sticks
were not found at Lowry ruin. They were dredged, along with sev-
eral pieces of pottery, from an ancient spring, which is about five
miles east of Lowry ruin on the property of Mr. Courtney Dow. I
assume that these prayer-sticks were placed in the spring as offerings.

FlO. It). Awl3 of mammal log bonps; head of bone partly worked. Length of a, i) inches. ^

72

e9cs»

73

^ ««WB»'

^9p|;

^>. r'^"

74

^^.J^^J^^

f«ves*

AT-sra

75

m

J^

0

76

4&3i6a-g

^se>2&

;^

— «-»«»

45362-5

77

78

V. POTTERY OF LOWRY PUEBLO
Classification Used

The ceramic classification used herein is that worked out and pub-
Hshed by Gila Pueblo (Gladwin, 1934, Medallion Papers, No. XV).
I am aware that a purely mechanistic classification of pottery
(or of any archaeological object), the meaning of which is not known
and never will be known, is dangerous. Certain differences of tech-
niques and designs may appeal to one as being significant and indica-
tive of culture changes. But, obviously, a classification based on
these differences is objective, since one can not know the meaning
of these differences in techniques and designs. They may be real;
they may be only apparent.

However, in working with archaeological data, it is necessary to
arrange the available material in some orderly fashion. From such
an arrangement, apparently significant variations may appear and
may be used, along with other algebraic factors, to delineate certain
problems. If the arrangement is sterile, it may be discarded and
another one set up.

The classification as worked out by the Gladwins is convenient
and fits all the known facts. It is frankly tentative and will be
modified from time to time. It does not pretend to be more than a
working hypothesis.

Pottery Types Found at Lowry Ruin

I have grouped the Lowry pottery into two divisions: one con-
taining the wares which I believe were produced on the site; the
other, the wares which were probably obtained through trade.

LOWRY POTTERY TYPES

(1) Lino gray ware — Basket Maker III to Pueblo I (Hargravc,

1932, p. 11).

(2) Lino black-on-gray ware — Basket Maker III to Pueblo I

(Hargrave, 1932, p. 12).

(3) Undecorated, slipped (?) ware — Basket Maker III to Pueblo I

(Roberts, 1929, plate 17a).

(4) Mancos black-on-white (mentioned by Gladwin, 1934, p. 28)

(described in this Report for the first time).

(5) Red Mesa black-on-white (corresponds to Roberts' "Chaco

transitional") (Gladwin, 1934, p. 20).

79

80 The Lowry Ruin

(6) Wingate black-on-white (corresponds to Roberts' "Chaco

degenerate transitional") (Gladwin, in preparation).

(7) McElmo black-on-white (formerly called "Proto-Mesa

Verde") (Kidder, 1924, p. 67).

(8) Mesa Verde black-on-white (Kidder, 1924, pp. 61-64).

(9) Plain corrugated-neck ware.

(10) Indented corrugated -neck ware.

(11) Indented-corrugated ware (indented and corrugated all over).

TRADE WARES

(1) Sunset redware (Hargrave, 1932, p. 18).

(2) Wingate black-on-red (Gladwin, 1931, p. 29).

(3) Abajo red-on-orange (J. 0. Brew, in preparation).

(4) Black Mesa black-on-white (Morss, 1931, pp. 3-4).

(5) Tusayan black-on-white (formerly called "Proto-Kayenta

black-on-white") (Kidder, 1924, p. 72; Morss, 1931,
pp. 5-10).

(6) Tusayan black-on-red (formerly called "Proto-Kayenta

black-on-red") (Kidder, 1924, p. 72).

(7) Tusayan polychrome (Kidder, 1924, p. 72).

(8) Puerco black-on-red; only 4 sherds found (Gladwin, 19^4,

p. 20).
With the exception of Mancos black-on-white pottery, all these
wares have already been or are about to be described. Therefore,
Mancos black-on-white and the accompanying corrugated pottery
only will be treated here.

Definition of Mancos Black-on- White Pottery

The name Mancos black-on-white was suggested by Mr. Earl
Morris. This term was then incorporated in Gladwin's pottery
classification (Gladwin, 1934, p. 28) although the pottery itself has
never been described.

A. painted pottery

Vessel Shapes and Sizes (percentage of total amount of each type
of pottery collected given in parentheses). — Bowls (67 per cent):
Diameters range from 4 to 10 inches and heights from 2 to 5 inches;
contours are wavering and sometimes asymmetrical; bottoms are
often flat but sometimes rounded and are always smaller in

4-

FlG. 26. Bowl forms of Mancos black-on-white pottery.

81

Fig. 27. Bowl forms of Mancos black-on-white pottery.

82

Pottery of Lowry Pueblo

83

circumference than rim; sides are rather straight and tend to slope
out from bottom to top (Figs. 26, 27).

Jars (26 per cent) : Heights range from 7 to 16 inches and diam-
eters from Q}/2 to 15 inches. Necks are vertical, cylindrical, short,
and restricted; bodies are globular and shoulders rather angular.
Handles are of two types: single loops or flat bands set horizontally
just below the shoulder; and loops (the central portions of which
are pushed in and welded to the side of the jar) placed just below

Fig. 28. Mancos black-on-white jar. Height, 7 inches.

the shoulder and raked downward somewhat (Figs. 28, 29). No in-
dented handholds were noted.

Ladles (7 per cent): Bowl-and-handle type; overall lengths range
from 5 to 11 inches; bowl diameters from 23^ to 5 inches. Handles
consist of tubes (sometimes containing pellets and often bearing
small perforations on the upper surface), flat bars, or loops of clay.
The ends of the handles are bifurcated, pointed, or rounded (Fig. 30).

Pitchers and mugs probably exist; but no complete pieces were
recovered.

84

The Lowry Ruin

Slip. — The interiors of most bowls and ladles are, generally,
though not always, slipped with a rather thin, chalky white to slaty
gi'ay, unpolished slip. The slip is so thin that the gray base-color
of the vessel often shows through. Brush marks may occasionally be
seen. Jars are generally slipped, although not always. It is possible
that Mancos pottery was unslipped before the advent of Red Mesa
black-on-white, and thereafter slipped. Bowl exteriors are generally

Fig. 29. Mancos black-on-white jar. Height, 16 inches.

unslipped. The presence or absence of slip should be determined
microscopically, since it is otherwise impossible to be certain. I was
unable to have these necessary microscopic examinations made; my
remarks, therefore, concerning slip should not be taken as final.

Paint. — The vessels are decorated with mineral pigments. The
color of the paint may be a transparent brown, a greenish brown, a
reddish brown, or a dense, flat black. The paint is matt in most cases.
Miss Anna 0. Shepard, of the Laboratory of Anthropology, Santa
Fe, New Mexico, examined seventeen sherds of Mancos black-on-

Pottery of Lowry Pueblo 85

white pottery and made chemical tests of the paint on these sherds.
All the samples yielded a strong test for iron and none for manganese.
The paint on a few specimens was strongly magnetic, on others, weakly
magnetic, and on still others, non-magnetic. When microscopically
examined, the paint has a granular texture, stands out in relief, and
sometimes appears in caked patches. This is so because mineral
pigments are insoluble and are applied as suspensions. The hardness
of a mineral pigment bears no relation to that of the clay upon which
it is applied. If the paint is unsintered (unglazed) it may be softer
than the clay surface; if vitrified, it will be harder. Mineral paint is
more often affected by wear than organic paints. It is not at all
certain that mineral pigments were mixed with organic pigments
and the presence of carbon must yet be proven — a very tedious
task. It is entirely possible that an organic vehicle was originally
used, but being in a comparatively open, non-adsorptive material
the carbon was entirely oxidized in the firing. Following Miss
Shepard's technique, I applied an oxidation test to about one hundred
Mancos black-on-white sherds. I therefore feel that the analysis of
the paint given herewith is reasonably correct and is not mere
guesswork.

Decoration. — Brush work crude and uneven.
I. Zone of decoration on bowls and ladles.

A. Exterior walls of bowls and ladles undecorated, with two
exceptions: on the bottom of one bowl, a small "x"; and on
the side of the other, two sets of "turkey tracks."

B. Interior walls. No "life line" noted on either bowl lips or
bowl interiors.

(1) Continuous band patterns: crudely drawn bands (Fig.
31, h); checkerboard patterns in either rectangular or
triangular units (Fig. 32, a); checkerboard patterns with
one set of squares containing each a dot and the opposing
set, hatching (Fig. 32, b); opposed triangles; pendent
triangles either solid black or hatched (Fig. 33, b);
terraces pendent from the rim (Fig. 34, b); and frets
(Fig. 33, a).

(2) Divided band patterns: panels produced by oblique,
parallel lines, bordered by dots and opposed triangles
set within the panels (Fig. 35, c); panels of vertical lines
and large triangles within panels (Fig. 34, a) ; and
vertical sets of parallel lines set off from one another by
solid and void rectangles (Fig. 36, a).

^n

Fig. 30. Mancos black-on-white ladles. Ivcngth of a, 5 inches.

86

87

88 The Lowry Ruin

(3) Quartered patterns: interior divided into quarters by
two lines intersecting at right angles, half of each line
bearing pendent triangles and the other half of each,
upthrust triangles (Fig. 35, b), or by two rows of polka
dots, each row intersecting at right angles.

(4) Allover pattern: sets of oblique parallel lines set at
nearly right angles to other sets (Fig. 37, c).

(5) Aberrant patterns: crudely drawn vertical and oblique
lines starting at rim and proceeding towards bottom
(Fig. 38, a); groups of vertical lines, each line in the
group a little longer than the preceding and each starting
at rim (Fig. 39, a); and pairs of free-standing terraces,
one turned up, the other, down, and united at one point
at the bases (Fig. 38, 6).

II. Zone of decoration on jars covers upper portion down to or
slightly below shoulder. Designs may be crudely drawn criss-
cross lines arranged in panels (Fig. 28); bands of pennant-like
triangles whose bases are attached to vertical lines (Plate
LXXVII, Fig. 2); or frets and cross-hatching (Fig. 29). I suspect
that this last-described design reflects early Chacoan influence,
although diagonal hatching in some form may also turn out to
be one of the characteristics of Mancos pottery.
Paste. — Gray to blue gray (interior color). The tempering in
sixteen sherds, which were microscopically examined by Miss
Shepard, consists of sherds crushed very fine. I have megascopically
examined about one hundred more sherds and have found that they
also seem to be sherd-tempered. Texture in cross section is fairly
smooth and even; apparently the paste was thoroughly treated
before construction was begun. Degrees of hardness are as follows:
66 per cent have a hardness of 6 (feldspar) ; 28 per cent, a hardness
of 5 (apatite); and 6 per cent, a hardness of 4 (fluorite). In cross
section, a dark firing-streak in the center bordered by light marginal
streaks on either side may be observed.

Surface Texture. — The texture of bowl exteriors is generally rough;
infrequently it is smooth. This smoothness may have been pro-
duced by the application of a slip or by scraping. The texture of
bowl interiors is always smoother than the exteriors because they
were either scraped or scraped and slipped. Occasionally a piece
of pottery is imperfectly polished. The rem.arks concerning bowl
exteriors also apply to ladles and jars. Sometimes, the unsmoothed
coils remain on the exteriors of bowls. Firing clouds are uncommon.

89

90

i?:

91

:s

93

94 The Lowry Ruin

Thickness of Body Wall in Cross Section. — The thickness in cross
section of the body walls of bowls (including ladle bowls) varies
from 5/32 to 3/16 inch; that of jars, from 3/16 to 9/32 inch. The
thickness of the walls of both bowls and jars is remarkably uniform
although the walls of bowls at the rim may be very slightly thinner
(about 1/32 inch).

Rim Forms. — The rims are direct. The lips are thin and sometimes
squarish. Abrasions of the lips are so frequent that it is impossible
to tell whether they were painted or not. Ticking occurs infrequently
on the lips. Outcurved rims are exceedingly rare (Fig. 40).

Chronological Position. — ^Mancos black-on-white ware was the
dominant pottery of Lowry Pueblo.

B. CORRUGATED POTTERY

Although I have been unable to detect any pronounced changes
in Mancos black-on-white ware at Lowry Pueblo, I have noted that
the accompanying culinary pottery falls into three types: plain
corrugated-neck pottery, indented corrugated-neck pottery, and all-
over indented-corrugated pottery (Figs. 41, 42, 47). As shown by
the graphs (Figs. 43-45) plain corrugated-neck and indented cor-
rugated-neck pottery are more common in the early phases of the
pueblo. In other words, there is no one type of culinary pottery
which may be associated exclusively with Mancos black-on- white.

Vessel Shapes and Sizes. — Jars: Only three complete specimens
were recovered. On one the greatest diameter at mouth is 3^
inches, the height, 5 inches; on the second the greatest diameter
at mouth is 1% inches, the height, 11 inches; on the third the
greatest diameter at mouth is 5}/^ inches, the height, 6 inches. On
the first one mentioned above (the smallest) the line of greatest
diameter of the body is above the center of the vessel; on the other
two it is at about the center of the vessel. The shape of these
jars is globular (Figs. 42, 46, c); the bottoms, rounded.

Pitchers: Three complete specimens were recovered. On one,
the greatest diameter at mouth is 4 inches, the height, 53^ inches;
on the second, the greatest diameter at mouth is 4^ inches, the
height, 634 inches; on the third, the greatest diameter at mouth
is 534 inches, the height, l^i inches. Contours are wavering;
bottoms, rounded; bodies, globular with medium-tall necks. Necks
on two specimens rise vertically from shoulder to lip; on the third,
the neck rises more or less obliquely from shoulder to lip. Handles
on two specimens consist of single fillets of clay and extend from

95

96

97

98 The Lowry Ruin

shoulder to a point just below rim; on the third, the handle is made
up of three fillets of clay welded together and it extends from a
point just above the shoulder to the rim (Fig. 41).

Paste. — Interior color, when not impregnated with carbon, is
gray to blue gray. Megascopic examination shows tempering to be
composed of coarse grains of crushed rock (quartzite?) ; the particles
are much coarser than those in the painted pottery. Texture in
cross section is coarse and uneven; dark firing-streaks, which are
so common in painted ware, are almost entirely lacking. Hardness
ranges from 4 to 5.

Surface Finish. — Plain corrugated, with coils which are rather
wide, suggestive of banding, and which overlap; plain corrugated,
with fine coils which overlap; wavy and indented-corrugated; and
indented-corrugated. Where the coils have been smoothed away
the surfaces are fairly rough. The corrugations on plain corrugated-
neck pottery and on indented corrugated-neck pottery are, as the
name indicates, confined to that portion of the vessel above the
shoulder.

Thickness of Body Wall in Cross Section. — Thickness varies from
7/16 inch to }4 inch and is remarkably uniform throughout wall
area of both jars and pitchers.

Rim Forms. — The rims on the jars are sharply outcurved ; on the
pitchers, they are nearly direct or only gently outcurved.

Stratigraphy
stratigraphic tests

Only three areas suitable for making stratigraphic tests were
located. These areas are Rooms 8 and 28, and a refuse area west of
Rooms 4 and 28. It is entirely possible that there may be other,
undetected refuse sections, since approximately only one-half of
Lowry Pueblo has been investigated.

The methods used in making these tests were not so thorough
as they should have been; but, despite this fault, fairly good results
have been obtained.

No common horizontal base line was established, partly because
I did not realize in advance that the fill of Rooms 8 and 28 con-
sisted of ashes and general refuse and partly because such a base
line would not have helped correlate the various levels of these three
dumps. In any event, I felt that I could always fall back on the
base line which was used in making the topographic survey.

wvv

10 12

Fig. 40. Mancos black-on-white bowl rim profiles.

99

:s?

100

Pottery of Lowry Pueblo

101

Instead, therefore, arbitrary divisions or layers of a given thick-
ness were settled upon (see tables accompanying graphs for thick-
ness of divisions). These divisions were measured down from a
fixed point on the nearest wall. Sherds were collected within each

Fig. 42. Jar. Indented-corrugated ware. Height, U inches.

division, sacked, and labeled as coming from "1st ft.," "2nd ft.,"
and so on. They were not washed in the field, but were shipped
to the Museum and were there cleaned and classified.

I include herewith a series of three graphs and three tables
for the refuse areas previously mentioned (Figs. 43-45; Plates
LXXVIII-LXXXII). These graphs indicate the vicissitudes of

t- o CO on o o o t-

OOO O O I o
I o

r-( i-H --I eg .-(

CO O O CC O I o

-rf O O lO O I O

CD K O O "-I OS O O -^ O

a eo--H ^^

t-OOCJ t- 1 o

irt <OOt^'*'-iOtr-iO

TO C O Tf iC 1 o

O O O C O I o

a

o

<

c^

OOC-t-05tDOO

H

TpH

z

H

U

T-H

OOCOCOOO— lOO

.— 1 .—1

u

E-

<

o

oooocooooo

s

y-t JOr-(

o

OJ

(M<M03iMOOO^

d

»— 1 T-H 1— ( OJ 1— (

tu

<3

QO

OO-^IMOOf-tUS

eg rt ^

a

z

t-

oo;C"<a<ooooo

■<

a: (MCa T-H

cc

9

Q

Ib

a oo«£>«DOocgoo

ci

S Cgr-I 1-1

a

en

X

b

w

us

O O O 00 00 -if o o «o

^ Tj< rH rH »-l

li.

a

o

s

z

Tf

3 OO^i^OOiOiO

2; cg^i-.

£

CO

00'<1<OtJ<000

Q

i-Hi-Hcg

Z

<

a

(M

O O 01 <M O O O O

u

,— 1— 1 CO r-l

BQ

s

p

,^

OO-tlM'^^OO

2;

r-KMrH

00 o eo o o 1 o ^
in ! o ^

O t-OCOOOiO c

m I o "s

1 '-' JS

c

OO OOO i o 3

I i^ —

•c

;000-S<0 [ ^ ^
I

00 o o •>* o 1 "«f —

(Moo-i'o I ;S; -^

^ I 00 3

-^ o o eg «5 1 :* =

,-H 00 ^

oo-^o ego I o
eg "^

cooot cc I o

-: e

OOOOO 1 00

01 o -^r o o I S

o o -rf o o I eg

3
C

3

o

• •■*->.-■•-; 1

• -O '^ .c -G c

■•- = §§1

« ^ ,« <« 2^
t- o 2 +J c>-

_ o) >; Mr; ds

O Qj Q>

- c c

'5 "CO
— c c
fi^l— 1 1— I

102

?i S «^
too

■^ o ci'^ a

> y CO o eg
o rt § ca g

S o

103

104 The Lowry Ruin

Number and Kinds of Sherds and Approximate Percentages
For Room 28

Cut numbers' 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Wares Number of Sheuds Approximate Percentages

Lino gray 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 42

Lino black-on-gray 0 0 0 ' 6 0 0 0 12

Mancos black-on-white 0 20 70 2 0 17 27 4

Wingate black-on-white 8 8 26 0 8 7 10 0

McElmo black-on-white 32 30 14 0 33 25 5 0

Plain corrugated-neck 0 0 48 12 0 0 18 25

Indented- corrugated (all over) .... 54 52 88 0 56 44 34 0

Black Mesa black-on-white 08 14 0 0760

Tusayan black-on-white 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

Wingate black-on-red 0008 000 17

Totals 96 118 260 48 100 100 100 100

'Cuts represent strata each 2 feet thick and are numbered from the top (cut 1) downward
(cut 4 being the lowest).

Number and Kinds of Sherds and Approximate Percentages
For Refuse Area West of Rooms 4 and 28

Cut numbers' 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Wares Number of Sherds Approximate Percentaces

Lino gray 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 9

Lino black-on-gray 000 10 0004

Undecorated, slipped ware 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 6

Mancos black-on-white 60 36 40 58 20 18 25 26

Red Mesa black-on-white 040 16 0207

Wingate black-on-white 22 32 30 20 7 16 19 9

McElmo black-on-white 24 6 0 2 7 3 0 1

Plain corrugated-neck 0 40 40 38 0 20 25 17

Indented corrugated-neck 34 0 0 0 11 0 0 0

Indented-corrugated (all over) ... . 118 80 20 18 39 40 12 8

Sunset redware 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Wingate black-on-red 0 0 20 18 0 0 13 8

Montezuma red-on-orange 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0

Black Mesa black-on-white 34 2 6 12 11 1 4 5

Tusayan black-on-white 8 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

Tusayan polychrome 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Totals 308 200 160 226 100 100 100 100

• Cuts represent strata each 2 feet thick and are numbered from the top cut (cut 1) downward
(cut 4 being the lowest).

only the pottery which occurred most frequently and do not register
occasional or "foreign" types, which, because of their extreme
paucity, are not regarded as important. Furthermore, these graphs
embody more than the life span of the Pueblo proper; they embrace,
rather, the entire time range of this site, since stratigraphic tests
were made in levels from 2 to 4 feet below wail foundations.

As a matter of record, sherds were collected by levels from
each excavated room. For the sake of brevity, however, I include
no graphs of these records, but only tables showing numbers and

% o^

%

50

40

30

20

\ ^

\

Lino grayO

- ^

^-°^.

•n"«.

10 —

O "in(

Ungate XJ-'ST-'"

--or

50

40

30

20

10

Cuts I

R.LY.

Fig. 44. Graph representing distribution (in percentages) of the principal pottery types found in
the successive strata in Room 28.

105

40,— ^nd. CorruqaM^^^

30

20

10

Cuts I

R.Ly.

Fio. 45. Graph representing distribution (in percentages) of tlie principal pottery types found in
the successive strata in the refuse area west of Rooms 4 and 28.

106

107

108

The Lowry Ruin

Number and Approximate Percentages of Sherds
From Floor Levels

Room 4

No. %

Room 5

No. %

Room 10

No. %

Room 11

No. %

Room 12

No. %

Room 13

No. %

27

3
6

13 16 42 9 22

16
4

10

42

10 32 10

19

21 14 34

13
3

14

10

7

24
17

6
10

18

17
26

Wares

Lino gray

Lino black-on-
gray

Undecorated,

slipped ware

Mancos black-on-
white 18

Red Mesa black-
on-white

Wingate black-on-
white 2

McElmo black-
on-white 4

Mesa Verde

black-on-white . . . .

Plain corrugated-
neck

Indented corru-
gated-neck 5

Indented-corru-
gated (all over) . 28

Sunset redware

Wingate black-
on-red

Montezuma red-
on-orange

Black Mesa

black-on-white . . 9

Tusayan black-on-
white

Tusayan black-
on-red

Tusayan poly-
chrome

Totals 66 100 31 100 38 100 41 100 11 100 38 100

9
55

18

2 18

percentages of sherds recovered from floor levels (pp. 108-111).
Inasmuch as the three graphs presented give all the data of growth
and decline of pottery types, more graphs would be duplication.

I have tried, without marked success, to work out a correlation
between building periods and pottery collected from floors. This
lack of success may be due to carelessly collected data; but I believe
it is due, rather, to the fact that Lowry Pueblo was erected in a
very short period of time and that the Pueblo was successively
abandoned, reoccupied, and modified several times. All these factors
naturally tend to confuse the data and to render useless any con-
clusions based exclusively on ceramic sequences. Instead, I have
relied upon wall abutments and bondings.

Pottery of Lowry Pueblo

109

Number and Approximate Percentages of Sherds
From Floor Levels — Continued

No.
Wares

Lino gray

Lino black-on-
gray

Undecorated,
slipped ware

Mancos black-
on-white 4

Red Mesa black-
on-white

Wingate black-
on-white 9

McElmo black-
on-white

Mesa Verde
black-on-white . . . .

Plain corrugated-
neck 7

Indented corru-
gated-neck

Indented-corru-
gated (all over) . 5

Sunset redware

Wingate black-
on-red

Montezuma red-
on-orange

Black Mesa

black-on-white . . . .

Tusayan black-
on-white

Tusayan black-
on-red

Tusayan poly-
chrome

Totals 25

' Over Kiva D.

16

36

Room 16

No. %

28 2

20

30

5

25

10

20
5

Room 17
No. %

12

29

12

12

6

29

Room 18 >

No. %

29

7

33

Room 1!)

No. %

19 22 51

12
9

9
5

Room 20

No. %

10

15

30
25

15

100 20 100 17 100 27 100 43 100 20 100

REFUSE AREAS

Room 8 served first as a dwelling room and later, as a place
for dumping refuse. This refuse consisted of some broken pottery
and of approximately 1,500 cubic feet of wood ash. It is estimated
that about 3,000 tons of wood (pinyon and juniper) must have
been consumed to produce this amount of ash. Room 28 was
erected upon refuse material and was also later used as a dump.
The fill was made up of ash and a few potsherds. The refuse area
west of Rooms 4 and 28 was located west of the Pueblo, which is
not customary for this area, and served, in early times, as a cemetery.

Unfortunately, in comparison with other large sites, such as
Pecos or Pueblo Bonito, the rubbish heaps of Lowry Pueblo were

110

The Lowry Ruin

Number and Approximate Percentages of Sherds
From Floor Levels — Continued

Wares

Lino gray

Lino black-on-
gray

Undecorated,

slipped ware

Mancos black-on-
white 4

Red Mesa black-
on-white

Wingate black-
on-white 6

McElmo black-
on-white

Mesa Verde
black-on-white . . . .

Plain corrugated-
neck

Indented corru-
gated-neck 4

Indented-corru-
gated (all over) . 17

Sunset redware

Wingate black-
on-red

Montezuma red-
on-orange

Black Mesa

black-on-white . . . .

Tusayan black-
on-white 6

Tusayan black-
on-red

Tusayan poly-
chrome

Room 21

No. %

Room 27

No. %

Room 32

No. %

Room 33

No. %

32 24

Room 34

No. %

12

15

12

12

22

45

33

12 . .

46 13 54

15

54 39

15
3

11
2

22 18 13

Room 35
No. %

28 32 19 29

24 27 14 21

31 36 17 26

Totals 37 100 24 100 9 100 138 100 87 100 66 100

not of any great depth nor do they reflect any great span of time;
and, even worse, the Lowry rubbish heaps and the room debris
produced remarkably few sherds. Therefore, I have tried to be
cautious in drawing conclusions which are of necessity based on a
comparatively small series of sherds.

Discussion and Summary of Lowry Pottery

Judging from the stratigraphic data, Mancos black-on-white
ware appeared at Lowry during the decline of Lino gray and Lino
black-on-gray pottery (Basket Maker III and Pueblo I). This
evidence might indicate that these two wares were the parents of
Mancos black-on-white and perhaps that is true.

Pottery of Lowry Pueblo

111

Number and Approximate Percentages of Sherds
From Floor Levels — Concluded

Wares

Lino gray

Lino black-on-
gray

Undecorated,

slipped ware. ... 15

Mancos black-
on-white 41

Red Mesa
black-on-white . . 8

Wingate black-
on-white 20

McElmo black-
on-white 2

Mesa Verde

black-on-white . . . .

Plain corrugated-
neck 5

Indented corru-
gated-neck

Indented-corru-
gated (all over) . 24

Sunset redware

Wingate black-
on-red

Montezuma red-
on-orange

Black Mesa

black-on-white . 4

Tusayan black-
on-white

Tusayan black-
on-red

Tusayan poly-
chrome

Totals 119

' Latest floor.

Room 36

No. %

12
34

7
17

2

20

Room 37

No. %

KivA C
No. %

31

15
2

31
23

KiVA D

No. %

KivA F Great Kiva'

No. % No. %

56

7

29

4

20

60

19

14

43

22

1

1

54

38

5

3

30

15

43

22

5

3

59

43

22

9

20

1 50 25

100 13 100 27 100 10 100 138 100 200 100

However, the hypothesis just stated is not entirely convincing.
This relationship, if it exists, is not very clear, inasmuch as the
designs of the Lowry- Mancos ware do not reflect any pronounced
Basket Maker III decorative traits. Of course, it is possible that
the Lowry-Mancos black-on-white ware had already progressed
beyond the state of close similarity and that an affinity might be
found at a smaller and a more briefly occupied site.

But it seems to me that Mancos black-on-white evinces closer
ties with early Chacoan pottery traits which were trickling north-
ward from the area between Gallup and Shiprock, New Mexico.
This relationship cannot be proved at present, but, when examining
thousands of sherds gathered from the Gallup-Shiprock region and

112 The Lowry Ruin

now stored at Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona, I was struck with the
similarities in technique and design between Mancos black-on-
white and the wares from northwestern New Mexico. Indeed, when
classifying the sherds from Lowry Pueblo, I sometimes found it
difficult to decide whether a sherd was Mancos black-on-white, as
defined above, or Chacoan.

Such ambiguity might lead one to doubt the validity of the
Mancos classification as separate from the Chacoan.

In defense of my thesis of a common southern origin, however,
I can only state that, to me, Mancos black-on-white ware merely
manifests certain early, more or less unspecialized ceramic tendencies
which emanated from the Little Colorado-Puerco-Shiprock area.
This marked southern influence on northern pottery (and archi-
tecture?) has already been commented on by Kidder (1924, pp.
55-56, 68). In this northern area (southwestern Colorado and
southeastern Utah) the potters retained certain southern traits
which are called Chacoan and perhaps originated others, thereby
producing what is now termed Mancos black-on-white ware. It is
entirely probable that McElmo black-on-white (formerly known as
Proto-Mesa Verde) grew out of this fusion of early, undifferentiated
Chacoan ceramic traits with local ceramic specializations.

In further defense and strengthening of my thesis (that is, the
northward diffusion of southern complexes), I call attention to the
occurrence at Lowry Pueblo of Chacoan masonry and a Great Kiva,
a type of building which is associated, so far as is known, only
with Chaco culture.

I do not mean to imply that there was any exodus from Chaco
Canyon northward of either peoples or cultural traits; for I believe
that the sites found there represent the remains of a highly special-
ized offshoot of generalized culture trends which were simultaneously
diffusing northward and eastward from a Little Colorado-Puerco
focus. This northward extension of southern tendencies brought
about the peculiar construction not only of Lowry Pueblo, but
probably also of Yucca House (near Cortez, Colorado), Pipe Shrine
House (Mesa Verde National Park), Yellow Jacket Spring Ruin
(near Yellow Jacket, Colorado), and many other unnamed sites.

The graphs presented register the rise and ebb of various
wares from the time the site was first inhabited until it was
deserted. They also demonstrate that:

(1) All-over indented-corrugated pottery increases steadily from
zero or almost zero at the base of the refuse areas to 40 or 50 per cent;

Pottery op^ Lowky PuEr.Lo

11:5

(2) Basket Maker III and Pueblo I pottery represent a fair
percentage of the total sherds at the bottom of the refuse heaps
and thereafter quickly decline to zero;

(3) Mancos black-on-white is present from earliest times, rising
and then gradually decreasing in percentage;

"VMWiVMWli

*• ■■■■nil

nmr

.^^wp^y*^

m

--^

"^'^mmftmrnA

Fig. 47. Potsherds of plain corrugated ware.

(4) Chacoan pottery, as represented by Wingate black-on-white,
is important and follows more or less closely the vicissitudes of the
Mancos pottery;

(5) McElmo black-on-white rises gradually from nearly zero in
the lower or lowest portions of the refuse areas and precedes
Mesa Verde black-on-white (Fig. 43).

114 The Lowry Ruin

The graphs as well as the appended tables clearly indicate the
abundance of pottery from the Chaco branch (that is, Red Mesa
and Wingate black-on-white) and the presence of wares from the
Kayenta area.

I doubt whether the Kayenta culture influenced Lowry Pueblo
either architecturally or ceramically; but I have no doubt what-
soever concerning the influence of the Chaco branch on Lowry
architecture and ceramics. As stated elsew^here (Chapters II and VI),
some of the pueblo contains typical Chacoan masonry as well as
rooms, the dimensions of which are certainly similar to those of
the larger Chacoan pueblos. Whether or not the Red Mesa and
Wingate black-on-white wares were actually manufactured at Lowry
and not introduced through trade, can not be decided without a
petrographic analysis of the pottery — a task not yet started.

The graph (Fig. 43) for Room 8 indicates that the refuse fortui-
tously located under the floor is older than that of the lowest stratum
in either Room 28 (Fig. 44) or the refuse area west of Rooms 4
and 28 (Fig. 45).

VI. LOWRY RUIN AS AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
OF SOUTHWESTERN MASONRY

BY

Lawrence Roys

In piecing together the prehistory of the American Southwest,
the study of its architecture has played an important part. Natu-
rally, general design has ranked first in the field of architectural
analysis, and the treatment of detail from the esthetic point of view
appears to hold second place. Somewhat in contrast with the
attention given to these features is the comparative lack of study
and effort expended upon the technique that was used by the masons
who actually quarried and laid the stone.

This seeming neglect of one branch of architecture has not been
without cause. Recently, new methods and evidence have demon-
strated that the well-known pre-Columbian ruins show a rapid archi-
tectural development covering a period when Southwestern culture
was coming into full flower; and it is natural that such discoveries
should have temiporarily crowded aside less spectacular techniques.
Also, and more important, the fluent character of the general
design and the craftsmanship during this period of development
has m.ade analysis difficult. These builders were flexible enough in
their methods to respond to variation of environment, notwithstand-
ing the fact that they showed at least normal persistence in main-
taining habits and customs over long periods; and it is no easy
task to judge which traits in the mason's craft are due principally
to environment, and which are to be accredited to guild knowledge
slowly accumulated and transmitted from master to apprentice.
Here the archaeologist faces a truly difficult problem.

Since the progress in excavating Lowry ruin emphasized the
situation just outlined, it seemed desirable that this archaeological
project should include an attempt to analyse the mason's technique
as exemplified there. This attempt was made, and as a first step
a method was devised for rather exactly observing and recording
details as to the manner in which stone was shaped and laid in mud-
mortar. We believe that this analytical work and the report of it
that follows is a conservative and constructive step forward.

As might be expected, we next tried to compare the techniques of
Lowry ruin with other masonry of the San Juan district in the hope
that this comparison would contribute toward the reconstruction

115

116 The Lowry Ruin

of the historical picture of the Southwest. While it was easy to
confirm the close relationship between early Lowry masonry and
that in Chaco Canyon and at Aztec, we can claim little success as to
the last-mentioned objective. We soon found that there were so
few descriptions of Southwestern masonry on record (even including
that by Hawley, 1934) that a comparative study was out of the
question. Due to the lack of data we were obliged to drop this
objective. In this chapter, however, will be given an account of
our manner of working and of our preliminary deductions. We
hope that these will be of use to other observers. But first we
shall present, in formal fashion, a study of the situation and a
comiparison of the two most important types of masonry found at
Lowry ruin.

Masonry Analysis at Lowry Ruin

The appearance of a primitive wall of any sort is an invitation to
the student to speculate upon its anthropological meaning. At its
poorest, a wall represents the solution of a definite mechanical
problem; while in its better and m.ore advanced forms it may easily
illustrate a number of the principles that anthropologists are trying
to clarify. It n ay be of mud, of stone, of wood, or of a combination
of these elements; and it is fundam.entally so simple a device that its
structure sometimes indicates little of interest. However, it usually
so happens that there are many possible ways of combining the ma-
terials at hand into a wall. Thanks to this situation, it is often pos-
sible to see in the technique of wall-building a reflection of the mental
traits of the builders, and in some cases we can go further and accur-
ately trace cultural history, somewhat as has been done with pottery
in recent years.

It would be a mistake to imply that most of the principles of
pottery study can be taken over bodily by the masonry student. In
wall-building, the materials at hand usually showed greater varia-
tion than the potter's clay of a region, and consequently there was
less chance for masonry technique to become stereotyped. On the
other hand, the prim.itive mason was unconsciously held within
certain limats by the m.echanical principles of stability, strength of
materials, and the necessity for an adequate area of cross section to
support the weight borne (for discussion of this last problem of bear-
ing area, see Roys, 1934). Also he was influenced, probably more
consciously, by the factors that affected the tightness and permanence

Introduction to Study of Southwestern Masonry 117

of his structures. These things made him realize that change was
apt to end in failure. He was urged on by the necessity of utilizing
available material and helped by a slow native inventiveness, and
yet was held back by all the usual forces of conservatism. Between
these opposing influences, he unconsciously worked out the course
of his masonry development.

As we apply such general principles to the San Juan drainage
basin of the American Southwest, we immediately meet with exam-
ples of masonry that arouse our admiration, and with contrasts in
methods of using stone and mud that challenge us for an explanation.
Outstanding in this archaeological field is the highly specialized use
of slablike stones found at Chaco Canyon and Aztec in New Mexico.
We find there a fully developed style that not only embodies certain
structural principles but also strongly emphasizes them in the exter-
nal appearance of the walls. Chacoan masonry is truly beautiful and
was laid by master workmen. Its character is so pronounced that it
is recognizable wherever it appears even in modified form, and no
critic has yet expressed doubts of the close relationship of the periph-
eral examples to the central stem. Wherever Chaco masonry
appears, the archaeologist can safely say that the people who built
in such a manner were culturally related to the master builders of
Chaco Canyon.

In contrast to this peculiar technique in stone work are many
examples of masonry in the San Juan district that are specialized
only to a very moderate degree. Nevertheless, even such examples
show tendencies toward specialization that are too consistent to be
accidental, and seem to point out probable cultural relationships.
Some of them are distinguished by earmarks which render classifi-
cation comparatively easy, although none compare with Chaco in
this respect. Others are hard to classify, even when the observer
stands before the actual wall in the field; and many seem to defy
analytical description and satisfactory note-book recording. How-
ever, these evidences are far too valuable to be overlooked, and it is
important that a method of record and classification be worked out
that allows the student to competently record, sort, and compare
material. To this task, the Field Museum Expedition addressed
itself during the summer of 1934, and the results are formulated in
the following pages.

Of course, a study of the manner of making observations is a dif-
ferent matter from historical and archaeological interpretation of
accumulations of data. The former is merely a means to an end, but

118 The Lowry Ruin

certainly is far from unimportant. In writing this chapter, I am
therefore emphasizing every factor that I can which would seem to
awaken interest in observational technique; and I think I am fully
justified in doing this, as up to the present time the many other
phases of Southwestern culture have crowded far ahead of the details
of its masonry. In this particular branch of investigation, our cry-
ing need is for workable data; and as soon as these accumulate in
reasonable quantity, much of the story of masonry development in
the Southwest will tell itself.

The use of Lowry ruin for this study was very fortunate. To
find two clearly distinct types of technique almost side by side in
the same pueblo was a great advantage, and it enabled us to proceed
much more rapidly and surely than we could possibly have done, had
we been obliged to compare two or more sites far apart. Had we
happened to commence this work of masonry analysis at a ruin
where distinct types were absent, and only blends and sub-types
were evident, we could easily have spent a full season in groping
toward premises and conclusions which were clearly evident at Lowry
ruin after a few days of study. Furthermore, Lowry offered some
obscure miodifications and a number of examples that were disguised
by later repair, and these served the purpose of testing the validity
and workability of our conclusions and our methods. In looking
back over the archaeological situation pictured by this ruin, I now
see that Dr. Martin's hope that positive results might easily follow
an intensive masonry analysis was based upon promising evidence
and was far from a wild guess.

The positive results consist in the identification of two different
and distinct types of masonry. One of these types is a highly special-
ized technique in quarrying stones and building them into walls— so
highly specialized that we believe that wherever it may be found we
can reasonably consider it as evidence of a single basic culture. This
is the technique that is found in its most perfected form at Chaco
Canyon and at Aztec, although it did not necessarily originate there.

The second type might be called non-Chaco and is not so highly
specialized. We cannot, therefore, conclusively attribute it to a
single culture, although it may valuably confirm other methods of
linking ancient peoples or events concerning them. Its occurrence
strongly suggests that its users were not members of the Chaco cul-
ture. We are convinced that further study of this general type will
result in the isolation and identification of sub-types which will cer-
tainly be valuable in pointing out tendencies, and it is probable that

Introduction to Study of Southwestern Masonry 119

at least one or two of these sub-types will prove to be highly enough
specialized to link together positively the peoples that used them.

Below is given a detailed description of each of the two types,
and this is followed by a more easily visualized summary arranged
in comparative form. The summary is given in the hope of encourag-
ing a reader to persevere beyond the intricate descriptions immedi-
ately following.

lowry chaco-like masonry technique
(Plates XXII-XXVI)

(1) The quarry man loosened flat stones from well-laminated
deposits of sandstone and these provided reasonably flat upper and
lower horizontal surfaces for each wall stone. In the wall, the stones
were practically always laid with these surfaces horizontal. Thick-
nesses ranged from less than an inch up to 5 inches with an average
of about 23^2 inches. The length averaged a foot more or less, while
the depth varied. Each wall stone had at least one vertical face
(intended to serve as the wall face) which was approximately
flat and rectangular, and this was sometimes a natural cleavage and
sometimes a break made by the quarry man or mason. The remain-
ing vertical sides were very roughl}^ shaped, and less than one stone
in four had an approximately rectangular appearance in plan view
(looking down upon it).

(2) Subsequent tooling was normally absent in this technique.
Of course the stones were crudely broken to size and shape, and pos-
sibly some chipping or knocking off of corners was done to make the
exposed vertical face appear rectangular. However, the wall stones
which we took down and examined were far too rough to be classed
as hewn stone. The "dimpling" with a pecking stone that is common
on the more block-like masonry of this neighborhood appears only
on stones that we consider abnormal to this flat stone technique, and
we consequently suspect that such dimpled stones were re-used, after
having been quarried and finished for earlier walls by workmen of a
different culture.

(3) The coursing was always pronounced. The use of flat slabs
of stone invited the mason to build his walls in layers, but it hardly
compelled him to pay as much attention to evening his courses as is
usually found in this technique. We therefore decided that these
masons had, at the time these walls were laid, a distinct "feeling" for
coursing, and that this is a characteristic of the culture regardless of
the shape of the stones.

120 The Lowry Ruin

(4) The flat stones were always laid in a substantial bed of mud.
Varying from % inch to a full inch in thickness, this averaged fully
^4 inch. Just as modern brickwork is a specialized technique of
embedding flat blocks in a mortar that is much weaker than the
blocks, so we found here a technique where slabs of stone are con-
sistently embedded between thick cushions of mud.

(5) The spalls used in this technique were always flat flakes of
stone M to J-^ inch thick, and from the size of a playing-card down
(Fig. 4, e). They always had at least one straight side which was
laid about flush with the visible face of the wall. These spalls were
invariably laid in a peculiar manner. They seldom touched the
stone below them or the stone above, but were embedded between
cushions of mud above and below just like the wall stones. This
mud cushion was usually about a third as thick as the mud cushion
mentioned above, but the technique was practically identical. Fur-
thermore, these spalls did not extend back into the wall the full
depth of the wall stones, but only about one-quarter as deep, and
often less. The spalls were laid in the courses as the wall progressed
upward, and were not inserted into the joints after the completion
of a part or the whole of the wall. Back of the spalls, the mud cush-
ions just mentioned in Item 4 filled in all the space between the wall
stones, and transmitted the load borne by the center of the wall.

(6) The core or hearting of this type of wall was chiefly well-
puddled mud, although it might contain more or less stone. Regard-
less of the proportion of rough broken stone in the core, the laminated
nature of the wall (shown on the surface by the distinct courses) was
maintained to some extent in the center of the wall. Irregular flat
stones horizontally laid in the mud core were usual, while irregular
jagged stones that would spoil the coursing were much less usual.

LOWRY BLOCK-LIKE MASONRY TECHNIQUE (NON-CHACO)

(Plates XXVII-XXVIII)

(1) The quarryman furnished the mason with rather block-like
stones, and, when seen in the finished wall, these appear to have been
roughly squared on all sides. Actually, only the exposed faces were
squared; and the sides concealed by mud mortar were left pretty
irregular. They ranged from 2 to 5 inches thick ordinarily (with
occasional stones 6 or 7 inches thick) and averaged 33^ inches. The
thicker stones averaged 10 inches in length and the thin ones were
shorter. The plentiful supply and use of smaller stones brought the
average thickness down to a lower figure than the photographs suggest.

Introduction to Study of Southwestern Masonry 121

In contrast to the stones found in Lowry Chaco-like walls, the
quarryman took little pains to select stones whose upper and lower
surfaces were flat and horizontal. Apparently, a flat rectangular
vertical face was his principal objective, and he was content with
rough and irregular upper and lower faces. He seems only to have
demanded fairly straight upper and lower edges of the visible vertical
face. The mason who laid the stones in the wall evidently took over
the burden of compensating for crudeness in the quarrying. He
even accepted stones whose upper surfaces (supporting the wall
above) sloped outward and downward fifteen or twenty degrees from
the horizontal, and laid the course on top of them so cleverly that the
wall did not slide down this precarious slope.

(2) The visible vertical face of each stone was normally tooled
with a pecking stone to approximate flatness — "dimpled," as the
operation has been named. The unexposed faces were roughly broken
to shape as mentioned above. We found isolated instances of the
visible vertical faces being rubbed smooth in addition to the dimpling
and this may have been a variation of this technique. However, I
suspect that rubbing was an evidence of intrusion, or possibly of
re-use of stones from earlier walls. We need more data on this point.

(3) Coursing was usually present to some degree, but it appeared
to be only such coursing as was naturally incidental to the use of
rectangular-faced blocks, and the crude leveling off of the wall at
intervals as at the close of the day's work. I could see no "feeling"
for coursing in this technique.

(4) We made a careful analysis of the interior wall construction
by unlaying typical portions, and this showed plenty of mud mortar
throughout, whose function was primarily to fill the voids, and only
secondarily to help carry the load of the wall. Normally there
was stone-to-stone contact which transmitted the bulk of the load,
either wall stone to wall stone directly, or through a strategically
placed spall. The walls were laid according to the technique of dry-
laid masonry' and would stand up to a considerable extent if the mud
filler were entirely washed away.

(5) Two entirely separate classes of spalls were much used in this
technique. Within the wall were incorporated jagged stone frag-

' "Dry-laid masonry" or "dry masonry" is stone work laid up without any
mortar or other filler between the stones, and consequently stone-to-stone contact
is found throughout such a wall. In referring to "the technique of dry-laid
masonry," we mean that the position of the stones in a wall and the stone-to-
stone contact are practically the same as if no mortar was used. This phrasing
accurately describes certain types of masonry even though it is actually laid up
in mud.

122

The Lowry Ruin

merits of irregular shape that touched both the wall stones above
them and those below. These transmitted downward the pressure
due to the weight of the wall (as described in the preceding para-
graph), and we have called them "true-bearing" spalls. Apparently
after the wall was completed, an additional outside coat of mud was
applied to the gaps between the wall stones to even up the face of
the wall. It was customary to insert in the larger joints a wedge-
shaped stone of about the size of one's thumb, after the lump of mud
was applied. This wedge did not ordinarily touch the adjoining wall
stones, but merely served to swell the mud mortar against the wall
stones. We have called these stone wedges "false" spalls (Fig. 4, d).
(6) The core or hearting of this type was usually a mass of irreg-
ular rock fragments laid in well-puddled mud (i.e. ordinary modern
rubble). In unlaying such a wall we generally found that jagged
projections from rocks forming the core reached upward and down-
ward in such a way as to discourage the mason from perfecting the
tendency toward coursing that was a natural accompaniment of the
use of rectangular-faced stones.

SUMMARY

Lowry Chaco-like

(1) Wall stones were thin slabs from
well-laminated ferruginous sandstone
deposits. The edge forming visible wall
face was straight, but the rest of the
stone was very irregular.

(2) The untooled, transverse vertical
cleavage of the thin slab was flat
enough to form the wall face. Corners
of the stone within the wall were left
irregular, or crudely broken off.

(3) A pronounced tendency toward
laying walls in courses is noticeable.

(4) Each stone was laid in a sub-
stantial bed of mud. Consequently,
the strength and permanence of the
walls were mainly dependent upon the
successful use of mud mortar.

(5) The spalls were always flat, thin
flakes of stone set in the masonry joints
close to the face of the wall. They
were laid as the wall progressed up-
ward. These spalls, together with the
thin mud cushions embedding them,
served as a dam or stop when the wall
was built and prevented the thick
interior layers from being pressed out.

(6) Throughout the wall core is
found the same tendency toward
coursing that appears on the outer face
of the wall.

Lowry Non-Chaco or Block-like

(1) More block-like stones were taken
from thicker, calcareous sandstone
deposits. One flat rectangular side was
to serve as the wall face. The stones
buried in the wall were irregularly faced.

(2) The visible faces of many wall
stones were dimpled with a pecking
stone to approximate flatness. Corners
of the stones within the wall were left
irregular or crudely shaped.

(3) Such coursing as is found appears
to have been purely incidental to the
use of rectangular-faced stones.

(4) Mud mortar was invariably used,
but its function was primarily to close
the voids between the stones, and only
secondarily to give strength to the
masonry.

(5) Two classes of spalls are found:
(a) stone fragments which prop the
individual wall stones firmly in position
regardless of the strength value of the
mud mortar; and (6) stone wedges that
were inserted as spreaders in the lumps
of soft mud that were applied after the
wall was finished to fill up the joints and
even off the wall surface.

(6) The wall core consists of rough
rubble irregular vertically as well as hori-
zontally, indicating that the mason had
little idea of laying the stones in courses.

Introduction to Study of Southwestern Masonry 123

These descriptions are slightly generalized to emphasize the
types, and to allow them to be visualized. However, they are substan-
tially correct, and the variations from them that we found at Lowry
ruin are of subordinate nature.

The classification of masonry purely by description in such elab-
orate detail is likely to prove a weak method when variations of type
are encountered and where blends of technique require reconcilia-
tion, I feel that the more difficult problems in this line can only be
met successfully if one has a fairly complete insight into the prin-
ciples involved in the m.ason's technique. These principles are both
ethnological and mechanical. Esthetic and other ethnological values
are factors which I cannot and need not discuss, but the situation
warrants a closer study of the mechanical principles of wall-building
than is to be found easily in archaeological literature. Here, I take
the liberty of inserting such a study with the idea of its serving as
groundwork for the more intensive study of ruins.

The Mechanics and Principles of Wall-Building

There are tv/o basically different types of primitive walls, and
these are so familiar that their mere mxention gives at once an analyti-
cal key:

Mud Walls

Stone Walls Laid Up Dry

The value of mud lies principally in its suitability in plastic
form for wall-building^ and the strength and permanence of the fin-
ished monolith made of it. It is needless to point out that a special-
ized technique was a natural accompaniment to the use of mud to
form a monolith. For instance, too wet mud will not stand up,

1 Mud walls might be subdivided as follows: (a) walls of a plastic material,
applied like modern concrete or mortar to the monolith under process of construc-
tion; (6) walls of soft "turtle-backs" or moist masses of mud laid individually
in position and pressed or paddled down into place; and (c) walls of sun-dried
adobe blocks. Exemplifying (a) is Casa Grande in the Lower Gila in Arizona,
and Casas Grandes in Chihuahua. At these sites, the walls were made of plastic
material laid on in stiff wet masses forming courses a foot or two in height (letter
from E. B. Sayles to Dr. Martin. This letter corrects the account given by
Mindeleff in his Casa Grande report of 1896 where he says that forms were prob-
ably used). Each course was allowed to dry before the next was laid on.
For the "turtle-back" technique (b), see Kidder and Guernsey, 1919, p. 43, for
examples near Kayenta in northeastern Arizona. The use of sun-dried adobe
bricks (c) is mentioned by Mindeleff (1891) frequently, but his review of their
use on page 138 implies that they may be traced to the Spaniards. This by no
means exhausts constructive comment on mud walls. Alone they offer an interest-
ing and promising field for study.

124 The Lowry Ruin

while mud that is too dry cannot be properly applied, kneaded, and
formed to shape. Furthermore, mud walls by primitive people must
be built in layers to allow hardening with its consequent strength
before the mud is required to support the further weight of additional
wall material. In short, a specialized mental training must have
accompanied the use of monolithic mud walls, including an under-
standing of the strength of mud to withstand pressure or crushing
(i.e. compressive strength).

When a primitive mason undertook to build a wall of loose stones
without the use of mud or mortar, his point of view was radically
different from that of the workman who used a plastic material.
A pile of separate stones is a mechanically different device from the
low mud dam or rim that a savage would shape up to hold water in a
spring, and the difference was recognizable even to our primitive
wall builder. His first thoughts were of the shapes of the stones with
which he worked, and his problem was to place them stably and
firmly in the positions necessary to form a wall. Presumably he was
occupied by the quarrying and selection of individual stones, break-
ing them roughly to shape and possibly tooling them, fitting them
into his wall, and last but not least firmly wedging them into their
final position so that they would not slip out or rock and could not be
dislodged too easily. This last operation undoubtedly invited him
to use small fragments of rock to fill interstices, to give support at
critical points to stones that set unstably in the wall, and to wedge
wall stones firmly into their required position. In short, he sooner or
later developed a specialized technique whereby he was able to build
a stable wall in which each stone, large and small, was firmly held in
its place by touching the surrounding stones at a number of points,
and the weight of the wall itself was transmitted to the ground by
this same stone-to-stone contact. Such a wall is called dry rubble-
work, a class which still holds an important place in modern masonry.

With a thorough grasp of the difference in point of view of the
man who works primarily in a plastic material such as mud and the
man who works in stone without mud or mortar, I believe we are
equipped to attempt to observe more intelligently some of the tech-
niques using combinations of mud and stone. We can expand the
simple key just given by inserting two Intermediate types as follows:

Mud Walls-

Stones Embedded between Cushions of Mud

-Dry Masonnj Technique with Voids Filled with Mud-

Stone Walls Laid Up Dry

Introduction to Study of Southwestern Masonry 125

The dividing line between these two Intermediate types is quite
clear and depends on the answer to the question: Is stone-to-stone
contact (either directly from wall stone to wall stone or else through
intervening spalls that touch both wall stones) a prevalent feature;
or is there usually a mud cushion somewhat uniformly separating
the upper from the nether stone, unpierced by any jagged projection
that would give stone-to-stone contact?

If we find that a true mud cushion is the usual feature, we have
reason to believe that the mentality of the mason was not greatly
removed from that of the builder of mud walls. Such a wall of stone
and mud has only the load-carrying ability of the mud cushions that
support the stones. Therefore, the mason had to handle his mud
mortar competently if he were to succeed in building a good wall.
Undoubtedly he soon discovered that mud was capable of carrying
the heavy weight of a massive wall provided that he took the pre-
caution of distributing the weight uniformly over a considerable
area of mud. His understanding of the situation was probably sim-
ilar to that of the Eskimo regarding the use of the snowshoe, which
is a parallel case of spreading a load over a large area in order to
keep down the pressure on each square inch of area, and thus allow
a soft material to support a heavy load.

If a mud cushion is used between the stones, it is necessary to
keep the mud mortar very stiff so that most of it will not be pressed
out of the joint or else to form some sort of a dam or stop in the joint
at the wall face for the purpose of sealing in the bulk of the wet mud.
The latter course has often seemed the more desirable, and there is
more than one way of accomplishing it. European masons sometimes
use two kinds of mortar simultaneously, a stiff mortar placed as a
ribbon in the joint close to the wall face to form a stop, and a wetter
mortar applied in the center to form the cushion that carries the bulk
of the load. In pre-Columbian America, one school of masons — those
belonging to the Chacoan culture — solved this problem otherwise by
building into the horizontal joints near the surface a continuous dam
or stop consisting of small flakes of stone laid in mud. At Aztec,
we find this dam or stop made of stone flakes with so little mud that
there is practically a stone-to-stone contact supporting the load at
the wall face, but as this practice is otherwise closely associated with
flakes laid in mud for this purpose, and also because the center of the
wall is supported by mud cushioning, we unhesitatingly say that we
believe that the mason here thought in terms of mud cushioning
rather than along the lines of the methods used in dry masonry.

126 The Lowry Ruin

According to our observations, there was a strong tendency
toward the association of mud cushions with slab-Hke wall stones
taken from well-laminated beds of stone. Such stones usually have
flat and sm.ooth horizontal surfaces which make them especially
suitable to lay on a mud cushion. At Lowry ruin, and at some other
places as well, the builders who used mud cushions selected such
flat wall stones. At the same sites, other builders who depended on
stone-to-stone contact for the strength of their walls selected thicker
and more block-like stones from less lamJnated deposits. As the
same rock ledges and quarries of the neighborhood were available to
both types of mason, we have considerable groundwork for picturing
the mental slant of the artisans who laid their stone in thick beds of
mud. The following points stand out:

(1) Like the builders of pure mud walls, they knew that the
strength and permanence of their walls depended primarily upon the
adequacy of the mud joints. To them, mud was a mortar and not
merely a filler.

(2) They knew the necessity of spreading the weights snowshoe-
like over a comparatively large area of mud, and consequently
showed a marked preference for stones with flat, horizontal surfaces.

(3) Rather than modify the idea of the thick mud cushion, they
used a special device to prevent the soft mud from exuding at the
wall face. At Lowry ruin, this was a miniature dam in the wall
joint composed of small flakes of stone laid in mud. Variations of
this device appear elsewhere.

It is hardly necessary to go into great detail to explain the second
Intermediate type, namely, "Dry Masonry Technique with Voids
Filled with Mud." Where there is enough stone-to-stone contact to
allow a good share of the wall to stand if all the mud were washed out
of it, we have found it to be a constructive working hypothesis to
assume that the mason understood the theory and practice of using
stone-to-stone contact, and that this understanding was a basic in-
fluence upon his technique. It does not follow that the mud had no
other value than that of a filler. After drying out, it acted as a sup-
porting cushion in case the weight of the wall crushed the contacting
points of the wall stones. Undoubtedly it also acted as a weak ce-
ment, and frequently served to bear up part of the weight of a stone
that was not fully wedged into place by spalls. However, in spite
of the importance of these other values, we were surprised in our
experience at Lowry ruin to find that this hypothesis proved so
workable as an aid to analyzing any particular wall.

Introduction to Study of Southwestern Masonry 127

At this point it is wise to review the use of spalls. At Lowry
ruin, these fragments of stone were put to three distinct uses, as
follows:

(1) In the Intermediate type of masonry just discussed, the mason
was accustomed to select a waste fragm.ent of the correct thickness to
prop a wall stone to its proper position when the irregularities of the
nether stone could not be utilized for this purpose. In other words,
the spall bore the load, and in this case we have consequently named
it a "true-bearing" spall. Such spalls are a necessity in rubble
masonry when laid up dry, and almost equally essential when laid up
in a weak mortar such as mud.

(2) In this same type of masonry we observed that it was usual
practice to smooth the walls by applying mud to the joints appearing
in the wall face after the wall was laid. If the joint was at all thick,
a wedge of stone was pressed into this mud appliqu^ and we have
designated this a "false" spall. Its insertion pressed the mud firmly
against the surrounding stones; it also replaced part of the shrinkable
mud with stone of unchanging volume, thus diminishing the total
shrinkage. It is difficult to say which was its primary purpose, but
I suspect the formiCr. It is just possible that such spalls had some
ornamental or traditional value. In any case they contributed prac-
tically nothing to the strength of the wall, and this is implied by the
term "false" spall. This practice of applying mud and false spalls
to the outside of the wall adds little if any strength, and I believe
should be thought of as a superficial variation, and not as a require-
ment for the general type.

(3) The third class of spall is called a "stop" spall. It has been
described in the previous classification of "Stones Embedded
between Cushions of Mud," and it needs no further discussion.

So far in our experience, the first two classes of spalls have been
confined to the class of masonry depending upon stone-to-stone con-
tact, and the third has been exclusively associated with stones
embedded in mud. I am inclined to think that this association is
likely to prevail in some degree wherever masonry composed of
stones and mud and spalls may be found; but, regardless of the cor-
rectness of this speculation, I feel sure that data on mud, stone, and
spalls over the entire field will yield very constructive results.

Most of the facts and logic marshalled so far have seemed to indi-
cate that a careful analysis of any particular mud masonry wall
should show that it lies clearly on one side or the other of the division
line drawn between mud and stone. This has proved true in a sur-

128 The Lowky Ruin

prisingly large number of cases, but can hardly be general, particu-
larly in the American Southwest, where we have these two technical
attitudes of wall-building side by side within a limited area. We
must therefore complete our key as follows:
Mud Walls — — — —

Stones Embedded hehccen Cvshions of Mud -^

Indeterminate Comhination of Stone and Mud

'Dry Masonry Technique uith Voids Filled with Mud

Stone Walls Laid Up Dry

This miiddle class is a necessary addition to take care of blends
that cannot be explained, and debatable borderline cases where we
only suspect the tendency. We do not yet know how wide or how
narrow it would become if our method of analysis were to be used
over the entire Southwest, but judging from Lowry ruin it might be
comparatively narrow. Where masonry analysis alone fails to show
the causes and tendencies of a puzzling blend, possibly its ante-
cedents may be solved by other methods such as age, stratification,
sherd association, etc.; and the blend may be correctl}^ fitted into
its proper place in the general masonry picture of the Southwest.

Summary

We have sought to extend the possibilities of classifying masonry
by means of seeking out certain mental tendencies of the mason,
and a simple restatement of our aim and the progress of our work is
in order.

A. Our aim is to find a workable classification of masonries that
will enable us to tie together similar cultures and to study traits.

B. Such classification obviously depends upon the isolation of
certain examples as typical, and upon success in working out a
usable description of each type.

C. Elaborate descriptions of masonry did not lead us to a satis-
factory and usable key. By this method of attack we found a multi-
plicity of details which was sometim.es contradictory and often
confusing. When we disregarded the details in order to clarify the
picture, we found that we had failed to construct an adequate basis
for sound classification.

D. Confronted by this diflRculty, we have digressed into a
study of the mechanical principles of wall-building, and devised a
plan of classification based largely upon the use which we found
of these mechanical principles in the four or five different kinds of

Introduction to Study of Southwestern Masonry 129

masonry confronting us at Lowry ruin. We have been pleased to
find that this method of classification proved to be not only work-
able, but, in most of our cases, easy.

The reader will easily appreciate that the purpose of this chapter
is solely to provide a method of classification and description of
Southwestern walls in order to extend our data. However, it may
be well to explain that I do not suggest that the masons necessarily
understood the principles of wall-building that have been mentioned.
The "understanding" of primitive peoples of the laws of nature is
of secondary importance here. Whether or not the ancient masons
had an inkling of cause and effect, the fact remains that their actual
performances had to conform to the mechanical considerations here
outlined. Wherever essential principles were violated at critical
points in the wall, the result was simple and sure: the wall failed
to stand. With modern knowledge, we can appreciate and analyze
situations where primitive mechanics and architects groped their
way; and, what is more to the point in archaeological research, we
can, by our use of this understanding, observe many useful details
that otherwise we might not notice. In short, by looking at this
masonry through the eyes of the modern engineer and physicist,
we are able to see more of the factors that acted as important controls
over ancient techniques, and thus to study these techniques more
intelligently. Intelligent analysis and recording of a pueblo wall
are difficult matters and we are indeed thankful for any helps that
physical laws can give us to improve our eyesight, and so to cut
some of the haze from the picture that we are trying to define.
Our experience along these lines at Lowry ruin was gratifying. There
were a number of walls that had seemed so difficult and misleading
that I classified them wrongly from the photographs, and even
when standing before them no member of our party was certain of
his judgment. After developing the methods outlined, we again
analyzed these walls; not only were the results consistent and satis-
factory to ourselves as clearly indicating certain traits, but our note-
book records (supplemented by photographs) were so clear that we
were able to satisfactorily re-visualize the walls when we came to
work up our notes after returning to Chicago. I believe this success
was due to:

(1) Ordinary external observations and the usual photographs.

(2) Unlaying the walls enough to examine their interior structure.

(3) Intensive study of the spalls and their uses.

(4) A clear-cut hypothesis regarding masonry technique.

130 The Lowry Ruin

To me, the last was far from the least important of the four tools
just listed. It gave a background against which to register our
observations and served as a measure in facilitating comparisons.
Fortunately, it was simple enough to be carried in one's mind and
used without effort, a most essential factor.

Regardless of the truth or falsity of any of our assumptions, we
have succeeded in getting records of the several different masonry
techniques uncovered at Lowry. What is more, our records show-
minor variations in these techniques, and with them we can do
analytical work in the laboratory as well as in the field. The disci-
pline is certainly applicable for any of the known masonries in the
San Juan district, and probably for a much wider field. If this
method of attack can be brought to bear on the various techniques
of the San Juan district, we shall certainly have a promising
amount of material available for laboratorj^ analysis; and the least
we can expect is that tendencies in masonry technique and traits
and even in general culture may be indicated. Furthermore, we
are not without the hope that such a studj^ of masonries may lead
to positive historical implications and reconstructions.

In closing this discussion, it should again be emphasized that
we do not imply that the masons who built the walls consciously
understood the principles that we find embodied in these walls. The
point is that certain natural laws acted as a control over their
actions whether they realized it or not. If we analyze their walls
with a full comprehension of these principles in our minds, we
notice details to which we should otherwise be blind. Some of
these details may be of no use to us, but some may give us a key to
knowledge that we badly need. Possibly the greatest promise lies
in the chance that through a broader and keener vision, we may
record facts that are purely incidental from a mechanical standpoint,
but that may later prove to be very important anthropologically.

Supplementary Notes

An informal account of our use at Lowry ruin of the principles
just explained will be profitable, and in this final division of the
chapter, a number of phases of the work will be discussed under
several headings.

WALL dissection AT LOWRY RUIN

I have already mentioned how puzzling and even deceptive we
found the evidence given by the exposed face of a wall. It was not

Introduction to Study of Southwestern Masonry 131

until we hit upon the idea of "dissecting" a wall that we began to
feel any degree of confidence in our judgment. This operation
immediately emphasized three things:

(1) That exposed rectangular faces of wall stones should not
be taken as an indication that the buried masses of the stones were
equally rectangular and block-like.

(2) That it was an important point in wall-building technique
whether the mason who built the wall depended upon the carrying
value (bearing strength) of the mud mortar, or whether he arranged
the stones in direct contact so that the wall would tend to stand,
regardless of whether or not it was well mudded.

(3) That the spalls in themselves usually told an interesting
story.

As to the first point, we were surprised to find how irregular
the inner surfaces of the stones proved to be. Of course the upper
and lower faces of the Chaco-like wall stones were plane and level
as that is an essential of the type, but the inner vertical faces were
irregular, and interfering corners were very crudely broken oft". In
the non-Chaco type of wall, almost all the inner faces were irregular,
and stones that showed any flat and rectangular inner faces v/ere
few. The usual contrast between the outward appearance of a wall
suggesting rectangular block-like construction throughout, and the
irregular interior was truly remarkable. In short, the outer appear-
ance of a standing wall was no index of its interior.

Regarding the second point, a monograph could easily be written.
However, at Lowiy, we were not thinking so much of monographs
as how to describe adequately and record the walls in front of us;
and when we found that the stones of a Chaco-like wall were almost
invariably supported by a cushion of mud mortar an inch thick more
or less, while many of the stones in walls of the Lowry non-Chaco
type were found to touch each other, our enthusiasm was based princi-
pally upon the fact that we had discovered a tangible and consistent
"earmark" that meant something in our notebook records. It seemed
to us then, and has seemed since, that the absence or presence of
stone-to-stone contact between wall stones occurred far too con-
sistently to be considered of minor incidental nature. The more we
worked with this factor, the more helpful it became to us. In closing,
I should mention that we worked out a homely formula forjudging
the strength value that stone-to-stone contact gave to a wall. It
consisted in asking ourselves this question: "If a fire hose giving
considerable volume of water at low pressure were played against

132 The Lowry Ruin

this wall until much of the mud mortar were washed away, how well
would the wall keep its original shape, and in what manner would
it fail?" We found that a serious attempt to answer this question
gave us not only a tangible comment on the manner in which the
wall stones functioned, but also an insight into the technique of the
mason who built the wall.

We also obtained important incidental information by so exam-
ining a wall. It practically forced us to note whether the mud mortar
was applied conscientiously or carelessly. It caused us to observe
more closely whether the hearting was of mud or of rubble, and, if
the latter, what kind of rubble. Most important of all, it focused
our observation on the manner in which the spalls functioned, and
this third subject deserves particular comment.

In many respects, the Southwestern mason was constrained to
modify his methods to suit the available material, but this probably
applies to spalls less than any other masonry detail. Chips of various
shapes and sizes were certainly handy to the wall builder and if we
find them assembled in the wall in a consistent, peculiar arrange-
ment, we are justified in crediting the mentality of the mason rather
than the geological environment for that arrangement. When used
as mortar the same may be said of mud to a considerable degree.
When we unlaid sections of wall at Lowry, we found that spalls were
used in the consistent and peculiar method just suggested, and that
the spalls and mud in the joints of the masonry gave promise of help-
ing to tell the story of the people who built the pueblo. The more
carefully we studied the matter, the more we were convinced that
we here have a factor useful both in classifying the masonry itself
and in tying certain styles of masonry together in a common culture.
Finally, these conclusions helped us greatly in our immediate problem
of writing down intelligible notes.

We did not neglect the outer appearance of the buildings in our
enthusiasm for taking them apart; far from it. However, with our
eyes opened to look for these three additional features mostly hidden
within the walls, we felt that our descriptions were comfortably with-
in the boundary that separates the adequate from the inadequate.
We believe that the matter presented in the chapter is on sound
ground, and invites analysis beyond our own.

In classifying the wall stones themselves we made an arbitrary
division of the mason's work; this division helped us, and it may be
worth mentioning here. We distinguished between the function of
the quarryman, that of the finisher or hewer of the stones, and that

Introduction to Study of Southwestern Masonry 133

of the mason who laid up the wall. For instance, we said of the non-
Chaco mason that he accepted anything within reason that was
handed to him. On the other hand, the Chaco-like mason accepted
only stones that conformed closely to a specified character. In other
cases we would remark that the quarryman was apparently unable
to get out stone that was up to the specifications for the desired style
and that it seemed to us that the style of finished wall was accordingly
modified. Of course, we have no reason to presume that there was
any such division of labor among the pueblo builders, and our arti-
ficial assumptions were probably overdrawn. However, there is
certainly a division of function within the mason's technique, and
this will be realized by the student of masonry.

So far, I have been reviewing the part of our field of study where
progress was satisfactory, but I must also discuss a feature which
shows the need of caution in drawing conclusions. Emphasis has
been laid on the fact that most of the walls studied were (roughly
speaking) either of flat stones laid between thick cushions of mud, or
of more jagged stones laid so as to touch each other after the manner
of "dry wall technique," with a filler of mud in the voids that was
incidental from the standpoint of strength. Our classification scheme
has suggested (although not stated) that the use of mud cushions
might be a cultural attribute persisting in a given school of masons
regardless of the character of the available stone. This is not nec-
essarily so. A flat stone from well-laminated beds lends itself to a
technique where mud cushions carry the load and transmit it down-
ward from course to course. However, if a stone with jagged lower
surface is substituted for a flat slab, the pointed and irregular pro-
jections pierce into the layer of mud mortar composing the joint,
and they are likely to make occasional stone-to-stone contacts with
the stone below. If the wall stones selected are jagged enough, these
stone-to-stone contacts will become sufficiently frequent to carry the
greater part of the wall load; and, from a cushion carrying this load,
the mud joint will consequently change to a mere mud filler of sec-
ondary importance to the strength of the wall.

In short, it must be borne in mind that the "mud cushion" of
itself is not an independent factor in masonry construction, but is
often linked with other factors. However, I can see no necessity of
going to the opposite extreme and concluding that it is a mere inci-
dent entirely dependent on other factors. It is so noticeable and
important a feature in technique, and its presence or absence has so
pronounced an effect on the character of the wall, that in my opinion

134 The Lowry Ruin

a school of masons who had once mastered its use and shown a pref-
erence for it would have been rather persistent in retaining it, even
though change in environment made it less necessary. For instance,
it would be possible for such a school of masons to hew their stone
with flatter horizontal faces if they wished to maintain their habit of
laying wall stones upon a mud support; or, as was more probably the
case, they could make special efforts to find quarries that produced
stone of a laminated character.

Regarding the use of the mud cushion for carrying loads, I wish
to emphasize the fact that in spite of its dependence upon other fac-
tors it probably can be handled to a considerable extent as a cultural
trait of the sort that often manifests persistence. Such a character-
istic as this cannot be used blindly by the archaeologist but requires
thoughtful application. When it is so treated, I believe that others
will find it helpful, as we did at Lowry.

SURFACE APPEARANCES

We have been emphasizing the anatomy of a wall's interior.
Its outer appearance is also important, but there is hardly need
for emphasis on study of external appearance, as it has been receiving
fairly adequate attention. However, Dr. Martin has used a propor-
tional count of wall stones according to size, as a help, and this has
proved a valuable check to classification work. Where the observer
wonders if he has correctly classified a diflficult wall, it is very reassur-
ing to find as a check that the proportion of large to small stones is
consistent with the type specimens. This test is also valuable as a
direct aid to classification.

Of course other features are evident on the face of a wall and
invite attention. As early an investigator as Victor Mindeleff com-
mented upon the banded effect found in the Chaco masonry and
remarked that "its decorative value began to be appreciated, for
it is apparent that its elaboration has extended far beyond the
requirements of mere utility." (Mindeleff, 1891, pp. 138-145.)
Mindeleff also notes the practice among other tribes of applying
coats of mud as a plaster over the masonry. This latter custom, and
the repair and refinishing of older walls by later masons who used a
different technique, were practices that give the modern archaeologist
reason to be wary in interpreting appearances. It is unnecessary
to review here the various features observable by merely looking at
a wall, but most of them bear on our classification problem and will
be taken into account by the serious student.

Introduction to Study of Southwestern Masonry 135

POSITIVE results OF WALL ANALYSIS

Any student who has read thus far will want to know just how
helpful the analysis of masonry proved to us in reconstructing the
history of Lowry jPueblo and its occupants. I shall try to
indicate this by listing the specific cases or problems concerning
which we turned to the masonry technique in search of enlighten-
ment, and by giving a brief description of the results obtained. In
following these, the reader should keep Figure 4 in mind. "Masonry
technique" does not here refer to the working out of sequences by
observation and analysis of the manner in which two walls join.
This is a different method of approach and will be referred to as
"wall abutment analysis."

(1) The correlation of Room 18 with the Great Kiva is based
almost entirely on study of masonry techniques as there are no tree
ring dates for either Room 18 or Kiva F, the walls of which interlock
at the point of juncture. Nor are there walls connecting this room
with the nucleus in such a manner that the wall abutments reveal
a probable building sequence. The walls of both Room 18 and
Kiva F, and those of the Great Kiva were of the same Chaco-like
technique laid up with mud cushions and stop spalls in the typical
Chaco-like manner. However, they constituted a special case,
characterized by a heavy percentage of block-like, dimpled stones
of a non-Chaco character as well as slabs with chipped edges. This
peculiar combination can hardly be a coincidence, and it warrants
the conclusion that both structural units belong to the same period.
As the Great Kiva is dated A.D. 1086 by eight of its wooden beams,
we feel that Room 18 and Kiva F take a date very close to this.

It should be noted that we did not find justification for corre-
lating Room 18 and Kiva F with the nucleus. The latter is the
type case for the pure Chaco-like technique at Lowry, while the
former is an easily distinguishable variation.

(2) The workmanship of the nucleus is exceptional and would
do credit to a modern mason except that there is no consistent
breaking of joints (Plate XXII). In contrast, are all the other
structures shown in the second addition (Plates XXIX-XXXI), inas-
much as their masonry is comparatively rough, and devoid of
neatness of workmanship found in the nucleus. Casual inspection
suggests that these two kinds of masonry are not closely related,
but dissection of the walls tells a different story and shows con-
clusively that they all have in common the Chaco-like mud cushions
between the stones, and stop spalls that were laid into the joints

136 The Lowry Ruin

as each course was erected. These highly specialized characteristics
place them all in the same class in spite of outward appearances.
It is interesting to find this confirmed by the closeness of the tree
ring dates of the Great Kiva (A.D. 1086) to those of the nucleus
(A.D. 1090).

(3) The square about Kiva B was very puzzling. The masonry
technique appeared entirely Chaco-like (Plates XXV-XXVI). The
coursing is very noticeable, and, on the whole, the stones are con-
sistently thin and slab-like. Few are dimpled. In the summer of
1934 we did not know whether to put this earlier or later than
Room 18, but our problem was solved in the autumn when we
received the report that the tree ring data from Room 27 definitely
dated that structure A.D. 1104. This part of the ruin was a problem
that the study of masonry technique failed to solve, although I
believe it helped to clear away some of the fog.

Digressing for a moment from this numbered list, I will say that
the receipt of the dendrochronological results gave such satisfactory
data on the correlation of the Great Kiva, the nucleus, and the
square about Kiva B that the need for intensive exploitation of the
masonry traits for that purpose almost vanished. With these key
points and Room 18 correlated, the remainder of the problem of
room sequence was comparatively simple.

(4) The walls of Rooms 11, 12, and 14 abut the east side of
the nucleus and therefore obviously follow it. However, it was first
from comparative masonry technique that we also decided that
these three rooms were built later than the original square about
Kiva B. The walls are of blocks rather than slabs and it was obvious
that they usually make stone-to-stone contact (Plate XXIX).
Chaco-like stop spalls are absent and in their place are some true-
bearing spalls and many false spalls. I believe it unlikely that
these non-Chaco walls were built during the same occupation of
the pueblo as the structures shown in the first addition (Fig. 53, h).
Even if I am mistaken, the marked change in masonry traits shows
that considerable disturbances of the culture of these builders
occurred at this time. Subsequently, by means of a very intricate
analysis of the several wall abutments joining Kiva B to the nucleus,
Dr. Martin confirmed the theory that these rooms followed the
square about Kiva B ("x" area).

(5) Wall abutment evidence clearly shows that Rooms 4, 5, 6,
and 20 followed the nucleus. They are non-Chaco in masonry
technique and similar to Rooms 11, 12, and 14, so it is natural to

Introduction to Study of Southwestern Masonry 137

assign them to approximately the same period (Fig. 53, c). Of
course the wall abutments and the outlying position of both these
groups suggested that they were later additions long before we
applied to them the test of masonry technique. There is a scant
sprinkling of Chaco-like stop spalls in some of the walls of Rooms
4, 5, 6, and 20 which suggests that these rooms were not quite
contemporaneous with Rooms 11, 12, and 14, where few were
observed. However, this is only a suggestion, not a conclusion.

(6) Kiva D has inter-pilaster shelves exactly like Kiva B, and
the masonry technique of the two kivas is almost identical. We
therefore assign both kivas to the same period.

(7) Study of the wall abutments of Rooms 16, 22, 23, 24, and
25 shows continuous interlocking with each other and with Kiva D.
Consequently, we consider the entire group of the same period
to which we have just assigned Kiva B and Kiva D. I found in
Room 16 many Chaco-like characteristics although in general
appearance it is not entirely Chaco-like. I am therefore inclined to
assign this room and those adjoining to a time rather close to that
of the first addition (Fig. 53, 6). This conclusion is emphasized
by the fact that Kiva B and Kiva D themselves are both built
of masonry that is close to the definition of Chaco-like.

(8) In short, a study of the masonry techniques tends to place
the groups just discussed in the following order: first. Cases 6 and
7 (just given); and later, Cases 5 and 4. As Case 5 shows some
trace of Chaco technique while Case 4 shows none, there is a sug-
gestion that Case 4 followed Case 5.

These eight cases give a fair picture of the value of intensive
masonry analysis at Lowry. It gave us definite help in some cases.
In others, it was sometimes constructively suggestive and some-
times confirmatory of other methods of investigation. In some
cases it was disappointing. I feel sure that it would have been of
more help to us if we had possessed a background of data from
other sites, but on the whole we have reason to be thankful for
the help that it gave.

Aside from the use of these intensive analyses as an aid to his-
torical reconstruction, it seems to me that the studies of the traits
themselves give more than an inkling of the mentality of the peoples
who practiced them. In every examination that I made of masonry
in the San Juan district, the personality of the individual mason
who laid the stone appeared to be reflected to some degree in the
present standing wall. Dr. Martin has interpreted the cultural

138 The Lowry Ruin

background of Lowry Pueblo as one of change and possibly turmoil.
This is the exact situation that was pictured by the masonry study
alone, just as soon as the tree ring evidence made it clear that so
much of the architectural history of the complex was compressed
within so short a space of time.

There is one point that I cannot omit, although the evidence
is limited. In Case 1 we mentioned that there were incorporated
in the Chaco-like technique of the Great Kiva, Room 18, and
Kiva F some block-like wall stones dimpled with a pecking stone
and displaying technique unlike the typical Chaco-like examples.
These dimpled stones were probably re-used, and this supposition
was borne out by our finding in the wall, half of such a stone with
the fractured end placed outward and serving as part of the wall
face. Dimpled sides of this stone were buried in the wall but the
exposed end was not dimpled, so there is no question as to the re-
use of this particular stone. From the presence of many such
dimpled block-like stones used secondarily in our earliest Chaco-like
walls (dated a.d. 1086) there is an obvious deduction; namely, that
a pueblo of some size and presumably of non-Chaco nature preceded
the pueblo pictured in Figure 53, a, and was completely razed
before or during the erection of the latter pueblo, whose ruins we
know.

POSSIBLE SOURCES OF MASONRY TRAITS

This chapter has touched upon three phases of masonry, namely:

A. Methods of classifying and describing it.

B. Its application to the architectural history of Lowry ruin.

C. The suggestion that the study of masonry traits may prove
fruitful in itself due to their ability to reflect cultural permanence
or change.

There is a possibility that masonry may reflect a fourth phase
(D) which will take much more than a line to describe, and which
I shall now outline.

In presenting phase A, I explained that the grouping was for
classification purposes only, and implied neither cultural nor his-
torical significance. Its value was based solely on workability.
The applications in phase B were confined to the immediate and
tangible problems of Lowry ruin. However, in working out these
phases, I was struck by the way in which they pointed to a rational
explanation, and I present this now as a hypothesis, although I am
aware of the need for caution in rationalizing human development.

Introduction to Study of Southwestern Masonry 139

Throughout this study two opposing traits of wall-building
stand out: (1) Mud Cushioning, or the use of mud as a mortar
supporting the stones and the wall above it. Where this trait is
pronounced, the wall is no stronger than a wall built almost entirely
of mud. (2) Stone-tG-Stone Contact, or dependence upon wall stones
or spalls to carry the load of the wall above each stone. This trait
is best exemplified in a dry wall. Where this technique prevails,
mud or other mortar, if used at all, is primiarily a filler.

For anyone who has seen occasional stones or even gravel in-
corporated in a mud wall, it is very easy to assume that the
trait of m.ud cushioning goes lineally back to an all-mud wall.
With this in mind, it takes no stretch of the imagination to complete
the hypothesis by ascribing masonry walls showing stone-to-stone
contact to a continuous tradition originating in dry walls laid up
without mortar of any sort. This suggestion that these two styles
of wall-building were fairly continuous, independent traits is the
fourth phase D and it seems to come spontaneously out of this
masonry study. If enough data should be found to confirm it, we
shall be able to analyze a wall, link it with certain cultures, and
use the results in historical reconstruction. In any case we can
use even present results for a pointer as to which direction it will
pay to look in search of more data.

It is not difficult to find evidence supporting the first part of
this hypothesis. There are enough remains of early adobe or caliche
construction in the Southwest to allow us to presuppose that it was
the building medium of some of the important pueblo peoples; e.g.
Casa Grande and other Lower Gila sites, and Casas Grandes in
Chihuahua (Kidder, 1924, pp. 106, 113, and 115), and the adobe
remains spread over Utah (Kidder, 1924, p. 80). That people using
mud as building material did not hesitate to combine it with wood
is shown by the remains of stake walls covered with mud at Casa
Grande (Fewkes, 1912, plate 26), and other cases where adobe has
been reinforced with sticks or brush. This takes us a move beyond
our basic mud stem.

Mr. Harold S. Gladwin has kindly given us photographs of his
recent excavations at Red Mesa near Gallup, New Mexico, and a story
of masonry evolution is told in the descriptions alone of the photo-
graphs. Space does not permit us to reproduce the photographs;
therefore I list the descriptions in chronological order:

(1) View of a mud wall containing a few medium-sized stones
or boulders well scattered.

140 The Lowry Ruin

(2) View of similar wall in the same structure reinforced with
brush -and-pole framework (the photograph has the notation "wind-
break extension similar to those in Gila Basin.").

(3) View of a mud wall with a course of large untooled boulders
supplemented by a few stone slabs at a moderate height above the
base of the wall.

(4) View of mud walls with a course or two of thin sandstone
slabs inserted at a moderate height above the base of the wall
(House 1).

(5) View of a mud wall with six or more rows of thin sandstone
slabs laid in courses and beginning at the same height as before.
A mud cushion almost as thick as the slabs appears clearly between
the courses (House 2).

(6) View of slab masonry wall laid above a mud wall. The
masonry is entirely of stone slabs carelessly laid in mud and poorly
coursed. However, a fairly straight face as a whole is maintained
in the wall.

No scale is shown on the photographs but I judge that in each
case the course or courses of stone begin about two feet above floor
level. The first two houses are dated a.d. 850 plus(?); the next two,
A.D. 850-900; the fifth, A.D. 900 plus(?); and the last, a.d. 950.
I infer that these are tree ring dates, and it is evident that Mr. Glad-
win has formed an opinion regarding the time sequence of these
walls. (His report on Red Mesa is in preparation.) Here is evident
a series of steps that almost connects our mud stem with the Chaco-
like technique of Lowry ruin and the more classic examples at Aztec
and at Chaco Canyon. After Red Mesa, it only required refine-
ment in the coursing and the invention of stop spalls to produce
the finest masonry of the Southwest. Dr. Martin first called my
attention to Mr. Gladwin's photographs and their relation to our
Chaco-like masonry. He writes me further that "these Red Mesa
houses were probably built by the ancestors or forerunners of the
people who built the Chacoan part of Lowry, for it is from this
region (near Gallup, New Mexico) that we believe that the Chacoan
culture spread north to Lowry and east to Chaco Canyon."

We now turn to a search for data that may help us to recon-
struct the probable history of the use of stone in pre-Columbian
architecture either without mud mortar or with mud playing the
secondary role of a mere filler. I have found almost no evidence
connecting stones laid absolutely dry with our earlier peoples, but
this is to be expected. Such remains must have proved convenient

Introduction to Study of Southwestern Masonry 141

quarries for succeeding generations; also, such earlier architectural
efforts were probably at or below ground level where the interstices
would be naturally filled in, regardless of the builders' plans. Many
of the Basket Maker cists and pit-houses probably fall in this last
group and the megalithic enclosures of stone slabs set on edge at
McElmo Bluff in southwestern Colorado (Fewkes, 1919, p. 61) seem
to show that their architects thought primarily in terms of stone
rather than mud. If we leave the Southwest, we can turn to Fowke's
illustrations of graves and vaults in Missouri for walls of stone
built without mud mortar or with mud as a very minor contribution
(Fowke, 1910).

The slab-lined pit-houses alone are conclusive evidence that the
careful grouping of individual stones was a widely spread cultural
trait in this horizon.

Turning from this evidence of an early technique in the use of
stones as individual basic wall units, we will investigate later ex-
amples. I find that few archaeologists have recorded reliable ob-
servations of dry laid stone-work, but there are some published
data. Kidder and Guernsey (1919, pp. 26, 33, 53, and plate 6c)
record a small watch tower, four rooms of a cliff dwelling, and a
small granary peculiarly constructed, all in the Monuments district
of northeastern Arizona, and in each case the absence of mud-
mortar is noted. At Mesa Verde, in the upper gallery of Cliff
Palace, up against the cave roof, is a section of dry masonry wall
(letter from Mr. Robert Burgh), and possibly the turkey pens at
the back of the cave may be mentioned, although they are only
random rocks piled to form the crudest sort of wall. I must finally
mention the frequent and extensive use of rock, laid with stone-to-
stone contacts to form reservoir walls. Som.e of these are crude,
but others are true masonry, as for instance one shown by Kidder
and Guernsey (1919, plate 23a). Of course they were backed up by
a seal of mud, but that does not affect the masonry technique. If
such reservoirs were used in Basket Maker times, we have here a
continuous practice of stone-to-stone contact as a dominant feature.

Discussing these data regarding dry walls and those built with
"dry wall technique," it appears that some American tribes took
their first step in the use of non-perishable materials for walls by
assembling individual stones regardless of the use of mud or mortar.
That this appears in definite territories, such as the Mississippi
Valley and the Southwest, and that stone-building of any sort is
practically unknown in others, such as the Pacific Coast and the

142 The Lowry Ruin

Atlantic watershed from eastern Canada to the Carolinas, confirms
the idea that it is a cultural trait rather than an occasional accident
(Holmes, 1919, pp. 99 and 116). Later this practice cropped out
from time to time in the Southwest during its pre-Columbian history.
Whether it was invented each time it was used or whether it was
a trait governed by precedent is at present a matter of speculation,
but I think that the evidence justifies me in outlining the latter
possibility at least for further study. Of course, the gaps and lack
of any series of progressive cases (as we found in mud-cushioning
technique) are discouraging, but we must not forget that all these
American peoples had a continuous tradition in the use of stone
for artifacts, and it appears to me that there was probably a more
or less continuous background of the art of selecting, shaping, and
assembling individual stones regardless of the mud filler. This
might have existed as a homely and unhonored art much of the
time, but still have been continuous. Not the least argument along
this line is a reductio ad ahsurdum. I cannot believe that every
masonry wall of this class in the Southwest and neighboring territory
was either a spontaneous invention or else could trace direct descent
back to some early wall of pure mud. It is easier to think that the
practice of placing stone on stone for some simple purposes was a
fairly continuous trait, mostly used in informal structures and
cropping out more conspicuously from time to time.

With two basically diflferent masonry traits existing simultane-
ously and more or less in the same general territory, there would
almost surely be diffusion between the two. This is particularly
so as stone and mud are the common materials used in all but the
pure stem types, and it would be furthered by the tendency of
flat stone-work to encourage the use of mud cushions, and jagged
stone-work to force stone-to-stone contact. However, just now
there is greater need for more data to work with than for amplified
discussion of this situation.

The weak point in this hypothesis is the scanty evidence on
the continuity of stone-to-stone contact masonry. Nevertheless,
the scattered data presented certainly offer a clew worth following
up; and if there is any reasonable amount of evidence supporting this
part of the hypothesis, there is hope that we may have a new gauge
that will be useful in correlating history with masonry. In any
case, I shall be satisfied if this discussion provokes (the verb is
used advisedly) enough interest to insure enlargement of our present
limited data on the details of masonry.

VII. THE SKELETAL MATERIAL FROM THE LOWRY AREA

BY

Gerhardt von Bonin, M.D.

Introduction

This chapter was written in the Department of Anatomy of the
University of Illinois. The figures and photographs were made in
the Illustrating Department of the College of Medicine of the Uni-
versity of Illinois and were later re-photographed and converted into
photogravures at Field Museum of Natural History. The writer
wishes to thank Dr. Otto F. Kampmeier for putting the resources
of the Department of Anatomy at his disposal, and Miss Marion
Mason and Mr. Lav^ence A. Toriello for executing the drawings
of the text figures.

This Report deals with the human remains found in the Lowry
ruin as well as with some material which was found in the vicinity.
The former belong to Field Museum of Natural History; the latter,
to the Department of Anatomy of the University of Illinois. These
were dug from mounds by the v^riter during the summer of 1930
when he was a guest of the Field Museum Expedition. Dr.
Martin reports that altogether thirty-four burials were found, but
most of these were incomplete or in a very bad state of preservation.
Measurements were taken only on parts of thirteen skeletons.

The material described herein as "Lowry" came from refuse
mounds of that ruin; and the material referred to as "Ackmen,"
came from refuse mounds located within a mile of Lov^y ruin.

Twenty-four burials were flexed and ten, extended. Of the
flexed burials, eight faced west; four, east; eight, south; and four,
north. Some of the skeletons were barely a foot underground;
others were three feet below the surface.

Two problems present themselves immediately in connection
with such material. In the first place, the racial relationships of the
people represented by this sample require elucidation. But beyond
that, it may be possible to answer questions of a more general nature
pertaining, e.g., to artificial deformation of the skull, to the relation
of cranial capacity to stature, etc. It is clear that the small number
of individuals seriously detracts from the value of any answer to
these questions. The errors of random sampling will be large, and
interpretation of the results will not go beyond a judgment of prob-
ability which we may have to revise when further material will have
come to light.

143

144

The Lowry Ruin

We give a list of the skeletons here dealt with :

Table 1. — Tabulation of Bones Measured

Skull Humerus Radius Ulna Femur Tibia

Males

Lowry ruin

47575 + + + + + +

47615 + + + + + +

47619 + + + + — —

Ackmen

7 — — + + + +

21 + — — + + +

22 + _ + + __

27 + ___ + _

Total 6 3 5 6 5 4

Females

Lowry ruin

47614 + + + + + +

47616 + + + + + +

47617 + + — — + +

47618 + + — -- + +

47620 + + — + — —

Ackmen

• 11 _ + ___ +

14 — + + + — —

16 ___ + __

23 + + + + + +

26 + + + + + +

29 — — — — + +

Total 7 9 5 7 7 8

Ackmen (doubtful)

9 ____ + +

The craniometric and osteometric methods used in this Report
require but few words of comment. In craniometry the author has
followed the technique employed in the Biometric Laboratory by
Karl Pearson and his collaborators. A short description of it has
recently been given by Morant (1930). Most of the measurements
are the same as those defined by R. Martin in his well-known "Lehr-
buch" (1928) . Table A gives once more a synopsis of these definitions.
For the femur the writer has followed the definitions of Pearson and
Bell (1919) given in their monograph. For the other long bones
Martin's technique has been used. It will be seen that far more
measurements have here been taken than is generally the custom.
None the less, this Report lays itself open to being accused of
omitting almost all determinations of angles. In the first place,
the experience of Pearson and Bell on the femur showed that the
variation of most angles was too large to be useful for racial com-
parison. Secondly, most angles are poorly defined; consequently,
it is almost impossible to be sure that the measurements taken
here would be comparable to those of other authors.

Skeletal Material from Lowry Area 145

It is not enough nowadays to throw page after page of figures at
the reader and leave him to his own devices. He has a right to be
told what these figures mean and what can be deduced from them.
True, in many cases figures are no more than a record to be added to
the accumulating stock of our knowledge, useful only in the future
when this stock will have grown to more respectable size. Yet it is
well to analyze at each step the facts already known, thus to find out
what kind of information is most urgently needed and to check the
conclusions of other authors.

The statistical tools needed for this are by no means numerous.
Practically all characters with which the physical anthropologist
has to deal are distributed according to the "normal" curve of errors
of Laplace and Gauss, and this curve is mathematically completely
defined by its mean and its "standard deviation." The first constant
gives its position, the second measures the amount of scattering
around the mean which the individual values of the series show. (The
reader who desires to go deeper into this matter should consult any
of the numerous textbooks on statistics. R. Pearl's [1927] and R. A.
Fisher's [1928] are those used most frequently by the writer.) If the
standard deviation is known, the probability with which in that
series a given individual value is to be expected can be determined,
preferably by means of any of the numerous tables available for this
purpose. Supposing several samples of size n be drawn from the
same population, then the means of these samples will have a stand-
ard deviation e equal to:

e=a/y/n (1)

This quantity is generally known as the standard error. To deter-
mine whether two series come from the same population or not by
comparing their means, the standard error of these means has to be
taken into account. In that work, use is made of the formula for the
standard error of the difference. Let Xizte^ and x.,die., be two means
with their standard errors. Then we have:

Xi-X2= A and e^ = ^Jeh+eh (2)

Let now a:, and i\ be the means, e^ and e„ their standard error, ??i and
??2 the number of individuals of each series and a the standard devia-
tion, supposed to be the same for both series (numerous experiences
have shown this to be a legitimate assumption). Remembering the
formulas (1) and (2), we can define a quantity t by:

146 The Lowry Ruin

the square of which will be called

For small values of n^ and ??j, t is not normally distributed but the
probability for any value of t has been tabulated by R. A. Fisher
(1928, Table IV). It is to be remembered that in his table n equals
721+W5-2 since each series has one degree of freedom less than ??i
or ??2 respectively.

For a general measurement of divergence between two series it
has become customary to compute the value of the function a for
a number M of measurements and to take its mean value. Karl
Pearson (1926 and 1928) has shown that this value will have a mean
of 1, if the two series come from the same population, and he has
defined as coefficient of racial likeness:

2a
CRL=-3^-l (5)

It is not safe to apply this method to series of less than ten individ-
uals (the various a's [just as v'a=^] are not normally distributed.
Moreover, series of less than ten will be apt to represent only one
or two families and so show family rather than racial traits), but it
provides one of the most useful tools for statistical analysis if longer
series are available. From a theoretical standpoint the method has
recently been discussed by Pearl and Miner (1935).

Before proceeding further we shall first have to satisfy ourselves
that the two collections with which we are dealing can be considered
as samples from the same population. This is, of course, a priori very
likely since they have been found within an area of a square mile,
associated, moreover, with the same type of cultural implements.
None the less, it would be more satisfactory if a numerical estimate
could be provided. In order to arrive at such figures we put together
some measurements of the skull and of the femur. Unfortunately,
occipital flattening, present in almost all skulls, has played havoc
with the shape of the brain case so that for purposes of comparison
only the face can be used. Of the skull we take, therefore, the least
frontal breadth B', the length of the base LB, the upper facial height
G'H, the nasion angle NZ , and the nasal and orbital indices. Of the
femur, the maximum length, the indices of the proximal, middle, and
distal cross sections of the shaft, the index of robusticity and that of
the neck were selected. In estimating the difference between two
means, known values of the standard deviation were used since they
were thought to provide better estimates than those which could be

5 -O

■oo

ooooooo

(M 00 CD O »-i 00

5 -O

■iO
-J ■ Oi

■ o o

■ O^-i

OOO >-iOO

■"* r-l lO O »-l t-

«0 OJ ■<*' O lO ^

— I oo Or-H O

o

S

CO CO CO CO CO ^

■^

i-H

00 05 O lO lO

^

CO

w

g

1*,

,-^ ^-v ^^ ,—..—- ,-^

a

c

u

SiS^sS^^

CO ^ ^ CO ^ CO

&

[<,

<w.

Si

E

t- Tf 00 IC OJ CD

C- -<*" CD 05 00 C<1

73

^

05 >— 1 05 ?_ Oi lO

CD"* -«t ^CO t^

<

OOO CD JD^ 00

Oj t^^ rt 00 t-

Z

rt t~

CO rH

la

s

'^

w)

c

^ S,— ^^— -s^ S^^,- s

<

"5

Sc-d-C-'"^^

(M ^1* (MCOCO

u

Q

>>

t- t- C^J CD X^

C<1 CD CD Oi (M 05

Z

<

%

00 Tl< lO ° Oi CD

00 lO .-H .— 1 1~ c~

0

00 as CD 2 rf 00

c^) t- 1— 1 ,— 1 1- c~

z

^

■^ 1-H

3

«

>-

o
►4

lO O lO lO o i«

OOOiCiCgOJ

cu

CO CO CO CJ CO (M

tT 05 CO CD 1— 1 CO

o o o o O o

OOOOOO

b

O

iM as c^ Tf o r-(

^ O

^ 05 05 CO T-H O

w

H

_,

rH l^^ ,-1 lo c<i lO

0500^0-^

z

OO^OCOi-i

a

s

a

lO t^ in i-i eg lO

in

i-l .-H t~ lO t^ lO

b

O Oi T-H CO 00 o

cc

1— 1 CD ^ 00 CD 00

CO

■^ CO -^ CO CO lo

"5

O 05 05 O uO lO

<
a

^

S

CO

S

,^-^ ^-V ^— . ^— V ,^-^

, t*:

^^^^^^^ ^^-^^-^^— ^

c

coc^coc^coco

•*->

CO •^ CO CO CO CO

a

Qi

o

'^ C^ t- 00-^ i^

t~ tH CD Tf t- -^

u

CO 00 00 ° -^ (M

fti

00 CO CD CO -<1"^

C/2

^

05 05 CD i^"' 00

05 C- "-I ■— 1 00 c~

b

CD

CO --H

o

z

o

X

c

'5

Si-SSSSSi'^ <N

CO Tj< -^ eo CO CO

<

1"

CD UO O O oo irt

CO CD O r-l -^ rH

i

^

3

t- CD CO ° 05 <M

•^ CO 05 CO lO ^H

o> O C- g Tj< t-

■-; t- o --1 1- 00

■^ 1-H

o

c^

a

J

C3

<

E-i

>>

><

[C

0)

■4.:>

T3 !^ a:

■ £3 a3 3

■^ iJ c o X

rr

t

N

OO

,

«3o;2;S^

3

^

£

147

148 The Lowry Ruin

derived from samples as small as those with which we are dealing
here. For the skull, the values of the long Egyptian "E" series of
Pearson and Davin (1924) were used, for the femur those from the
English femora of Pearson and Bell (1919). From the function t,
the probabilities that the two samples belong to the same population
were found by means of R. A. Fisher's table (1928, Table IV). In
no case is there any reason for suspicion, since the probabilities
throughout are higher than 0.1. Yet a few interesting points emerge.
The fact that the male skulls show a somewhat greater divergence
than the females may not be worth stressing since it is a well-known
rule that differences in the value of P, say between 0.9 and 0.3,
should not be taken too seriously. None the less it might be worth
noticing that the nasion angle both in males and females is consider-
ably smaller in the Lowry ruin skulls than it is in the surrounding
Ackmen population. Very likely we are confronted here with a fam-
ily peculiarity. No such clear-cut family traits can be found in the
femur, except perhaps the greater length in both males and females
from the Lowry ruin.

None of these differences, however, are significant in a statistical
sense and we shall treat both series as coming from the same popu-
lation and shall compare their pooled means with those of other
populations. This pooled series will subsequently be called Lowry.

The present Report is confined to the long bones and the crania,
since only these appear to afford sufficient interest to warrant their
detailed description. In spite of the fairly large amount of material
from America (and elsewhere, for that matter) which is available in
the literature, we still miss an attempt at its analysis according
to modern biometric methods. Consequently, we are almost com-
pletely ignorant of the significance of the facts which have been
brought together. It will, therefore, be our first object to analyze the
available data, at least so far as to enable us to arrive at broad out-
lines of an osteology of the American Indians. When that has been
done, we shall be able to judge how much we can learn from our own
material about its racial affinities. The same principle will be applied
to the craniological chapter.

The Long Bones
(Plates LXXXV-LXXXVIII)

We shall begin our discussion of the long bones with a considera-
tion of their lengths, highly correlated with stature as well as with
each other. Table 3 gives a synopsis of the material we have been

Skeletal Material from Lowry Area 149

able to gather from the literature, including only those means which
are based on ten or more individual measurements. Most series
come from the territory of the United States, the Salish (Dorsey,
1897) from the northwest, the Munsee (Hrdlicka, 1916) from Dela-
ware in the east, the Arkansas and Louisiana (Hrdlicka, 1909) from
districts near each other in the south, and the Pecos Pueblo (Hooton,
1930) and the Lowry from the southwest. Only the Paltacalo series
(Anthony and Rivet, 1908) from Ecuador and the Peruvian series
(McCurdy, 1923) are from South America. While the measurements
on the ulna, radius, and femur have, as far as can be ascertained, been
taken in the same way by all observers, some doubts arise about
those of the tibia. Both McCurdy and Hooton have, it can be
assumed, followed Hrdlicka, who has measured the Munsee, Arkansas,
and Louisiana. In his "Anthropometry" (1920) Hrdlicka describes
an osteometric board with a hole in the transverse wall for reception
of the spine in measuring this bone. This measurement is not in-
cluded in R. Martin's technique, but his "Ganze Lange," No. 1,
must come close to it. It is fairly certain, on the other hand, that
Dorsey's Salish as well as Rivet's and Anthony's Paltacalo have
been measured by different definitions. In view of this situation it is
perhaps safer to confine a survey of bodily proportions to the radio-
humeral and humero-femoral indices. These figures, in all cases the
indices of the means, are included in Table 3A. For the computation
of these indices the maximum length of both humerus and radius and
the oblique length of the femur have been used as the only values
available throughout. These indices are, therefore, not comparable
to those defined by other authors.

The means alone hardly convey an accurate impression of the
differences found between these series. In order to judge whether
these differences are statistically significant or not, the function a
between all the groups will have to be computed. A difference may
be considered significant when a is greater than ten; when, in other
words, as a short consideration will show, the difference between the
means is greater than three times its standard error (cf. formula 4
above). This has been worked out for one absolute measurement,
the oblique length of the femur, and one index, the radio-humeral.
Table 3B gives the numbers. In the first case, the standard deviation
given by Hooton for the Pecos Pueblo series, 19.95, has been used; in
the second instance, for want of a closer race, that given by Warren
(1897) for the Egyptian series from Naqada, 2.145. The absolute
dimensions show much greater differences than the proportions of the

00 00 00 ^
,_, ,—1 1~ .^

05 (M OS OS

<M S<1 CO CO

CJ5 OJ iM t-

CO O t~ «£>

cj ca CO CO

CS CO ^ CD lO ■ -^ Cl-3 ^^•
rt OO^C-C^ :t-COO T-HO^

'r: cot-c<ioo . co t- c^

Ph C^ <M -^ -* .CO

CJ 00 t- r-l . .— I
t- o c- t- . ^H

l^^ (M CO CO .CO

if irt »o ■<!)< CO CO

-J OJ ifi C£> CO

Q
Z

2

<
o

a

s

ci

a
z
o

o
z
o

►J
o

X
E-

o
z

•^ •»* O 00 c- CO -^ ^^ o
Jj •

CC ic O CO 0-* -^ ^ "^

i-H-r}<C<ICvl'^COC-t-

co c^ ■^ •^ CO CO

g OlO

oo
t-co

CO(M

Oi

I— 1

o

385 (7) 371.0(13)

76. 5( 3) 77.4(10)

74.1(19)

CO •rl<

oo

(M t-
OC^]

COC^

C<1
CO

348.0(10)
75.2(13)
73.2(12)

c-o

(M »0

lO CO

coc<i

o ^

^ OJ CD (M Ol
Ph ....

O 05 t- CO
1— I CO C<I C<1
CO (M ^ '^

t~ CD
O CO
CO(M

O -H 00 CO 00 CO CD

?? Ol (M Ol CD O O

t— C<1 OJ 05 "^ CO o

t— t>- CO 00 03 "^ CI

lO t— t— 00 I— I 05 Oi

CO (M C.] CO CO

m . . — ^"^^ '^ ■ • . •- OO

^PiW

a o -^ 00 CD

ooo
^ o

3

~t

o

V

a;

O

o

a

1— J

J

<

sJ

OS

S

c:)

*— .

bn

*— >

cs

Z

Cs

o

a

(-

u

z

p

cy

;^

S

a

O

o

v.

o

a

•— ,

2

4_;

J

,^

<

Cr>

>

s~

v.

i

^

m

?5,

a.

CO

::)

a

►J

pa

<

H

00 O L—
^OOJ

in CD <M CO 00

05 m Oi •>«< Tt

CJ (M 00 CO CJ

• t- .-^ 00 t~ CO o

■ ^ CO o CO o t~

■ CD O O OJ O Tj<

M ^ o: -C rt
0) lI^ (-1 o ca " oj

PL,S<UhjMCUpM

150

Skeletal Material from Lowry Area 151

bones of the arm, indicating that stature shows greater changes than
bodily proportions, which is, of course, well known. Yet even in
absolute size there is very little difference between the Munsee,
Arkansas, and Louisiana; only the Peruvians have a significantly
smaller femur than any of the other groups with which they are
here compared. Similarly, the only significant differences in the radio-
humeral index are found between the Peruvians and one other series.

The fact that bodily proportions may change significantly from
race to race makes one hesitate to determine the stature by formulae
or tables constructed on the basis of European material. They are
bound to lead to divergent results according to which bone is used,
and it is, moreover, doubtful whether the proportion between any
long bone and stature remains unchanged from race to race. Thus
Stevenson (1929) was actually able to show that Pearson's formulae
(1898) for predicting stature are not applicable to the northern Chi-
nese. That Pearson's formulae lead to inconsistent results for the
American Indians the reader can easily verify for himself; we do not
give them, since tabling them in full might be misleading.

As a general result we find that the proportions of humerus and
radius show no significant differences among the various tribes of
North Am.erica which we have been able to put together. There is
good reason to assume, however, that the Peruvians have a definitely
shorter radius than some North American Indians, while the Palta-
calo from Ecuador resemble the latter closely in this respect.

Turning to the individual long bones, we can analyze only those
few characters for which sufficient data are available. We are thus
restricted to a consideration of the indices of the cross sections of the
middle of the humerus, of the platymeric region and of the middle
of the femur, and of the platycnemy of the tibia.

The midshaft index of the humerus, given only for five (mostly
very short) series in R. Martin's "Lehrbuch," has of late, mainly
thanks to Hrdlicka's work, received increased attention. It may be
worth while, therefore, to include in our survey non-American
groups.

The mean values are put together in Table 4A; they are all for
right male bones, excepting the Ainu, for whom the mean for both
right and left bones was given by Koganei. Unfortunately no value
for the standard deviation of this index, based on a sufficiently
long series, is available. The only series given in a suitable form
for its computation are the thirty indices found in Miyamoto's
(1926) figures. We obtain from these a=5.49, and, using this value

55 iOC^JUti.— (C»COC<lt-C~

^•O O--! 00 ■* o
E'> CO id«o "-i t-

c o oj M •^ cj

" 000^ C<1 CO
S c- 1- 0000 00

o
Z

C.2 ■ i§

1-5 ,< H- i U t— I

-t-> U3 ^ *?> ^ i—

fca co-^00^00

_g-0 ^ ^ ^ C<1 -"S* t-H

c oi CO -^ t- titi 00

»> C ] CO -«("« ^ «s
S c~ t- t- 1- 1- 1-

§ §-^ fe C 3 o

0

n

<

H

0 i« C- "5 «0 t- C<3 ^ ■ • •

J

?DtCt-i0010iOO • • •

00 -^ CO 05 0 ?c t- t~ • • •

z

►— 1

0 oa --< c-i i-i ; ; ;

•ji

o

M 000050!CCO'-l

S^ 2 c~oor-iT-(Oc^c^

^ c

^ 5 •^■^t-cooot-1— I

s ;^

§ 4, -* OS C<1 »^ CC ^_

9"S ^HtDCCO^^C<l

CQ

JZ oj 00 c~ t- 00 c:

003 m 10 CO CO c<i

Qi

• C rr i-io 00

^ Tjl UO r-H -5*'

3 00 O C^J O

•5 -^ CO ^ o

CO _, Ci O CO

•5 g 0(MC<1

o c« ooco--^
t— 1

nj 03 05 CO

^ 00

0^ !::

s^^d

w " 5

E «y >
-c c.2

S.2

152

Skeletal Material from Lowry Area 153

for the determination of the function a, we arrive at the figures
given in Table 4B. The material falls into three groups: the Ameri-
can Indians form one; the eastern Asiatics and the mediaeval Nor-
wegians, the second; and the modern Europeans, the third. But
these groups are far from being clear-cut; there are "gradations"
all the way, and it is possible to go from the Pecos Pueblo to the
Italians without ever making a statistically significant jump. The
reader has only to follow the lowest oblique line from left to right
to convince himself of this. Thus, while significant differences un-
doubtedly can be found, it seems hardly possible to arrive at a
satisfactory racial classification on the basis of this index. It should
be noted, however, that it is lower in North American Indians than
in the populations of either eastern Asia or western Europe and
that no significant differences between groups from North America
are thus far to be found.

Turning to the femur. Table 5A brings together the material
known for the American Indians, and Table 5B the values of the
function a for the platymeric and the pilastric indices. The mean
of right and left had to be used since this was the figure given for
the Paltacalo. For both computations the value of the standard
deviation was taken from Hooton's work on the Pecos Pueblo. For
the platymeric index 6.00 was used, the value for the right side
differing from that of the left (6.01) by only 0.01. For the pilastric
index, the squares of the right and left sides were found and the
root of their weighted mean determined (8.05). The interesting
and somewhat surprising result emerges from Table 5 that the
degree of platymery and pilaster shows only statistically insignifi-
cant changes in the groups from North America and Ecuador but
that the Peruvians differ significantly from all the rest. We may
add that the index of robusticity obviously does not change within
the races given in Table 5.

There is but one character of the tibia which has been investi-
gated in the series with which we are dealing here; namely, the
degree of flattening of the shaft known as platycnemy. Unfortu-
nately, this has been determined by American authors at the middle
of the shaft, and by French authors at the level of the foramen
nutritium. Only Hooton has given both. (Although distinctly differ-
ent from each other, one technique is probably as good as the other
in itself, but it must be admitted that the French authors are able
to measure even fragments on which the middle can no longer be
accurately determined.)

&H -^ '^

-rt<iD-^CD<MOOlMO0C^OO<MOO<MOO(M'>0-rt<'XlC<ICC

tr oo lo .-H ©"o oat-ococo"'cooO'— loocj-^'— lo

CO -^ CO CO »-l i-H — ' ■

C OOtOC^JiraoOiMCOi

I O CO 1— I 00 !>] o o

00COC<100WCO(MCOCOi— t'S^Oi'OCO-^.— iC^3C-J
U50iCiO(M(MCOCOt:~t-iMC<10Ji?Jt— I.— I i— i .— i
^*i* Tj< ^^ ^j* *"^ '"^

^C^-^-^COCO-^-t^

'^ ■<# <M (^^ CO CO t- t-

a

03

CO CO IM o

• t-

u

c3

oai,-( -«i*

•OJ

s

^

050^0

•o

MM

fa

o

en

Ed

o

Q

■z

s

lys^crs

CO in

3

Ol t- o

lOt-

H

O t- (M

fMiO

u

0<I

J

C5

Cd

^

o

l-J

rt

c

rt

0<X! ■

OJ uo . c-

s— c—

111 -^

^Ht— (T— I,— li-H^H,— (r-H

■ O lO IM 04 CO CO C- t~

lOiOOJCOC^'SSOOOOC— <'i^050a5COtO(M'-HUO

q; <M

^COCOCOCO'-i'-ICOCOt-00-^-^(MiOC^3(MCOO-]
(MiM(Mi>5iMCOCOt-L-C-]iM(MiMi— I-— I ^^"* "^

p^jrtjtfJP^HJtfh^l^H^lP^JP^Hqp^hJP^H:! -S

^ CO

03 --cl
tr" 1— I

Pli

2; -

5 »o

tf ^

02

H Ph

l-J

«
o

fa

sa'^c-2 3

a> (-• o VH ^ ^

fiH<;^SPHfL,

154

Skeletal Material from Lowry Area 155

An inspection of Table 6A shows a fairly large range in the mid-
shaft indices. As Table 6B shows, the Peruvians are here not nearly
as far removed from the other series as they are regarding their
femoral indices. Pecos Pueblo, on the other hand, shows the lowest
midshaft index, the short series from Arkansas being a good second.
The values of the function a are tabulated in Table 6B for both
sides separately. The only clearly significant difference occurs
between the Peruvians and the Pecos Pueblo for the right tibia.
The fact that the difference for the left bone is insignificant probably
means no more than that the samples we have are not large enough.
Translated into ordinary language the odds against both Peruvians
and Pecos Pueblo coming from the same population are more than
1:10,000 for the right and about 1:50 for the left side.

If we compare further the platycnemic index between Pecos
Pueblo (pooling both sides) and Paltacalo, we obtain again a sig-
nificant difference. It is safe to say, therefore, that there are racial
differences in the degree of platycnemy among American Indians,
and that the series from Pecos Pueblo is definitely more platycnemic
than the two South American ones. The other North American
series are too short to draw definite conclusions; it would certainly
be worth while to settle this point on the basis of larger material.

This brief examination of the published material clearly shows
that no single character arranges the American Indians in clear-cut
and natural groups. We may try, however, to see what happens if
the averages of the function a given previously are determined.
The following table is based on the data given in Tables 3-6.

Pecos Munsee Arkansas Louisiana Paltacalo Peru

Pecos 5.9(6) 8.3(5) 6.3(5) 9.4(5) 67.7(5)

Munsee 2.3(5) 2.4(5) 15.5(4) 33.4(5)

Arkansas 2 . 3(5) 23 . 9(3) 39 . 8(4)

Louisiana 13.2(3) 37.2(4)

Paltacalo 27.1(4)

Peru

It is readily admitted that averages based on three to six obser-
vations do not mean very much. Yet they lead to a grouping,
at any rate in this case, which is not at all unreasonable. The
North Am.erican Indians all fall into one group; the Ecuador and
the Peruvian populations each take a separate place. Thus, it
appears possible to base racial comparisons on about twenty to thirty
skeletal characters. While it is not to be expected that such a
test will be as sensitive as craniological methods, it may be useful
for that very reason if a broader classification is desired.

pH c<J r- 00 00 t^ 00 oj o

C^l C^ <-i •— I CO 'M 5C ;o

g U3 -^ CO CI
O) ....

Z

<

1^

o ^^^^^»^^^
C -^ iX> 00 1^ •«* <— I

.^ lOOO'-ir-iCOC^liOt-

^ SOOOC^JCOIOTOCDCO
CC CO

I CO c- c— c— t~ t~ t-

3 .— .OCOCOCOCOOOOO
O t-t-CJC0C0COcD?D

^ CO CO

y t- t- OS Oi 05 O^OO^OO

S irt o t- to

rt ....

^ lococooa-^'^coco
*- oooococococooco
<i3 coco

ot^3£"cD^o5"c<icoc<i-^--'£2
j^ CO-— -^-^■^■^■^-*"^'*^'^"^^

gj c^oouo .-HC~aiOooio«o-<tiocO'-^_

^ t-t-oococococo'-"'— iioirtrirnl

iOiOMC0C0C0?O«DC^C0C0C0-^^'^
CO CO

oi^x^e^^a^cii^pi^Pi^

z

u

u

^

f-

w

W

s

Z

o

(-

o

z

p

<

k^

kl

<

<

s

H

H

z

o

z

H

X

>

bi

GO

Z

U

H

b.

«

<

u

X M

M

<

g^ OC0i«
g !X> CO lO

3 -^ •

■o ^

-o

c

ca

ca

c

•O5U0

hJ

•55 00 «5

•coa>

XJ

O

•oo

c

C4

►J

O

M 00 •

CO 00 CO

3
Pi

c o ■

00 CO o

to

ii O •ri.-i'

^;CiOO ^

C8

^ £ oi

M a Q^

O rt-S C 3

O.K: g 3 <r

s s

3 a>

■>< S

S £ '2

c o .5

« = :■,

15 -^ S

"ft iS 5i

.as

5 a. +*

2 1 iS

H rt Pi

156

Skeletal Material from Lowry Area 157

Turning now to our own material, the record of the measure-
ments will be found in the appended tables. In order at least to
indicate the position of the American Indians among the races of
mankind, we shall cite non-American material more freely, although
we shall generally not attempt a thorough statistical analysis of
these data.

There are three male and nine female humeri, but since in many
cases only one side is preserved, no mean is based on more than
seven bones. The humeri are quite robust; their muscular attach-
ments are generally well developed, particularly, of course, in the
male bones. The intertubercular sulcus is throughout almost
straight, closely resembling what Klaatsch (1910) more than twenty
years ago was pleased to call the "orangoid" type. A perforation
of the fossa olecrani was found only twice, each time on a left bone.
Since the males are so definitely in the minority we have to confine
ourselves to the female bones.

Some means are given in Table 7. That the lengths differ from
race to race need hardly be commented upon and since the mid-
shaft index has already been discussed, we can dismiss this character,
too. These means have been included here mainly in order to show
that the Lowry humerus resembles the Pecos Pueblo one quite closely.
The primitive races have rather more robust bones than the mediaeval
Norwegians. While it might be well to bear in mind Wagner's (1927)
statement that he has sexed his material less by the size of the
articular surfaces than by the general robusticity of the bones, the
difference between Wagner's males and females is of the same order
as that found, e.g., by Sarasin (1916-22) in his Loyalty material.
We find:

_ .^, , ,. , , , 1 Males Females Ratio

Sagittal diameter of head:

Norwegians 48.5 43.2 1.123

Loyalty 43.8 38.9 1.126

Index of robusticity:

Norwegians 15.4 14.8 1.041

Loyalty 20.4 18.0 1.133

The sexual difference therefore is greater in Sarasin's than in
Wagner's material.

The angle of torsion has been determined here approximately
in the same way as Sarasin (1916-22) did (omitting, however,
a camera). The axes of the head and of the trochlea were marked
and the bone then clamped in the "Kubus Kraniophor," the long
axis horizontal. By means of a scribe-awl, the bone was adjusted

Loyalty
294.0(14)

o

00

CO -<»'

CO

00

CO

00

CO
U5

cS

c

00 00 00 iM iM 00 O

■<S"^ -<t 50 CC -rf -rj<

>

2

lO lO lO -r)< -* lO -^

lO LO UO CO CO ifl CO

Oi

&

r— 4 r-H

?-H *-H T— * .-H 1—4 T— 4 f-H

rt

"S

t~ .—1

eg -^OOOOO

C<1 t~ CO ^ 00 CO C5

0^

OJ r^

CD ?0 •«*< to o

00 O to lO •<* 00 o '

S

o

^H eg

^.^^ t^iCi

O C<1 tH ^ ^ t- «s

2;

CO

, .. .(£,

CO — — U3

^

00

t-oo

OJ

OS

CO^JO

c

Ci

.-1 t-co

iM

O"5o

«i

tr-

e^ t~ "^

.S

•~s

"W

cg

ys

"«

w

5

CO

V2

OS

^

"S

^ .^^

s

CO

coco

*J

oT

0iO5

^

3

iS

:^

wCi

,,

^---w-

X

0)

(M

00 --H

o

^Oi

a

Oh

03

00 00

00

00 1-

^

t£

-:1<T-I

iX>

Tjt »-(

<

C-J

eg . .

s

a

(Z4

1

lO-^

t~-

o-^ t-

1,

CO IS

o

CO ■># t-l

t>

b

COr-

eg »-i I— 1

B

<— 1

r-( ...

_]

t»

«

O

<

o

H

Ol

-~.^

^.-^ . . "

, — ,,— ,^-~, . . "

«£> t>

t-

t-

t~ lo m

lO

OIC

o

o

00 05 Oi

05

s

.— (

1

OiOC

00

as

r--!l<;C

OJ

00^

"*

c-

U5 r-l -^

00

00 C\

r-

«£

^

00 e\
eo

t£

>j

LO «0 t~ t~" lO CO ^

■># c~ t- t~ -^ t- lO

^

•^ CO lo Oi CO t- cc

lO ea -^ CD tr- Ol CO

o

t^ i-l Tf lO 05 t- °

o ^^ -^ -^ 00 t-o

1-5

GO OJ T-l

iCr^COO

ajcj-i

eg

cc

C^l

-2

_o ;

-o •

TS ■

T3 •

'^ «;

E^

fc:^

►^'^

4-5 "O

cJ'O

CC-?

fn£

>.

^. b

>J

+3

o

imum length
imum diamet
t diameter at

CJ

.C Q^ rt

CJ

prence .

robusti
t index

torsion

m lengt
mdiam
ameter

erence .

robust
t index

torsion

3 X'm <^

3 =5:;;

"c ©"cS o

X !< ^

rt rt •«

^-Sri'^

» !S??P

^-cS ^

S

SjC

^

^

<

^

SjC

^

^

<

158

Skeletal Material from Lowry Area 159

in such a way that the trochlear axis and the long axis of the bone
(which is ill-defined, and was determined by "inspection") were
parallel to the marble plate on which the craniophore rested. The
craniophore was then tilted by 90° and on an underlying paper
one of its edges (which was now parallel to the trochlear axis) was
drawn, and, by means of the perigraph, the end points of the axis
of the head were plotted. For further comparative material the
reader is urged to turn to R. Martin's table on page 1106 of his "Lehr-
buch." There cannot be the slightest doubt as to the phylogenetic
value of this character when comparing man with other primates
or with still lower forms. At the time of Paul Broca's death half a
century ago, it was believed that the angle of torsion could be
used for arranging the races of mankind in a natural, ascending
sequence. It seems much less certain now. Already in Martin's
table the Cibola Indians are close to the Alamans of central Europe,
and the Paltacalo Indians even precede the latter. We tabulate
once more the known values of American Indians, and a few
others, mainlj^ after Martin's table, pooling right and left side and
both sexes.

Table 8. — Angle of Torsion of Humerus, Right and Left

Males and Females

Lowry 163.4(12) Santa Rosa 153.1(8)

Parisians 161.5(83) Sioux 152.9(30)

Salado 159.3(41) Peruvians 150.2(43)

Cibola Indians 154.3(43) Fuegians 143.9(10)

Indians 153.9(23) Melanesians 139.0(14)

(Lower California) Paltacalo 138 . 5(64)

Whether the other measurements of the humerus recorded in
the Appendix (Table B) will ever be of any use is hard to predict.
We are by no means convinced of it. The proximal and distal
breadths differ, of course, in absolute values but we have noticed
very little change from race to race in an index formed out of either
one of them and the maximum length. However, our samples may
have been too few, and since we are ignorant of the standard
deviation of these indices, no valuable purpose is served in running
headlong up a cul-de-sac. The writer's sentiment toward the troch-
lear measurements is the same. He still has somewhat higher hopes
for the index of robusticity but so long as we do not have a series
of about one hundred bones of one side and one sex and know its
standard deviation, we shall not be able to make any statements
of scientific value.

160 The Lowry Ruin

Some of the characters of the radius are given in Table 9, where
they are at once compared with some other races published later
than Martin's "Lehrbuch." The male sample from Lowry has
a somewhat longer I'adius than the people of Pecos Pueblo,
but the female means of the two groups are very close to each
other. The midshaft index, not given for the Pecos Pueblo, is
apparently not much different from that of the Japanese, although
somewhat higher than for the male Norwegians. The scarcity of
the material, however, renders a deeper study hardly worth while.
The Lowry radii appear to be the least robust of all the groups
with which they are here compared. The weighted mean of all
four figures (16.3) coincides with that given by E. Fischer (1906)
for the Burmese, the lowest of his list. This "gracility" of the
Indian radius becomes still more interesting when it is recalled that
for the humerus this character showed by no means the same be-
havior (cf. Table 7).

The information about the ulna is scanty since few bones are
well preserved. Indeed, only for the right male bones can averages
be based on more than two or three observations. In Table 9, we
give the more important ones, with some comparative material. Here,
just as for the radius, our sample shows a particularly low index of
robusticity. The index of the cross section of the shaft varies little
among the three series of our table. It is to be regretted that little
comparative material for the breadth index of the radial half of
the articular facet is available. From Fischer's (1906) table (which
contains means of right and left and male and female bones) it
would appear to vary significantly from race to race. It may be
noticed, at any rate, that the value for all Lowry ulnae (Table D,
54.1) is very close to that given by Fischer for five Fuegians (53).
The writer regrets not to have measured platyleny, but he was
unable to find a workable definition of the sagittal diameter.
"Perpendicular to the transverse diameter taken at the lowest point
of the incisura radialis" still allows this diameter to have any angle
to the long axis of the ulna, however that may be defined. But
even a slight variation of this angle will influence the diameter
considerably, and it was therefore felt that no faith could be placed
in the results of such measurements. The shape of the shaft of
the ulna varies considerably in our sample. The female bones are
generally more or less triangular, while most of the male bones
show quite deeply fluted shafts. There are very pronounced smooth
grooves at the origins of the Mm. abductor and extensor pollicis

>>

o

►4

30 O 00 o

■>* t— I -^ ■>*•

^ C5 CD •<*<
lO -^ CO CO
"M (M Ol OJ

in 05 -^ lO

-* CO

t- ifS CO iM

C^3 C<l T-l r-(

(M C') (M CO

t~CD

2^

OS Tf CO 00
•>* ■^ CO iM
C<1(M <M 01

1^00

t~ 00 t^ 00

to iX! CO -^
rv] ^j ^ ^

O^ ?J OJ C^

CO

>

c«

CJ

b£

c«

c

-a

^

w ^

.-t CO O T-l
CO (M --I --I
(M CJ C<1(M

C2,IM

-'too'

Oi CO oi CO crs CO 00 CI
ocoiocajocosocos

occot- loooii— iirec-j

COC-JOOXnOOiCiOi

lomcoco^i^-^^^

C<1 (M C-J "M ' ' '

e oj

OCO

■^co

■>*.— iUDlOOi-^t-Oi

^OOJCOOSOOC^C-
COCOOlt-c^CC^^
iM 03 CI OJ ' '

O lO

O -rf

com

I—* « ^^

Pi

so

C^J-^O

C

C^l t^ lO

§

05 t~U5

.J
03

•<

lO lO

C\l I— I

coco

^o '.'.■■..

050

to CO

osoo : ■ ■ • ■ ■

CO CO

c<ic^

i?CM -^ OJ >o C>1 Tj< C^l

00 lO O C^l C~ 1— t "-I Ol

03 00 >c CO ai ic CO to

■rf-^COCOCOt^T-lr- 1

CVl OJ C>J OJ

OU5

10 05

OO

I— ( I— I

00 t- ■

coio

■«t to ■.■.;;; !

oi to : ■ ". i ' •

.— ( »— I . . . . ■ ■

PJ(M

OJ >— I CO •— t X5 C^l CO r-H

01 O CO O •— I O-l 'O t-
-^COtOOOl'OtOtO

oi oj o -H CO to ■— 1 ^H

C^l C^l C^l Ol

lO >o to

>o CO t~

CO-* 05
00 ^ t-
Ol

Di^pi^pi^oi^ X^Pi^Pi^Pi^

^

-u

c

C
0)

"*

3 ^

e .2

s £

^ jr c

E is ■"

161

•f= ?^o

hf)

^^

-l->

c

CJ

Cb

73

en

3

r/l

rt^

2

O

o

««-■

ttai

o

o

X

X

>»T1

c

c

i±i

l-H

162 The Lowry Ruin

and at that of the M. extensor indicis proprius. The reader who
has Miyamoto's (1926) paper at hand may examine on his Table 6
the female No. 1 and the male No. Ar.

Coming to the femur, we give some of the mean indices for the
female bones (there are too few male bones to warrant averages)
in Table 10, again together with some non-American groups. Only
those indices are included for which sufficient data from Lowry
were available. The platymeric and pilastric indices have been
extensively investigated by Pearson and Bell (1919). We refer
the reader to their tabulations {loc. cit., pp. 253 and 254) and to
their discussion. Regarding the popliteal index and the index of
popliteal skewness, the differences between the Lowry and the
English femora are significant in spite of the small number of cases
in the first sample, as the reader can easily verify, using Pearson
and Bell's value for the standard deviations (5.673 and 3.814 re-
spectively). For the index of robusticity we obtain, between Pecos
Pueblo and English, a = 23.00. Similarly, for the index of upper
gracility we obtain for a, between Norwegians and English, 26.03.
In both cases, therefore, significant differences occur. Not much
can be said about the robusticity of the head, but these few remarks
may have shown that a more detailed study of the femur may
provide a valuable check on racial classifications arrived at by other
methods.

Table E (pp. 189-192) contains data about the posture facet, the
trochanter tertius and other characters. To work out percentages
on such small material is superfluous, if not positively misleading.
Attention should be called to a pathological condition found in one
femur: a deep pit just above the patellar groove of the distal articu-
lar surface (Plate LXXXVIII), probably a sign of a tuberculous
infection.

We come finally to the tibia. The value of the cnemic and the
midshaft index (practically the only ones, either of which is con-
sistently given by the authors) for differentiating between American
groups has already been discussed. We give now in Table 11 further
figures pertaining to non-American groups. For an exhaustive list
the reader is again referred to Martin's "Lehrbuch," pp. 1158-1159.
The differences between the Lowry ruin and the Pecos Pueblo are
neither on the right nor on the left side significant. Since we have
already seen that the Pecos Pueblo differed in the cnemic index
from other American Indians, this can be regarded as an indication
of the racial affinities of the Lowry material. It will further be

j5^ O O t~

>, o e^j Tf

9 ^'o" ; : : : : :al

I— ' 00 C^J ,-,

S

la
.J
<:

la

m

c

c<J — .^v ^,

fe c — '^-^ ^

a; o c^ioo c-

Z 0) 00 CO : oo'

-^ t^^ . . . . .^
o

M t^0000t~COOi^00^

g* iXoi .-H f>J C~ CO lO C~ CO

W •^COC~0(Mt~00<Jlo

ooo^oasi— ii-HOO^cc^j

M 03 Oi

V ^

00 00 . . rt

t^

03

-<1'

■^

(M

IM

^

C£>

(M

iC

00

g 05030

S icooco
o. . . .

J? »0 03 03
•"3 t~ 03 -^

oj CO c^j

-MOS

CO

«>"

T-H

r-H

,-H

f-H

(M

•-1

iM

00

.'-'.

t^

j>j00C^tO«O^iO00t~»O

t; lo lO lo

> CO C-l O Id c^J 03 CO (M •— I
o

t-i CO ?J O 00 CI CO (M O 05

C-r-l00O3i-l.-HXC-i-l

' c o o cs

>»>!

5 rt ?

<D D ~ «<-' «<- ri<<-«*«.Si
O O +J

163

164 The Lowry Ruin

noticed in Table 11 that Snell's (1934) Javanese (male, 74.1; female,
76.0) are far from Bello y Rodriguez' (1909) Malays (male, 66.6),
and that our European neolithics (male and female, 63.6) differ
somewhat from Bello y Rodriguez' (1909) male value, 65.2 (males
alone should be lower than a m.ean computed from both sexes).
The value for the Norwegians is astonishingly high. Taking the
weighted mean of the difference between the cnemic and the mid-
shaft index for Pecos Pueblo and the Japanese (1.9), we arrive at
an estimate for the Norwegian cnemic index of R 78.0 and L 76.4.

Table 11. — Indices of Female Tibia

Cnemic index Midshaft index

R L R L

Lowry 63.8 ( 9) 62. 2( 9) 65. 9( 3) 67. 7( 3)

Pecos 64.7(100) 64.6(103) 66.3(104) 66.1(107)

Japanese 71.5(48) 75.2(41)

Mediaeval Norwegians. 79.9(277) 78.3(261)

Dutch' 72.7U3)

Javanese^ 76.0(45)

New Caledonia 66.15( 6) 64. 3( 7)

Loyalty 66.3(14) 64.7(16)

European neolithics 63 .6{3JltJ^)

" After Snell (1934).

Note: Italic = males and females.

The races here tabled fall clearly into three groups: Oceania and
America from 63.8 to 66.3, the Japanese and Dutch with 71.5 and
72.7, and finally the Javanese and Norwegians about 76.0. How
unsatisfactory this is the reader will see at once for himself. More-
over, Martin's much longer table shows an almost continuous inter-
racial distribution without any apparent order. The value for our
first group (64.9 is the weighted mean) is fairly close to that given
here for west European neolithics. (This is the weighted mean of
several series assembled by the writer previously [1935, p. 211].
The only significant difference [a = 11.74] was found between
Montigny-Esbly and the Grotte des F^es. For the rough survey
intended in Table 11 they have none the less been pooled.) The
remarkable change of this index in Europe within the last 5,000
years, i.e. within the last 150 generations, presents as interesting a
problem as the change of the platym.eric index.

The Skull
(Figs. 48-52; Plates LXXXIX-XC)

A survey of the craniology of the American Indians from already
published material is being prepared by G. M. Morant and the

Skeletal Material from Lowry Area 165

writer, and the reader may be referred to that forthcoming paper.
Suffice it to say here that it could be shown by the method of the
Coefficient of Racial Likeness that there are two racial groups in
the Southwest, the Basket Makers and the Pecos Pueblo. It could
further be shown that the former are closely related to the Peruvians
and somewhat m.ore remotely to the Californians, while the latter
show some affinity to the Indians from Illinois and Virginia, as well
as to the Old Zuni. The conclusions regarding the Pecos Pueblo
agree with the results reached by Hooton in his original analysis
of this material. He recognized as some of the morphological types
in his material a Basket Maker type and a Plains Indian type.
The other types he has been led to introduce, such as pseudo-
Negroid, pseudo-Australoid, pseudo-European, carry the analysis
leyond the American continent and touch upon questions far more
deep-lying than it is intended to discuss here.

For our present purpose it is important to know that any skull
found in the Southwest may belong either to the Basket Maker or
the Pecos Pueblo type, and that the latter may be regarded as inter-
mediate between the former and the Plains Indian type.

As we have already seen in the Introduction, the value of the
Lowry skulls for racial diagnosis is seriously reduced by the fact
that they are deformed and that consequently most measurements
of the brain box are useless for comparative purposes. Those of
the face remain, but many of them are so highly correlated with
others that this restricts uncomfortably the number of measure-
ments which can be used. We have selected here, in the first place,
the fundamental facial triangle and have taken G'H, LB and the
nasion angle NZ as the data to be included. Of breadth measurements
the orbital O/R and the bizygomatic breadth J have been taken. The
nasal breadth has been left out because it does not differentiate
tiie racial types with which we are here concerned.

For each skull we can give for each of the five characters the
difference between its value and the means of the three series with
which we compare them here, and we can form a generalized measure
of resemblance for each skull by giving the average values of
the differences. Expressed in a formula this measure would be
defined as

m

Xi-0,

,i= Z l^lLJlLl;i=l.
1 <^'

Table 12A gives the male means of the three groups and Table
12B the coefficients /3 for the male Lowry skulls. All four skulls are

166 The Lowry Ruin

sufficiently close to the Pecos Pueblo series to warrant the conclusion
that they belong racially to this group. Yet there are minor differ-
ences. It will be seen that for each skull the lowest value is for a
different group.

Table 12A. — Male Means

Basket Pecos Plains Indian <r, "E"

Makers (total) type from Pecos series

G'H 73.8 72.9 75.7 4.15

GL 96.7 97.8 98.5 4.85

LB 98.9 101.9 103.6 3.97

J 134.8 138.6 139.8 4.57

0,'R 38.0 39.9 40.5 1.67

NZ 66°. 2 65°. 6 64°. 5 3°. 31

Table 12B. — Value of Coefficient i3 for Male Skulls

Skull No. 21 22 47575 47619

Basket Makers 0.73 0.96 1.58 2.23

Pecos 1.22 0.62 0.95 1.49

Plains Indians 1.63 0.90 0.70 1.35

Since all our skulls were deformed, it appeared promising to
analyze their shape in greater detail. Deformation in the South-
west was a comparatively simple and in all likelihood quite un-
intentional affair, due to no more than a hard cradleboard, to which
the babies were firmly strapped and which exerted a pressure on
the occiput, centered apparently in the obelionic region.

The best way to analyze the character of this deformation
would be to compare the contours of these skulls with those of
undeformed ones of the same race. Unfortunately, no contours
have been given for the Pecos Pueblo, and we are therefore thrown
back on more indirect methods. We can either compare various
measurements on the contours with the same ones in other races,
or we can compare a contour as a whole with that of undeformed
skulls of a similar type. In this case it should be borne in mind
that we are not quite sure that the undeformed skulls from Pecos
Pueblo form a random sample of that population. Hooton has
pointed out that a brachycephalic skull will have a greater chance
of being occipitally flattened on the cradleboard than a dolicho-
cephalic one, which will be more prone to fall on one side.

The first part of our analysis is shown in Table 13, where a
restricted number of indices and angles of two male and one female
skull from Ackmen are compared with the male range of racial
means given by Morant (1931). In many cases the value for an
individual skull fell outside this interracial range, but it was not
clear whether this was a significant deviation or not. An intraracial
standard deviation was needed to determine this. It was obtained

167

■^ CO o) oi

a* 4)

(M C^J CO OJ
CO "O 1-H lO

I I I I

O lO 00 lO

cs^CiMt-C3C0«O IM

> * "a

JS^.Ti'-l-^OOCO'^ "^

^ <^ ■- OS •— t CO "^

•>o -«ji <r) CO I

,^ I S t-: -I o ,
I^ S CO lo --I ■

Oi t— -^ irt !M CO

to Tt -^ t~ O OS "^

Oi

^

^O UJ UJ CO oo

s

r-H Ol O) 0] CO

Ol

o

H

CI!

o

>

COCOO.-IT-I

00

o

^-^

1— 1 OJ OJ CO CO

'~[

s

H

S

-H^i-l^^^-li

i\

o

•w.

.— I lo oa CO »o

OJ

1-1 O O] OJ -"^

t-

c/3

CO

CO lo --1 ira ys

•-^

H

.,

z

s

u

_o

o

,^ — ^^ — ^ ^ , , — ^

-2

CO

<n

6
Z

CO CO -^Jt lO

O] "* "^05

CO •-< CO -^

3

w

"a

>i

lO >o

<

H

Urn

ira o lo |^J t~

CI

<ii

o

t- C^ (M r-l CO

c^

o

J

CO "5 '-H CO 00

'— '

g

1

00

■b

^^ . — , ^ — , ^ ^_^,

^-^

1— 1

N

■^ l^ CO lO t-

lO

S

W

T# OO lO ,-1 r^

CO

6
Z

OJ,OJ_^COCO

(M

PQ

''— ^

<

OJ <M "5 u3 O

CD

o

CD T— 1 L-^ O 00

Ol

CO to i-l CO t^

^~~^

s

^^„^

, ^

S"00^l-

OJ

c^

oi'^oq -^

t-

' Ol "0 l-~ OJ O

5^ ^w.

J CO lO

c

05 -^ CO 00
■■^ — CO t-

. : +
:^£

<U "^ '^' >->•

'O "O. r-^ ^ c

168

|m im 1 N N itH |n a H

^iLILu^

A

r

\o

d

*o

r 1
J) J

A'

N

\

\

'^;;

\h

"-,

.

\ ~/~' ^

\

i_i

/-^

' / 1

l\

\.

z

!^

rt-

-H

^^^^^^

g

x^*

169

170 The Lowry Ruin

from a series of Java skulls, as well as from a shorter series from
New Britain. In no case was there a significant difference between
the former brachycephalic and the latter dolichocephalic series.
Those from Java have been used for the calculations appearing in
Table 13. Since we are ignorant of the values for the type contours
of undeformed skulls from the Pecos Pueblo type, the distance from
the extreme (highest or lowest) racial mean so far recorded to the
value found for a deformed skull in terms of the standard deviation
for the character in question was computed. The results are none
too consistent. It is still clear that the occipital squama has been
turned around in such a way as to make the acute angle between
the Frankfurt Horizontal and the line joining Lambda and Opisthion
significantly larger. The same thing, naturally, has happened to
the angle NxOp. That a force applied against the occiput tends
to turn this bone around is nothing very startling. It would have
been seen without going to all the trouble of calculation. Still, the
figures reached emphasize this fact. The angle tNx on the other
hand, is evidently not influenced, nor is it likely that the occipital
index is greatly changed. At any rate, the indices of our skulls
are within the range of normal variation. The behavior of the
parietal and frontal parts of the skull appears at first sight without
any law. In the parietal region the index of bulging is within the
interracial variation in one male skull but beyond the highest mean
in the two others. These two have a much higher parietal breadth ;
a positive correlation of this index with the greatest breadth might
be assumed. In the frontal region one skull shows an unusually
high angle /SNt, indicating that the bone as a whole is tilted up,
while another one shows a value of that angle which may at least
be called unexpected. The female one shows nothing abnormal in this
angle. On the horizontal contours the frontal bone appears rather
flat. The index of flattening is very unusual in the two male skulls
but stays well "within bounds" in the female one. The angle of frontal
bone flatness does not in any skull exceed the highest racial mean.
More vividly than by a consideration of single characters the
essential points are brought out by a comparison of contours as a
whole (Fig. 52). We select the Dyak skulls (von Bonin, 1931),
which are similar to the undeformed Pecos Pueblo. Comparing
them we find:

Pecos Pueblo Dyaks

M N (T M N ai, 2

L 175.7 46 8.15 176.6 55 0.30

B 137.8 45 6.14 138.2 53 0.10

H' 137.1 34 6.49 134.8 47 2.47

■a

171

172 The Lowry Ruin

If the mid-sagittal contours be superimposed (Fig. 52) in such a
way as to make the Hne N7 and the Basion and Opisthion to
coincide as nearly as possible (this latter condition, needless to say,
is arbitrary; we might have chosen N and 7, e.g., instead) the tilting
of the occipital bone and the flattening of the parietal at once strike
the eye. The compensatory tilting of the frontal bone is also clear.
The difference in the position of the alveolar point is noteworthy,
but can hardly be attributed to the cranial deformation. On the
transverse contour (Fig. 52) the broadening of the skull is apparent
when the biporial line and the line MA are made to coincide. It
is also clear that the broadening of the deformed skulls is not very
pronounced at the base but that the parietal bones are blown out
in a very striking manner near the level of the sixth parallel. We
finally superimpose the horizontal contours (Fig. 52) in such a way
that the line FO and the point F coincide. The shortening of the
line FO is nothing surprising, but here again the defect in the oc-
cipital region appears to be compensated for by a blowing out of
the region between the third and seventh ordinates. The flattening
of the frontal bone becomes now more intelligible, too. It is simply
one symptom of the general forward push. Altogether, one gets the
impression that the skull is a deformable body filled with a sub-
stance following the law of hydrostatics; in plain words, that it is
like a balloon filled with water. This agrees with the experience of
surgeons that the brain behaves against rifle bullets exactly as an
incompressible substance would.

Although most of the Lowry skulls were too fragile for the direct
determination of capacities, a brief discussion of this character in
deformed skulls may be permitted.

Rudinger (1887) had found that the capacity of deformed skulls
from the South Sea (these skulls are intentionally deformed by
bandages, not unintentionally by cradleboard) was less than that
of the normal skulls of other races. Ranke (1909) was quick to
show the fallacy of this argument by comparing Riidinger's
deformed skulls with undeformed ones from the same region. Ranke
even went so far as to state that undeformed skulls had less capacity
than deformed ones (1151.4 against 1258.4). This was probably
going too far, for, carrying out Fisher's ^test on the figures given
by Ranke and using the variance of his samples, we obtain as a
probability that the two samples came from the same population
P= .08. In other words, there is no significant difference between
the two.

/^

^

/

u

^

in**/ \

J '^

Vr-^

/ \

\h / "v

/ \

^^^^1\,

l^x ^

173

Skeletal Material from Lowry Area 174

It is now generally assumed that artificial deformation does not
influence capacity (R. Martin, loc. tit., p. 832: Schadelkapazitat
scheint durch die kiinstliche Deformation nicht beeinflusst zu
warden). From America we have the following table:

Table 14.— Capacity in Deformed and Undeformed Skulls

{With probable errors)

(a) Deformed (b) Undeformed a-b

Peru (McCurdy)

Male 1344. IztlO. 05(44) 1388.2 =h 8.70(64) -44.1±13.29

Female 1216. 9± 9.92(41) 1216. 5±10. 60(39) +0.4±14.52

Pecos Pueblo (Hooton)

Male 1367. 9± 8.18(68) 1338. 7±14. 30(31) +29.2±16.47

Female 1254. 1± 7.66(54) 1221 .9±11 .94(21) +32.2±14.19

In three instances, deformed skulls have an insignificantly larger
capacity than undeformed ones. If anything can be deduced from
the figures from Pecos Pueblo — and that may not be justified — it
is that heavier skulls have a slightly greater chance to be deformed
by lying on a hard board than lighter ones: not a very startling
conclusion. On the other hand, the male Peruvians show a probably
significant larger capacity in their undeformed than in their de-
formed skulls (A /Pa = 3.32). Here again, of course, it can not be
decided whether smaller heads are more apt to be deformed than
larger ones, or whether deformation actually arrests development
of the brain. The type of deformation of the Peruvians is not
that found in the Pecos Pueblo.

A remark may here be added. It was pointed out by Hooton
that in the Pecos Pueblo material the cranial module = 3^:3 (L +
B + H') is smaller in the deformed than in the undeformed skulls;
that it runs, in other words, counter to the capacities. If, however,
the product L.B.H' be formed, which, as Lee and Pearson (1901)
have shown, is more highly correlated with capacity than any other
character, the values agree well with the capacities as is shown by
the following table:
Table 15. — Product of Diameters and Capacity in Pecos Pueblo Skulls

Deformed Undeformed

Males: L.B.H' 13361 3322

C 1367.9 1338.7

Females: L.B.H' 3044 3025

C 1254.1 1221.9

This indicates once more the greater usefulness of the product
instead of the module for predicting capacity.

It is of some interest to compare the cranial capacities of various
series, American as well as non-American. A more extensive survye

176

The Lowry Ruin

was made by the writer some time ago (1934) and it was concluded
that brain size as such was not of prime importance for cultural
advancement. At that time the differences in stature were not
taken into account but the hope was expressed that this omission
would not seriously affect the results. Having now assembled some
material on the long bones, the writer feels that the problem he
then dismissed rather curtly might be reinvestigated, although on
a much smaller scale. It was felt, with Manouvrier (1888) and Hrd-
licka (1909), that the length of the femur would be an indication
of stature and that a comparison of this character with cranial
capacity might be useful. Table 16 gives the data.

Table 16. — Cranial Capacity and Length of Femur

F C Log c

Oblique Length Log F Capacity Log C — •

of Femur Log F

Pecos 423.9 2.62726 1338.7 3.12668 1.19

Munsee 458.2 2.66106 1529.0 3.18441 1.20

Arkansas 456.6' 2.65954 1446.0 3.16017 1.19

Louisiana 443.7' 2.64709 1437.1 3.15749 1.19

Peru 398.0 2.59988 1388.2 3.14245 1.21

English 445.5 2.64885 1481.5 3.17070 1.20

Northern Chinese. . 440.0 2.64345 1437.6'^ 3.15764 1.19

Loyalty 431.4 2.63488 1463.0 3.16524 1.20

New Caledonia 436.9 2.64038 1420.4 3.15241 1.19

' After Hrdlicka, paired material.
■'Computed, after von Bonin (19.34).

The absolute measurements do not reveal much order and it has
at once to be admitted that the correlation does not appear par-
ticularly close. But we maj^ regard brain size as a problem of
relative growth, in the way Julian Huxley (1932) and Eugen Dubois
(1898) have approached it and compare the logarithms of the two
values we have tabulated. Since neither F nor C is known exactly
for more than three figures, having due regard to sampling errors,
we give the quotient of the logarithms for no more than three places.
They are now astonishingly uniform, although slight differences
(whether significant ones or not, the wriler is not prepared to assert)
do occur. Thus, all the races considered here appear to have the
brain size indicated by their stature.

(I first tried to compare capacity with the product of oblique
femoral length and the two pilastric diameters. The quotients of
the logarithms of these values are less uniform, as follows:

Peruvians 1 . 32

Pecos 1.27

Northern Chinese 1 .27

Munsee 1.25

English 1.24

Skeletal Material from Lowry Area 177

In the light of these figures, the EngHsh would have relatively the
smallest brains, and the Peruvians the largest. But the problem
of relative brain weight is really to find a ratio remaining constant
from race to race.)

Assuredly the problem of human brain size will have to be re-
examined. But even if this apparent uniformity can be confirmed,
it remains none the less true that cultural achievements can not
be predicted from brain size, whether absolute or relative.

Conclusions

In order to get a clear idea of the significance and of the relation-
ships of the human remains with which this paper deals, we had
to review the Indian skeletal material recorded in the literature, and
in some instances even had to go beyond America. In a rough
traverse we tried to get some bearings in the field of osteometry.
The task of mapping out craniology was relegated to a separate
publication.

Our study of the long bones showed that their length (which
we have often taken as an indication of stature) and the proportions
between them, as well as the shape of their shafts, showed statisti-
cally significant differences in several instances. A generalized
measure of racial affinities deduced from these characters led to the
inclusion of several North American Indians in one group, against
an Ecuadorian and Peruvian race.

It became clear that the study of the skull led to a finer grouping
than that of the long bones. On the preceding pages two aspects
of cranial capacity were considered more fully: the effect of artificial
deformation and the relation of capacity to the length of the femur.
No definite and generally valid conclusion regarding the first problem
could be drawn. While cradleboard deformation appears hardly to
aft'ect the size of the brain, undeformed skulls from Peru, where
deformation is achieved by bandaging, are somewhat larger than
deformed ones. Regarding the second point, it could be shown that
the ratio of the logarithms of femoral length and of capacities is
almost constant in the few series assembled here, and that inter-
racially, therefore, brain size and body size appear to follow a simple
law of "relative growth."

The human material described here came partly from the Lowry
ruin itself and partly from other Indian mounds near Ackmen,
within a radius of a mile of the Lowry ruin. Both series are very
small and an attempt was made to give a statistical justification

178 The Lowry Ruin

for pooling them. In their long bones, as well as in their skulls,
they are closely akin to the population of Pecos Pueblo described
so fully by Hooton. A comparison with the various types recognized
by Hooton in the Pecos Pueblo showed slight differences in the four
male skulls of our series, thus confirming in a measure Hooton's
conclusions. The artificial deformation of our skulls was analyzed
more closely, and the opinion was expressed that the laws of hydro-
statics are sufficient to explain its manifestations in the various parts
of the skull.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VII

Individual Measurements of Lowry Material

Tables A-F

179

uoXjqdo qanojqi c3

asuajajuinajp P ^

93U3J3JUin9jp
IBJUOZUOq (BUlIXBj!^

o'

noiq'jsido ^ lo
0} uoisBu 6iy <^J

uoimsido " 00

•irt

OJOS •

■^-^ •

-^ •

•00
•■*

•CO

CO C^J 1— 1

CO CO CO

oo.-t

T-l CO

coco

lOCOiM
OOO

oo

U0I6CU ajy ^^

•J
CO

<
Eh

uoiq^sido oi ^„ ^_|
«pqiU8| pJoq3 M co

^uiSsjq pjoq^ al CO

U018BU pJoqQ M(M

?q3i3q ^ I
oi)Biii33jq-oiseg ^ ,

ja^iaiuBip ^

qjpcajq

•>* c-

00 00

COO«D

00 OS 00

coco •

0000 •

00

Oi ■

o>o

(M^O

looco

0

00 •

«3 00*
00
r-l ,—1

t-OOiM
05 050

1—1

cc

05 050

t— 1

uo

05

oi •

05 •

CO

•0

CO (MO

ococo

UO

-HO

10

0

I— (

•CO
•0

00«3O

00 ^

"^ 0(M

0500

05'

05

Oi-H

•in

U3 •

CO •

00

1— (

■ I— (

t- 10 ■

cot)< •
I— ( I— (

(M05 •

CO CO •

T— ( 1—1

0 •
■* •
1—1

0

.^

ocoo

0 •Ifl

tn

(M<M

CO

OS

•IM

•0

ojioco

05 05 05

00 •oo

05

T-( 00

O5 00

10

•OS
■ lO

t- -^ •

•>* >o •

■^■^05

■^ "^ CO

in •

qi3uai -

IBJldlDOO-BIpq^IO '

w s

a> at
o

• S U5 mo5
3 C- 1-1 1-1

»- lO CD 'y? C

C^^"^"* S (M(M(M

o o

ISO

•- -^«n t-000

*-• i;d ^O CD CD CD C
■»^t~t-t-t~t- I* COCD

& -id

O «

„pomaui ajn^BA «j
-jno,, Suisn qipcajq -

Mipcajq lusBN g "^

^iqSiaq jBSBfj

a

juiod JBlOaAlB )J
o; uoiEcq pJoq3 ^

qipcajq ^ ^
jBjiqjoiq lEUjaiUT O CO

•(M
•05

COrl<
C5 OS

00 00 • •

■00

oo

th -eo •

o •

•eo
•o

lOOO

oo

I— 1 .— I

05 -00 •

o •

mp«ajq ^ eo
jB^iqaoiq jcujaixg O -^

ajmns

XJEIIIXBUI JBIBIU pQ ^

uo E]aiod isaMO) r^ Tt
uaaMiaq mpcajg

•J

^UlOd JBjOaAlB

05 uoisBU pjoq^

tr 00

eo

CO

c-

CO

<NO00
OOOiOO

ROCOCO

(MO

coco

coco

050

coc-

1
<

PQ
<

qjpcajq
3i1BUio3Xziq

JEIUIXEJV

•-S

o
I— 1

I— (

coco •
coco •

i-H rH •

1— t •

UOjGBq 0)

uoiSBU pjoqo

CO

o
I— (

o
I— 1

CO ■

IC-H •
050 ■

t-eo

CiOJ

o •
1—1 •

BuiSajq

qSnojq^ uouod
0^ uouod ojv

CO

c-o •

coco •
coco •

CO •
CO •

IM

eo

OS

eo

00 •

eo •
CO •

uouod o;

uouod uiojj 3JB Xo^
laABUBJl IBOIUaA ^^<M

dEjaAEUBj:) iBoijjaA

a; CQ

coco

IMO

CO CO

181

.|- <<i< CO c-ooo

3 r-( i-H .-( t-H (M
•- CO CO CO CO CO C

t>.t-c-c~t-t- <ii coco
o «

•J <

uinuSBUi
naiucjo] JO i{)pB3jg

(uoiSBq

-uoimsido) uinuSciu

uauiejoj JO mSuaq

St-

sje|oui
puo33S U33Miaq

auids (BSBU
joua^sod JO asBq
oV q;3u3l aiEiBj

o^

aaids )esBU

jou3)sbd JO dp

o; q^3u3] ajBiB j

- CIS

iqSiaq lB4iqjo ijaq

^ ^uiod (Bui/^jaci uiojj o

q:)peajq jB^iqjo ^jaq

<^,

<1
■J

pa

Eh

UoXjDBp UIOJJ ^_

qjpBaaq iB4iqao jjaq q

..poq^aui J

q^pBdjq ]B4iqjo ^j'aq O

4q3iaq jB^iqjo 4q3;^

•I— I 00 CO '

Pi

^UlOd IBIUXJDBI

uiojj mpBajq

noXjoBp
luojj q^pcajq
IBjiqjo 4q3!y

tf

.2

c
«.S

'-• in <x> zo
f^ t- t- t-

o

' -^ -^f ■»}"

182

s

a> rt iM t-

g (M (M eg

.a -"i" ;d t-oo o

3 ^ ,_, ,_! ^^ J^

*-■ ;c ;o CO (O ;0
s^ tr- t- t- t~ t-

f I ^^ ^* ^* ^1* ^^

O

■juiod JBjoa.viB \|

3|3uB uotsBg

ajguB uoisBisi N

3]3ue je|03A|V "^

<

xapui aiBiBj

o

o

O 0

CO .

0 '.

CO t- .

LO .

a> t~ ■

05 •

'■ o ;

00 • •

"^f

^ . .

•00

xapui |B)!qjo iqSfjj

1— I 05 O

00 00 00

XapUl |ESE{iJ

xapuj [BWBJ jaddfi O

xapui jBiidpoo

a

-a:

Eh

xapui punoduio3 pQ

xaput W
iqSraq-mpBBJa §

xapui S
q?3u3i-iq3;3H 2

m

■a>

CO 00

00 00 • •

w •

•Ol

«3 l«

t-co • •

CO •

-^

cooj

r-IU5 • •

^ .

•oa

oo

Olio • •

0.-I • •

CO •

o •

• Tf

t- 1-

CO ■ • ■

CO •

•o
■00

00 o>

(X> ■ • •

00 ■ • •

o> •

•CO

o-<*

rH Tf ,-1 OS lO

(M •

•o

•OJ

CO 00
C5CT>

TfOiOSUSfM

ojooooooo

TJ4 .

OJ •

&

o

• ^ uO lO 05

f-i lO ;d CO
j>j c~ t- c-

o

►-1

O) i-H (M C-
g (M <M <M

•— ■>* CO C~ 00 o

^ CO CO CO CO CO fl

>>.c~c~t~t-t- oicoco

J^ -^ -rf -^f Tf .^ C COW

o «

183

uinirDidco |^
JO mpWajg rH

•o © -oo

»!amooJ3 ^
JO mpcajg r-t

peaq jo o

•UIBip IBJJlSBg "—I

pcaq JO
•niBip asjaAsutJJX

80U3J3J

-uinajp }SB3q

aippiui IB
•uiBip ujnmiuii\

CO CO CO CO

00 t-co t-

TtCD •

• -ooo

■ ^H «-•

•d -—lO

0000 •
coco ■

• -coco

•'CiCO

•coco

.(£, -OOO

• CO ■ ^ CO

^oi(a

. -O •

iMOco

■"t C^ (M CO •<*

CO CO CO

• -co

C- C- tr-
ee CO CO

00 00 CO o o
CO CO CO "^ Tj*

i-H COr-l

• -co •

O 00 (M

^ -ocoi-i

ooooio
CO CO CO

• -co •

CO CO CO

CO •moooo
CO • CO CO CO

lO lO lO

• lO -^ t~ t- 00 t-

• U5 IC lO Irt Irt lO

■rj< -^t OJ IC Tf
lO lO lO lO lO

CO t-co

•c^ococoeoo

co^ooco

■^■>!i<-<*

• Tl< IC -^l" -^ U5 U5

-«1" Tf CO >o -^

si

S

aippiui ?B
jaiauiBip ''x-Bp^

mpsajq
•qdida jaMoq

(M O S^ r-l

CO CO o • t- CO 00 •^ CO (M

coo O CO iM

m

n
<

qipBajq
•qdida jaddf|

q}Sua| 1B40X CJ

q)Sua| -xBj^ ,_,

O

2;

t~ CO t- Tf

(MIMOCO

CO CO CO CO

.— I 00 CO 00

CO c*j i-H CO
CO coco CO

05^:; JP5

CO CO

TfCO •

■COC<I iOTj<
■ ^r ^r ^^ ^^

CO""^ •

coco •

■05 •
. ;£) .
•N •

• • t-Oi

• 00 t-

• t- t- 00 00

mm ■

coco ■

• -oo-^

• -0000

• o CO CO t~

■ 00 t- 00 00
•iMiMCgtM

Qi^Pi^Oi^Pi^Pi^

hJO^hJCcJhJ

C

0; f— I Tj< CO CO

g i-H .-I (MCJ

« hJ

184

o— o-^

c8 2 « 2

i" t- i. >-'

O S^ O 5;^

t) O O)

Ph Ph

xapui q^pedjq Ci^

pcaij

JO X)ior4di|)d

JO xapuj

i-na oo th -03 • o> ,— (

t- t- iDiD -iO ■ t- «0

•jji t^ CO • • rH ■ oo lO t-i o • t~ o CO

t^ t^ 00 ■ -co • l» 05 t- -^ ■ C£> lO Tj<

Xipijsnqoj
JO xapuj

»-i CO lO lO
00 OOOJ C5

T-1,-1 • .C<1

• CO 00 Til 00

■ CT> 00 OS 00

3|ppiiu ;e lO
5JB4B JO xapui ^

,— I -^ cvj ■ <o U3 i> 00 00 00 ^ CO o CO Tf

1

1

UOISJOJ

JO ai'auy

00

r-(

00O5.-I ■
CO C- CD •

g

,-1 CO

lO CO

■ -^ •

•Oi t-

■ CO t^

■ t^COOi Tf
• UO CO i-O CD

w

IUSJ031O ESSOJ

JO mpBajg

•^

cooi
coco

COM

•o

■ot-

■--(CO

•c^ cocg(N

-]
n

CO t-

•>Ot»<CDU3

<

Eh

Baiqooji
JO mdaa

CO

o
00

C<1

O- 00

«e(M

• ^

CO 1-1 ■-H

•COCO

• o c^ Oi CO

OJ(M

• CO lO CO T*

• (M OJ M CJ

•■^IC
•C^JCO

• c^Tjicoira

• C^l (M C^ (M

Pi^^Qi

PihJpj^JoSiJPihJtfH:! h:;oi)-iiajH-3

o

coco

185

xapui ^
•qdida jaMoq JO^

00 CO • c-j o
CO CO • U5 CO

uinimidBo JO
Xjpp'snqoy

t- 00

rH O) (M CO (M

t~a> t-i-i t-

JO xapuj >J^

i^liopsnqoj ^
JO xapuj CO

mpB3jq CO
•qdida jaMoq ^25^

uiniioo JO o^J
•uiEip -iiaBg ^

•>* o o Oi CO

t^ C~ t- C- CO

05r-l

CO c~

(MO

•-^cg

i-HO

l£5lO

■ t-co

CX)U5

>— 1 1— 1

ino

■oo

O lO

coco
coco

■■rJ<CO

-COCO

(MO

COCO

C0 05000

005

CO -^
coco

•coco

UO lO-^ -^ CO

oo UO O CO CO
(M r-H ,-( M C^]

•[midBO JO ^

o o o CO -^

IjBqs JO

•UiBip •?t3BS

lO

<

1

uiniioo JO
•uiBip asjaAsuBJX

S
'"i*

H

n
<

•irnidTO JO -uiBip
asaaASUBJX

-«t

ijBqs JO -uiBip
asjaASUBj'x

-*

o t- CO o o

IMO >-i T-H <M

O 00 ooo
■^ CO "^ CO "^

o • • -co

C-4 ■ • -iM

CO •
(M •

(M '— t 1— 1 -^ O

(MO

CO IC CO CO 05

COCO

o •
(M •

ooooo

(M eg (M (M OJ

,-t in

CO >-l O 00 CO

o^

^oooo

o •

OOOCOOi

eg •

0 050500
1-H ,— ( .— 1

(M ■

CO CO O t- M

Oi •
1— t •

050005 o
--H 04 IM --( (M

ooo

Oi-H OCO^

Tt UO

m in lO CO t—

•jiunDjp jsBaq M

qiSuai -joiSi^qj eg

q^Suaj -XBj^ i-H

pi

t-cooooji-H

CO CO CO CO "^

00 lo

coco

lOco

coco

co-tio^toio

CO CO CO CO CO

•lOkO

iC

coco
eg eg

•coco
•egio
•eg eg

oco

^ CO

eg eg

eg t-
oo
eg eg

•IC

oo
eg eg

00 00

lO lO

eg eg

•05 C-

•coco
•eg eg

00 CO

cg-»j<
eg eg

•05

•eg

coco
eg eg
eg eg

tf^jtfK^^tf

tftf

«tf

Pi«^

tf J

►i lO

CO c

c~ 0) t~eg

■^ g eg

coco C

t- t~ a» ■>* CO
-xt -* g rH eg

186

•UlBip eg

asjsASUBJX '"'

O 00 c^j ;d o

Tf us Tjt

0^ c<j ^ CO

O O t- r-4 ,-(
CO "^ CO CO Tj*

•lUEip ,_,
JBIOA-OSJOQ i-H

(M (M t- t- O

CO C<1 C^ (M ■>#

O (M (M

CO CO rH

Oi ^ CO o

ooooo o t-

uouBJoaio JO o
mpBBjq joua^sojj '-'

•-^co t-^

cooo

■o

■00

■CO

■00

050

•00^

•00.-HOO

coo

■OlO

U0U'B109\0 JO

mpBaaq joijajuy

uouBJoaio
JO ^qawH

■ CO (M — 1 (M

cocj^

• »0 U5 lO -^

CO ^D ■««<

• • -OS ■

OlOOO

• • ■ c- •

t-CO^Ji

U5 O

■05^

t-CD

■Tj<«5

c<i .-H OS Oi oa

t- lO -^ -rf m

o CO ?o 00 CO

04 U0UBJ33]0

t-

■ • ■•^1<

. . .(M

CDCOt-h
(M(M(M

(M
<M

• ■o

• ■eg

(MOO t-C^O

(M .-I .-1 --• (M

uouBJoajo
JO mdaa

t-

. . .o

•(MO

■■^ CO
•(M(M

(M

(M
(M

<X)0<Mi-HO

<
z

l— 1

CO(M>OCOCO
(MiM(M(M(M

uouBJoaio
JO qipcaja

«o

• • • 1— (

■oo

■ t-CO
•C^(M

09

1^

id

(M

• -o
. .-^

• -(M

t-OOOOOi

(-i

.-J

P3

. . .CO

UO Irt to -^ CO
(M(M(M(MIM

H

-tunojio jsBaq

CO

■^ Tj^ -^ Tf t>-

co CO CO CO CO

-cf -o

CO -co

o

CO

■ CO •

(M • 05 Oi lO

CO ■ (M (M CO

•joisXnd

<M

■^ -^ CO •

(N(MC<J •

CO

•«5
CO ■(M

y-l ■'*

(M ■OO ■O
O ■O ■.-(
C^l -(M (M

m3U3( -XVyi r-i

■ ?o

■ r~-

■CO

■00

•<M

■(M

es

^

JS

,

O

«

«H:5PHh:itf «tfP5

o

t- a> t- i-H (M

p5^_jtfPJ tfPiP5^05

3 A

o

1-1

coo

rHiM _

t- t^ O) ■>!< CO CO

TtTf g t-l.-l(M

187

Eiatpu; pue
-||od Josua:)X3

JOJ aAOOJQ

DO 09

a c
ee ce

S&

.00

to

C

Tl

CS

C

hi

d)

k.

0

c«

Qi

S

t3

X

,=2

0

1/3 4""^ "^"^

22 ?ooo-*-<t o

uopaae ^

eeojo TO xapuT ,_( t- ■<* 00 i-h o

' '^ ^ ,_, c^ t~ t- 00 1-

O • --lO t~?£>

uoucjoajo JO ,-1

xapniq^pBajg ^ : S ^ ^ 5!

JO xapui ;--. : : : 00 ;

iUpcajq-^qaiaH ^ K . . . ix> •

UOUEJDajO

JO xapui
mpsajq-mdaa

,-( • -50

GO t- 00 CO o

00 -O T}<

0 •^ CO CO ?£>

00 O 05 ?0(M

xapui eq;3uaq

ii^iDHsnqoj (M

OS O 00 • 4D
CO ^ ^ • ^

«

tfjCiJjtf P5P505

o
-3

s
<

188

csijcitf eioicJHjtf

.S ^

.-KM

C- t- <D -* ^OCO

■>1< Tf g T-H r-H Ca

O O 00 00 O O O t- O (N C<I 00 00 CO t- o

jaqauiBip auiSEiid
jouaisod-ojaiuy -^

O OS ■ 1-1

o(Moa5t-T-ic<io

O«3a5C<l(MOC0t~

J3:)3UIB!P

O t-'-l(M

lUDOOOO

Oi-iO00OC<lTj<,-l

?D«50'-I00-^(M

3IJ3UjX-)Bld

asjaASUBJX

•-

i«-<a<oooo
cocoojcg

00005 00
(M CO (MOO

osoooosoooooooo

01 <M CO CJ i>] OJ (M (M

oiosoooot^t^iot-

ja^aiuBip

auauiXiBJd

aojj3is6d-oj8juv

X

o^ oo

■r# -^^ lO lO

(^^ (M c<i cj

OiMOJiA

ococ^Tf

o-^ocoooocn

— lysofMt-oiot-

-H^(M(MOO<M(M
(M (M C<l <M C<1(M (M (M

'^-rfoooooooaj

IMC0»-I'-IC<1<M(M— 1

pcaq JO

b£

•CO

•CO

•-*

OJ 00 ?D O

t-(M(MO

CO ^ ^ "*4*

OC^-<i<0

■OOi •

o

.-<ooooo •o

nozuoq isaJBajf)

oo c-c~

""tTf coco

■0505 •

■coco •

o

t- t~ 00 00 -oi

00 CO CO CO •CO

pcaq JO

^

• CO

•00

•CO
• -^

.-H coooio

od(^^(^^o
CO ^ ^ ^

004COCO

•T-(M •

00

(M CO O 00 -co

jajatuBip
1^0 14 ja A ^sajBaj'o

OO'XIQO

tt •«i' CO CO

•050 •

• CO'S* •

1—1

C-- t~ Oi 00 •OS

CO CO CO CO -co

w

q^Sua) anbtiqo
ouajuBqoojx '^

q^Sua] anbjiqo

q^Suai

ouaiUEqaoj-j

lunaiixBj^

DuajaBqoojx

05 05

S t- «Ci UO -^ 05

[-2^ 00 CO --• --I c-

1*1 -tt Tf -^ -^ CO

0050

CO CO o

,-( eg O
OJ (M O

•^ 00 CO CO
00 00 05 05

CO CO CO CO

00 00
CO CO

• ^ t-
■ c- t-

• CO CO

qiSuai -XBjv ^

1— I o 00 CO CO

-<^ -^ ,— I ^^ 00

-^ -^ Tl< -^ CO

05 (M t- 00
00 05 05 05

CO CO 00 CO

CQ

Pi^Pi^ Pioi^^ piiH:]p5h:itfH:jo;,j pi jp^n^tf k:ip^hJ

C3

^

X.

CD

o

O

P-,

hJ

c

OC

c

189

ja^auieip
|e:)uozuoi{ JBII03 c

^

cceo

■0

■0

•CO

CDOi t~ tr-
io 00 00 CO

CD'-HTJ'O

•000 •

00 •

•lOO^O

c

10 to c- 00
(M(MC<I(M

•OOOi •
•(MCg •

IMIM •

• tr-OO 05 05

• IM <N c-a iM

•0

• 10

•«5
•CO

CMOOi-*
(MIMC^IM

t- r-H CO CJ

• CD 0 •

t-co •

• t-iCC0«5

c

^•-H CO>-H

C<ICO!M(M

■'-leo •

•<MC^ •

— iC^J •

• O'-H ^ CO
•CO CO CO CO

qjBijs JO qi3u3q g

CO t- 10
t- t- CO

CO CO CO

coco
■^-^
CO CO

jfoau puE
pteai} JO mSuaq

coco oc>j 000

••*

mpcajq
JBiXpuoaidg

1^

-jldod jou9iBod
-daa^UB ahbjiqo

^ ^ rHCO

C3 COCO

■o w oeoooooo

coooocot-oco

H

PQ
<

ja:ia co rH • 1— i

-lUEip ]Ba^t]dod CX ^ pj ! ^

jouaqi'sod-ojaiuv CO eo -co

mpiM leajjidoj o

00005 coco.

■<t i-H 10 CO -^ o

OOOt-OCOt-COOi

CO CO .-H 000 CO coo

mSuai i^anido J c . . t^ ^

■ -oco

tfnJtfn^ PiCiiJiJ Pi^Pi^Qi^Oi,-^ CrijD^NjtfHjtfJ

o

•J

c

c

Is

cc
cc

0

s

oc
CO

c
B

190

esaujapus:) \'eui O _
-Scs JO xapuj 2

esau .C I
-japuaj asjaA § i g
-EUBj; JO xapuj ,-h

X^iipBJS
jaMO] JO xapuj

XjjiidbjS o
jaddn jo xapuj O

xapui JB]|OD o

xapui ^

lB4ldB3 iCjEUluj O

xapui leai!! O
-dod icpiiuBjXj ^

xapui jBi^p o
-uoaiq i8a:)i|doj O

s

xapui mpiM o
JBiXpuoDJg O

s
a

xapui ^

IBBilldOJ O

xapui ^

OU^BBIIJ o

T-l

CQ
<

xapui o
DuauiXiEij O

U0U3:)U3

xas

mpcajq

1BUIIX0J<J

Jioau
JO qiSuaq

qi3uai
•sXqdBiQ

■ ooo -^

Oi irt c- CO ^H o

I -^ lO ?0 O lO -^ t^

OOTj<OC<15£>iOiCOi

I o -^ 5r> -"f oi

CO 1— I CO CO o i-i

iO U3 t~ 5£> • «D

CO CO t~ T-H

CO CO irt u3

CO O O lO IC o

•CD t-

05 .-I -^f O t- ■*

Ct, (Moasio-^ioco-^

O U3C0C0 "71 CO

rJfiMCOOO'^OSiOTf

•■^ cgooo

■00 oo 00 CO

• CO CO CO CO

■(MOO
■■xfCO
' CO CO

tf^JPHnJ tftfj^:) tf jtfjtfHJPHhJ Pl5lJpHH3pHlJf>HtJ

o

•Is

I, CO

CO
CO

t-

CC

oc

CO

o

I9i

s

en en in tn en

+ + + + +

jajuBqDOjj pjg

:j33u JO xapui o
XjBpuoDag O

5)Dau JO C
xapu; A'JBUiuj §

pBaq JO y^jpp Zl7
-snqoj JO xapu'j ^

ss

mm

10

'■^<x> •

in ■

• •-*-:}< -Oi

"<t IM OS t-

»o irt U3 in

• IC c~ ■
■ inio -

in •

• • in in • tr-

• mm • m

oooo-<j< t~

•^<rj •

00 OS

• -cooocgcj

T^ 0 i-H 10
000000 c-

c-c-

• -mcdco t-

OO'^C^lIM

0 •

CO1-I00 1- • t-

00 00 00 00

0 ■

Oi Oi Oi ^ * c^

Ca • T-t T-( »-( r-l • r-l

+

jnuiaj JO K%pii ^
-snqoj JO xapuj o

o I

CO CO CO m 00

r-l rH CO CJ c^i

CO • t- c- cj CO

CO • i-H ^ CO c^i

xapui o

-UBqooa^ § I ^
JBlXpuoaig 1— ( I

xapui jB|]oo 4J

-04ldB3 §

t-

CO i-t m 00

■ m •

•n<

■^

• t-o

■ -^

m

m m 00 0

• m •

• m •

OS

m

• m

■ com

■ mm

■ 3

■<*

00

•CD t~

•0

t-

^

t-

•0000
• I— 1 1— (

• 1—*

4 ^

m

(JJT-H ^ .

•05 00

•C5

Cc, t- CD -^

xapui lB}ldB3 5

^^JBpuooag o

xapuj o
anbjiqo-^DajjQ 2

xapui q)3ua| §
anbiiqo'-joajiQ o

Bsauma^fs |Ba:)t| o
-dod JO xapu'j O

xapui JBIIOD o

-ojidBo' pJiqx 2

xapui JB][03 o —

-oiidBO puooag O I "^

C^ O^ o o^

05 05 0)05

05 t-H ■rjt • •

• • 0

• • -0005

•00

t-0000 ■ •
O) O) 05 • •

• ■ 00

• • 05

. . -05 05

• t-

•03

05 rH ■<:}< m 0

• • CO

CO

t-OOOO

m

CO

■^ 05 05 Oi 05
05 05 05 05 05

• • 05
■ • 05

00 05 05 00
05 05 05 05

05
05

CO 05 -"^ m 00 c-

occ

ooooooom

05 00 0 T-t ■^ CD
05 05 0 0 05 05

»— 1 i-H

050"
• • 050-

00 0 00 0 0 1-1

05005 000 05

C-CO.-I • ■ •

• CO t-

c-

05 t-CO • • •
00505 • • •

T— I . . .

• -osco

• • t- 00

0

000 c- • • •

• -OCO

00

.-H OOCD • • •
CO.-!^ . . .

• • CD C-

05

C4

P5hJP5J tftfhJhJ Pi^JiOi^Pi^Pi^ Pi JPi JOHlJtfH-J

c

* 05

s

c

c

.3 ^

3 t-

f_4

3 ^

t^ m

CD

C

t, CD

t-

OJ

C~rH

t-

-^

f

CO

CO

&

M

&

0

CJ

0

J

<:

hJ

192

sapai c^

xapai SP

•UlBip -ASUBJX "^

aippiui iB ^

•lUBtp -ASUBJX

•j;nu -JO] rt

IB -UlBip -XBJY OO

<

Ed

.J

<

t--i-i • •
«5 t- • •

—1 c^jcooo

lO Ol o o

C- ;0 U3 U3

■«3< O COO

aipptiu IV
•uiBip xBjAj '^ •-;<

•qdida jaMoj jo
•liiBip -^^iSbs

•qdida iB^sip
jo'qipBai'a

•qdida -xoud
jo'mpBaja

;o -^ CD CO

• • CX) O ^ • ■ lO 00 1- • •

••!>)Xi-^--'<S< 0<N--

• .i.-l:~?C--;r> iD<£> • •

t~ -r)! -rf ZO t~ O -CO -"^t-lrt • kO O lO CO r-l CO

lO Tf 05 00 CO O -^ 00 00 t~ ■ -^ U5 CO C~ O C>

CC ^ en CD CO CD -CD CD CD lO • [- CD U5 in CD CO

a5CD(M^-<*<o -00 c<!ioa> •(M-<i'cDcoc<ie^i

O O O O Oi OO • Cr> .— I r-i CD -OOOCOt-OOOO

csirac^ic^rti— 1 ■ <-i j-KMr-i •cO'-H.-ii-Hi-ii-i

• ■ ic o CO • -co eco • -

• OOOt- • • C- CDt- • •

• -T-HCOrt • -i-H ■r-l-r-t ■ •

ooorHcooo -co o CO -* ■ --1 CO o rj CO c^

>— I0 050SOO -Cvl •— I.— iC5 -t-OO.— lOOO

CO CO (M c<i CO CO -co cocoes ■ Oi Oi CO CO CO eo

■ •-"I'COO ■ -co OOi-H • •

• • lo CO c~ • • c~ CO t~ • •

■ -IMIMO] ■ -C^I (M(M • •

• •o-'-'— I- eoio--

••'-••••'-I- rHIM-.

• -co-'-co- coco--

• -uo-'-ua- laio ■ •

CC •••

Si) .-OJ.-O- 1— IO--

■^ . • CO • ^ * ^ ^ • •

to

lO irj .... . .

<^ 7—< i—t i—i ■ ■ ■ • iO?Dt— •■

t^ t- CD CD .... CD CD CO • •

nzniun£Bi\ '"'

qiSuaj 1B10X ^

uooo •

0000 •
coco .

005 • •

COCO • ■

UO ^O ■

a-. Oi ■

COCO •

o o • •

0000 • •

COCO • •

OOO ■
00O5 •

COCO ■

CDiffl • •

COCO • •

CO CO

■CD r)'iO-«4<

■ ^ c^ CO CO

•CO cococo

■O O'-it-

•Tf (MC0C<l

• CO CO CO CO

tfjc5j Pi^a^ pi^oi^oi^pi^ eiijtfjtf jOhh:)^^

t; •- >rt CD

s

a

■is

193

s

O Oi

B

<

■-I CO CD
r-1 (M (M

VIII. SYNTHESIS

Mechanics of Lowry Growth

As previously stated, Lowry Pueblo does not represent a homo-
geneous unit built all at one time. It was, as nearly as I can esti-
mate, added to and modified six or seven times at least. These
modifications relate only to the pueblo proper, that is, the building
with all-m.asonry walls, and not to the Basket Maker, semi-
subterranean houses.

I do not know what stimulated these different building activities.
I can only guess that they were made necessary either by the natural
increase of the population, by the advent of immigrant groups,
presumably from the south, or by group fancy. Dr. von Bonin has
shown (Chapter VII) that the inhabitants of Lowry were racially
very similar to the Pecos Pueblo Indians and that there was no
radical change in physical type.

The building sequences given herewith are based on evidence
afforded by bonding and abutments (although these factors, as
pointed out in Chapter II, are not always trustworthy), by faced
and unfaced walls (assuming that the former were exposed and the
latter, hidden), by similarities in masonry techniques, by pottery
sequences (only to a very limited extent), and by general impressions.

It is difficult to decide whether the nucleus (Rooms 10, 15, 19,
and 21) came before the Great Kiva and Room 18 (the original Room
18 and Kiva F stand untied to any other room and unconnected by
wall abutments), or conversely. Before I obtained the tree ring
dates, supplied by Dr. Emil W. Haury, Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona,
and by Mr. W. S. Stallings, Jr., Laboratory of Anthropology^, Santa Fe,
New Mexico, I felt sure that the nucleus was the original unit, because
all the walls of the rooms surrounding it abut on the walls of the
nucleus — in other words, the walls of the nucleus are continuous,
and unbroken (the masonry in all of them is identical and
is Chacoan). Now that I have the cutting dates of five logs from
Room 21 (of the nucleus) and a date from the logs from the Great
Kiva, I am less certain of my form.er conviction. The evidence is
as follows:

The yellow pine logs from the west doorway of Room 10 and
from the doorway of Room 15, were squared somewhat — a process
which removed the outer rings. Therefore, the cutting date on
these logs is unknown. The most that Haury will say is that they

194

Synthesis 195

were probabb^ cut some time in the eleventh century of the Christian
ei^a. Five of the roof beams from Room 21 yield a cutting date of
A.D. 1090 (Stallings).

Eight juniper logs, which once formed part of the roof of the
Great Kiva, yield a cutting date of a.d. 1086 (Haury).

No dates were obtained from the original roof of Room 18
(before it was converted to Kiva D), but, judging from the masonry
which is peculiarly like that of the Great Kiva and unlike any other
masonry in the entire pueblo, Room 18 may have been constructed
at the same time as the Great Kiva.

If the dates for Room 21 and the Great Kiva are correct, it
follows that the Great Kiva and Room 18(?) were erected before
the nucleus (Rooms 10, 15, 19, and 21). It seems probable, then,
that there were other rooms clustered about Room 18, since a Great
Kiva would probably not have been built or would not have been
needed by a group of people few enough in number to crowd into
one room (18). If there were other rooms clustered about, all
traces of them have disappeared or have not been discovered. Kiva F
is tied to Room 18 and was probably built with it.

On the other hand, Room 21 was modified at some later date —
witness the secondary walls. It is barelj^ possible, therefore, that
the date of a.d. 1090 comes from those logs which were inserted
when the later walls were erected. If this date of a.d. 1090 is the
date of the replaceynents, it is possible that the nucleus was built
at a slightly earlier date, perhaps A.D. 1050.

Since I am not certain which comes first, I have included the
nucleus, Room 18, and the Great Kiva in one drawing, which repre-
sents an early, if not the earliest, stage in the developm.ent of Lowry
Pueblo (Fig. 53, a).

First Addition. — The first addition, the "x" area, located south of
the nucleus (Rooms 10, 15, 19, 21), was probably not connected with
it (Fig. 53, b). The exact size and extent of this addition are un-
known, because some of its walls were torn out by the inhabitants
at a later date. The room arrangement was probably not the same
as that of the next period. I feel sure that this "x" area contained
several secular rooms and later a small kiva (not Kiva B) and a
few rooms. This seems so because (1) fragments of demolished
cross walls antedating Rooms 3, 7, 17, 26, and 27 were uncovered
in this rectangle; (2) part of a curved wall of an earlier kiva and
several fragments of its roof lying crib-fashion were observed; (3)
the remains of a massive roof were found, a roof which must have

196 The Lowry Ruin

covered a room and which, as shown by the position of its beams,
must have spanned the area later occupied by Kiva B.

Two different logs of juniper which served as lintel pieces of
the doorway in the east wall of the "x" area (Fig. 53, b) yield a
cutting date of A.D. 1104, plus or minus one (Stallings). The date
for this first addition may then be assumed to be about A.D. 1104.
The masonry of the walls of this period is assuredly Chacoan,
although the slabs used in building these walls are thinner than
those of the nucleus (10, 15, 19, 21). But, without this tree ring
date just referred to, I should have found it impossible to decide
whether the masonry of the nucleus is older than that of the "x"
area or not.

Second Addition. — The building program of this period was
ambitious (Fig. 53, c). Several rooms and an earlier kiva in the
"x" area were demolished to make way for Kiva B (Plate XCIII).
The west wall of this same area was torn down and a tier of rooms
added (Rooms 4, 5, 6, and 20). One of the walls of Room 4 was
bonded to the older, south wall of the "x" area and the walls of
Room 20 were abutted on the nucleus.

The north wall of the Kiva B plaza was erected and was tied
to an existing wall. Simultaneously, a spur of wall, in which a
doorway was placed, was bonded to the parent wall (south wall of
Room 8), this spur acting as the east side of Room 8. The west
end of Room 8 was already formed by Room 20.

At the same time. Rooms 11, 12 and 14 were probably erected.
To assume this seems fair because (1) without Room 11, Room 8
would have been incomplete; (2) the south and east walls of Room
11 were built as a unit as shown on the ground plans; (3) the masonry
is similar to that of the west tier (4, 5, 6, 20); (4) the doorways
of 11, 12, and 14 are in line with one another, an unusual occurrence
at this pueblo; (5) these rooms are alike in shape and size (symptoms
of contemporaneity?). These last mentioned rooms certainly came
after the nucleus, because their walls abut on it.

Room 7 was also built with Kiva B because (1) the base of the
south wall of this room rests on refuse (purposely placed about
Kiva B); (2) it was level with the roof of Kiva B — that is, about
6 feet above ground level. Rooms 17, 26, and 27 were likewise
probably specially constructed at this time to occupy unused space
about Kiva B because the outer surfaces of the north and east walls of
Room 26, the outer surfaces of the north and west walls of Room 27
and the outer surface of the south wall of 17 (that is, the wall surfaces

addition.

Fig. 53. Plan showing growth of Lowry Pueblo. ,/, Earliest stage; b. First addi

(ion; r. Second

197

198 The Lowry Ruin

nearest Kiva B) are all unfaced or unfinished. I interpret an unfaced
wall as one which was to be concealed, and a faced wall, as one
which was to be exposed.

Moreover, as further proof that Rooms 7 and 17 were built with
Kiva B, I cite the following evidence: the north and east walls of
Room 7 are unfaced below the floor level (which is really at second
story height since the floor was level with the roof of Kiva B),
and faced above the floor level. In other words, this seems con-
vincing proof that the builders of Kiva B intended to utilize some
of this area for rooms — hence, the unfaced walls, which were to be
hidden by fill, and the faced walls, which were to be visible.

Likewise, since Kiva D contains inter-pilaster shelves, exactly
like those in Kiva B, and since the masonry in both kivas is alike,
it is probable that Kiva D was also constructed at this time.

Then, if Kiva D was built during this third period of growth,
it is certain that Room 16 was also then erected, because there is
no doubt whatsoever that Room 16 and Kiva D were planned and
completed together. (When Room 18 was converted into Kiva D,
the original west wall for Room 18 was demolished and the north
and south walls extended about three feet. Then, the curved wall
of the kiva and the east wall of Room 16 were laid up simultaneously,
as shown by the fact that the east face of the east wall of Room
16 is composed of large, crude, uncut and unfaced, foundation-like
stones below the banquette level of the kiva, and of faced stones
above that level. The builders employed rough stones for the
lowest courses in this east face, because they realized that such
stones would be completely hidden by the well-constructed bench-
wall of the kiva. They may have felt that it would have been a
waste of time and energy to prepare stones which were not to be
exposed.)

A single piece of roof beam (yellow pine) was recovered from
Kiva B and one from Room 8. Both these pieces cross-date one
with the other and both yield a cutting date of A.D. 1106, which
confirms my conclusions deduced from archaeological evidence.
But a date obtained from single logs is not sufficient evidence for
fixing a period.

Third Additio7i. — The third addition (Fig. 54, a) apparently
included Kiva A and several rooms to the east of Kiva A plaza
in the space later given over to Rooms 13, 31, 32, and 33. I assume
this to be true because (1) the walls for these rooms abut on the
walls of earlier rooms; (2) the pottery is similar; (3) the masonry

afhliUon' ^*' *'"''" ^^"'"'"^^ growth of Lowry Pueblo, a. Third addition; b. Fourth addilion; r. Filth

199

200 The Lowry Ruin

is identical; (4) the walls of the later additions abut on or were
built on top of the walls of this third addition. Then, in order
to make Kiva A appear subterranean, the doorways in Rooms 5, 6,
7, and 27 were sealed up so that the first and second stories of
Rooms 5, 6, and 27 and the second story of Room 7 could be filled
with dirt.

Fourth Addition. — The fourth addition (Fig. 54, h) consisted of
Rooms 28, 29, 30, and several other rooms which occupied the
space later given over to parts of Rooms 1, 2, and 9, and to Kiva
H. This is probable (1) because the masonry and pottery are
alike; (2) because of the abutments; (3) because of the otherwise
unexplainable walls, portions of which were encountered under the
floors of the later rooms; (4) because of a large doorway in the west
wall of what was later Room 9 — a doorway which would not have
been used for entering a kiva, if a kiva (H) had existed at this time.
Fifth Addition. — The fifth and final major addition (Fig. 54, c)
witnessed (1) the demolition of earlier walls belonging to the previous
period; (2) the construction of Rooms 1, 2, and 9 as they now are;
(3) the building of Kiva H and the blocking up of the doorways
in Room 9 so that the first story of that room could be filled with
dirt in order to make Kiva H appear to be subterranean; (4) the
erection of a unit of wall, the main part of which lay just outside
and south of Kiva H and Rooms 28, 29, and 30, and a spur of which
formed the west wall of Room 2. This wall, just described, created
a long, narrow space in which the ventilator shaft for Kiva H was
inserted and in which refuse was dumped in order to make Kiva
H technically subterranean, although the kiva floor was not actually
below the ground level. At the same time that this narrow space
was filled with refuse, the first stories of Rooms 9, 29, and 30 were
also filled with refuse in order to make Kiva H appear to be below
ground.

It seems certain that these additions and changes were the last
ones to be made because no other walls abut on them.

Meanwhile, many other alterations took place. At various
undetermined dates, secondary walls or partitions and storage bins
were thrown up in Rooms 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, and 28.

I do not know when Kivas C and G were constructed. Kiva
E naturally came after Kiva D.

Thus, on the basis of the evidence afforded by dendrochronology,
it is probable that Lowry Pueblo was constructed over a compara-

Synthesis 201

tively short period of time. The earliest date is a.d. 1086 (Great
Kiva) and the latest date, a.d, 1106 — a period of only twenty
years. Although no dates are available for many of the later an-
nexes, I believe that they, too, were erected over a short span of
time — perhaps twenty-five years. Of course, it must be borne in
mind that there were periods during which the entire or almost
the entire site was abandoned. But I should guess that a period
of one hundred to one hundred and fifty years would easily en-
compass the history of the entire occupation of the site. Before
the tree ring dates were secured, I had considered that the life-
history of Lowry would easily span three or four centuries.

The pottery series, as worked out from the refuse areas, likewise
bears out this conclusion, for there is little pronounced change in
the dominant ware, Mancos black-on-white.

As explained previously, the masonry techniques were Chaco-
like, non-Chaco, or Intermediate in type. The Chaco-like charac-
teristics tied together the Great Kiva, the "nucleus," the rectangle
about Kiva B, Room 18, and Kiva F as early (Fig. 53, 6); while
the block-like, non-Chaco masonry found across the south end and
on the east side was a late addition as shown by wall abutments.
However, the two or three Intermediate types contributed nothing
to our knowledge of chronological sequence. For example, the
masonry of Kiva D and that of Room 16 are dissimilar; yet there is
such interlocking that I feel sure that they were erected as a unit.
Likewise, the variations in masonry traits of the walls added in
Intermediate times (Rooms 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 20) did not
help work out the chronological sequence. This was a disappoint-
ment to me as the trait variations were interesting in themselves.

Moreover, the attempts to obtain room sequences by the study
of the sherds were not particularly successful. The periods of
building and occupation were too short to allow consistent or un-
disturbed deposits of sherds at floor levels that would give evidence
of this. In the main, the continuity or discontinuity of the walls
was the most reliable guide to sequence. Even this evidence gave
data containing apparent contradictions until it was studied long
and critically, and finally supplemented by the dendrochronological
data, which are convincing.

The mechanics of the growth of the pueblo are, therefore, com-
plex. Very often the newcomers or the later inhabitants decided
that already existing rooms were too large to suit their tastes or
purposes. They therefore divided the old rooms by means of flimsy

202 The Lowry Ruin

partitions. Sometimes, too, instead of cleaning out and utilizing
deserted though well-built rooms, these newcomers used parts of
these older rooms for storage purposes, as in Rooms 10 and 11, and
as places for dumping refuse. At the same time that they were
wasting (from my point of view) desirable, well-built quarters, they
were erecting more rooms, which were small and poorly built.

There is little evidence for believing that any preconceived
building plans existed. It is true that a few rooms were constructed
as a unit (the nucleus). But, on the whole, the pueblo grew by
jerks and as fancy or chance dictated.

It is apparent, too, that stone-robbing was common, for later
walls were partially constructed of stones taken from earlier walls.
This custom of using old walls as stone-quarries saved the builders
much time, but confuses the archaeologist.

Population

I am unable to estimate exactly the size of the population
of Lowry Pueblo. Since only small portions of the pueblo were
inhabited at any one time (perhaps only 15 or 18 rooms), it is probable
that the population at any given moment during the history of the
village was small — consisting perhaps of only fifty or sixty souls.
The paucity of skeletons bears out this notion.

Architectural Knowledge

There is no evidence for believing that the architectural
knowledge of the builders of the pueblo was profound. Broken
joints do occur and more frequently in the older masonry than in
the younger; but these joints were probably accidentally broken.
The earliest walls, which are the best and the solidest, were erected
on foundations; the later ones were not. Sometimes the builders
were either careless or ignorant, because some walls were bottomed
on ashy refuse or soft fill. Such walls always cracked or slumped
and (in ancient times) had to be propped up with posts or by means
of extra walls. When a new group of rooms was needed, the new
walls were abutted on, or, occasionally, bonded to old ones. All
the walls were built with a rubble core and faced on both sides with
surfaced stones; header stones were never employed.

The ceilings or roofs were flat and of simple construction. The
logs composing them were either socketed or placed on ledges. In
one room the main beams rested on stone pillars (Room 16, Plate

Synthesis 203

XCIV). Wall plates were employed in four instances only. Many
of the roofs were inherently weak, due to improper planning; they
subsequently had to be supported by props.

Masonry Classification

For the purposes of this paper, the masonry has been described as
"Chaco-like" and "non-Chaco." The term "Chacoan" does not refer
to cultural traits transplanted from Chaco Canyon but to generalized
cultural traits, which moved up from a southern focus and which
were responsible not only for the pueblos in Chaco Canyon, but
also for all other pueblos which reflect these southern, Chacoan
characteristics. "Chacoan" then is a general term. None of the
Lowry-Chaco masonry is as good as the best at Pueblo Bonito,
Chetro Ketl or Aztec; but much of it is as good as the better masonry
at those sites. The non-Chaco masonry resembles some which
exists at Mesa Verde National Park.

But no conclusions can be stated about Lowry or any other
masonry nor any comparisons drawn, because practically no infor-
mation on the essential details of pueblo masonry exists. It is a
pity that so many sites have been investigated and that, withal,
scarcely any accounts concerning wall construction in all the pub-
lished reports, exist. I very much hope that the study of masonry
technique and classification, right or wrong, as inaugurated herein
by Mr. Roys will at least make archaeologists (including myself)
realize that they have been cursed with "eyes that see not" and
will spur them on to describe systematically all the essentials of
wall-building in every pueblo hereafter investigated.

Results of Stratigraphic Study

The sequence at Lowry of painted wares is: (1) Mancos and
Wingate black-on-white; (2) McElmo black-on-white; (3) Mesa
Verde black-on-white. The sequence of corrugated pottery is:
(1) plain corrugated-neck and indented-neck; (2) indented corru-
gated (all over). Mancos black-on-white pottery seems to be
related to an early, undifferentiated pottery which probably orig-
inated to the south.

Comparison with Other Ruins

Some portions of Lowry pueblo are similar to Pueblo Bonito,
Chetro Ketl, Aztec, Pipe Shrine House and Yucca House(?); other
portions are similar to Far View House, Cliff Palace, Spruce

204 The Lowry Ruin

Tree House, and to Bear Tooth Pueblo (near Lowry). The same
comparisons hold true also for the pottery.

Conclusions

The inhabitants of Lowry Pueblo apparently did not have any
dread of attack. The pueblo lies on a mesa and never possessed
any defense system. It could easily have been raided and sacked,
but such a misfortune seems never to have been visited upon the
village. Many rooms have entrances at the ground-level — a sign
that invasions were not expected (?).

I have stated previously that evidence exists for believing that
the pueblo was deserted and reoccupied several times. I do not
know why the site was temporarily forsaken or finally abandoned,
but I feel certain that relinquishment was voluntary and leisurely,
since no signs of violence, destruction by fire, hurry, or disorder
were discovered. The rooms, except number 10, contained nothing
but wind-deposited dust and rotten roof timbers or rubbish com-
posed of ashes, potsherds, and animal bones. The last inhabitants
took with them all their portable eflfects. Final desertion probably
took place long before the great drought of a.d. 1276-1299.

The relative chronological position of the pueblo may be put at
late Pueblo II (Developmental Pueblo Period) and early Pueblo
III (Great Pueblo Period). Both pottery and architecture bear out
this statement, for Wingate black-on-white at Red Mesa (near
Gallup, New Mexico) is dated at about a.d. 950 (Gladwin,
1934) and Chaco masonry in the larger ruins has been dated at
Chaco Canyon at A.D. 919 or later (Douglass, 1935).

Dendrochronology makes it possible to give an absolute dating
for certain portions of the building — a.d. 1086 to 1106. These
dates are helpful, but are not inclusive, for it is possible that the
first rooms at Lowry were constructed somewhat before a.d. 1086;
and it is probable that the south portion was inhabited for a few
years after A.D. 1106. But how much longer is any one's guess —
I should say for not more than fifty years. These dates, then, fix
Lowry as existing during the last part of the dated period at Pueblo
Bonito (A.D. 919-1130) and at Aztec (a.d. 1110-1121) and during
the early part of the dated period at Mesa Verde (a.d. 1066-1273).

The presence at this site of Chacoan pottery, masonry, and
massive walls can only be explained by postulating that certain
cultural elements from the Little Colorado-Puerco focus moved
northward, reaching the site under discussion some time in the

Synthesis 205

eleventh century of our era. These cultural elements may be listed
as follows: (1) pottery, including designs, shapes, type of paint, sur-
face finish ; (2) two sorts of kivas, one of which is small and is incorpo-
rated in the pueblo within a rectangular enclosure; the other sort, the
Great Kiva, a class associated, so far as is known, only with some
form of Chaco culture; (3) a type of masonry which is composed of
long, thin, stone slabs, laid horizontally in well-marked courses and
of distinctive spalls; (4) large rooms (10 x 20 feet) with high ceil-
ings (9 feet); and (5) the balanced plan of the nucleus.

Some trade with the people to the west was probably carried
on, for a small amount of Kayenta pottery was recovered. But
the Kayenta branch contributed little, if anything (of an imperish-
able nature), to the inhabitants of Lowry, although social, religious,
and other traits may have been exchanged.

Mesa Verde black-on-white pottery in large quantities occurred
in the top portions of the fill of several rooms. The date of its
advent and its source are unknown. It may have been introduced
from some of the pueblos at Mesa Verde National Park or it may
have been manufactured at Lowry as the result of a general fashion
of the region at that period.

Modifications of the pueblo were manifold. In fact, the changes
made, the demolitions carried out, and the amount of construction
undertaken over a short period of time are amazing.

It would seem as if there must have been some uncommon leaven
working or some strong force operating which resulted in frenzied
and exuberant outbursts of activity. Wherever we dug, we encoun-
tered the fragments of cross-walls and the remains of wall founda-
tions; or we discovered that whole rooms had been demolished or a
kiva torn out to make way for new rooms or a new kiva; or we
observed that a few rooms were filled solidly with tons of dirt and
refuse in order that an adjacent kiva, which was actually built above
the ground and incorporated within the pueblo building, might be
surrounded by dirt to satisfy orthodoxy. And much of this building
activity was compressed into twenty years. I estimate that eight
rooms were modified and twenty new rooms and three new kivas
were constructed within this short interval — no mean task for a
few, primitive people, much of whose time must have been taken up
with agricultural and hunting pursuits and ceremonial obligations.

I can find no satisfactory explanation for these manifold changes.
An increase in population does not solve the problem, for I feel sure,

206 The Lowry Ruin

as stated before, that there were never more than fifty or sixty indi-
viduals living at Lowry at any one time, since the entire building as
shown on Map 2 was not occupied at one time.

The modern pueblo cultural pattern provides sets of rules and
practices for every social and religious situation to such an extent
that violence, excesses, and disruptions are not resorted to. Is it
possible that the configuration of the pueblo culture of the eleventh
century was similar and that, therefore, this restlessness (as indicated
by moving away from and back to the pueblo) and these build-
ing exuberances were the physical outlets for the group repressions
and inhibitions and that they may be regarded as substitutions for
various excesses?

At any rate, masonry, architecture, size of the pueblo, and ideas
of kiva construction underwent rapid changes at this site during a
short period of time.

More intensive and extensive research must be carried on in
this immediate area, especially in briefly occupied sites.

Inferences

What inferences concerning cultural evolution for this area maj^
be drawn from the facts ascertained at Lowry Pueblo? It seems
to me that several deductions may be set forth.

Lowry Pueblo started as a very small, homogeneous village of a
few rooms (the nucleus) and two kivas, a small one and a Great
Kiva. This nucleus exhibits certain significant qualities or traits.
For example, the walls are continuous (except for doorways), were
built at one time, and are of the same thickness throughout; the
masonry looks as if it had been built by one person; the corner bond-
ings are distinctive and unduplicated in rooms outside the nucleus;
the various roof beams were of the same height in all four rooms; the
roof construction was identical in the four roomys; and the doorways
in the central or inner walls were placed in exactly the same relative
positions and are of the same width. Thus, the nucleus shows a
trend towards rigidity, uniformity to a fault, duplication, stereotypy,
doing things in a prescribed way. All these elements are character-
istic of a homogeneous society — a society which has an answer to or
a way out of everj'' problem, which has a prescribed method for doing
things, which is rigid and antagonistic to new ideas and strangers,
and w^hich is more or less isolated — in short, a folk-society. The
nucleus represents some of these crystallized, overt elements indica-
tive of this type of society.

Synthesis 207

Then, the village was deserted for a time — perhaps ten or twenty
years, and later reoccupied by a people possessing a homogeneous
culture similar to that of the first settlers.

Then again, relinquishment and reoccupation. But this tim.e,
the newcom.ers introduced some innovations which are reflected in the
architecture and the pottery. For the additions at Lowry are
the handiwork of a less homogeneous group of people, who seemed to
have lost some of their folk-traits, due, perhaps, to contacts with
other societies. This shift is reflected in the mixed and degenerate
types of masonry, the varying size and shape of the rooms, and the
lack of regularity and rigidity in placing and planning sizes of door-
ways, in setting floor levels, and in laying roofs, no two of which
were of the same height or type. In other words, this lack of rigidity
and uniformity, as expressed in the nucleus, might be described by
ethnologists today as symptoms of a more sophisticated people.
This breakdown or change from a simple, folk society to a more
complex and sophisticated one is not surprising, for when different
cultures meet they often degenerate, until an accommodation or a
compromise is worked out. Unfortunately, Lowry Pueblo was
inhabited for too short a time to permJt this adjustment to take
place.

It is clear that LowTy Pueblo became the largest and most
imposing village in the Ackmen region and that it was deserted and
reoccupied several times. The evidence for these conclusions is
unimpeachable. But why was Lowry subjected to this particular
treatment, whereas the other near-by pueblos, in which I have
excavated, were erected, lived in but once and for a very short time,
and then forever and finally abandoned? Nor do these other near-by
pueblos evince any signs of additions, modifications, annexes, or
alterations of any sort.

This site was attractive or alluring for any one of several possible
causes. For example, the view of the surrounding country is excel-
lent, and this fact may have appealed to the builders; or proximity
to fertile fields and a plentiful water supply may have been an im-
portant factor in inducing people to live here. But to my mind, the
explanation of the attractiveness of this place may be found rather
in the fact that this site enjoyed a Great Kiva, the only one in the
immediate vicinity. In other words, Lowry Pueblo may have been
a religious center, to which many neighboring peoples repaired to
participate in or to watch such ceremonies as were performed in this
"cathedral" of kivas. The kiva is a very important factor in the

208 The Lowry Ruin

ceremonial and religious life of modern southwestern pueblo tribes
and there is every reason for believing that kivas were just as im-
portant to the ancient pueblo tribes as to the modern ones. A Great
Kiva seems to represent the summation of all kiva virtues and was
probably as much more important than a small kiva, as its size and
greatness would indicate. In other words, a village possessing a
Great Kiva would undoubtedly be a very important and holy place.

Moreover, the following evidence is further proof for believing
that the Great Kiva was the lodestone which attracted peoples from
the surrounding country and which set into motion cycles of occupa-
tion and desertion:

When the Great Kiva was excavated, I observed that it was of a
more primitive type than the one at Aztec or the one at Pueblo
Bonito. I therefore expected to find only early pottery. To my
surprise, I found, rather, all types of pottery — from early to late —
on the floor or buried between the floors which had been reconditioned
from time to time. This pottery all came from under the burned
remains of the roof. The Great Kiva was never used as a dumping
place for no refuse was found within its walls. Therefore, it seems
certain that although this structure was built in the very first days
of the village, it was used from that time right down to the last.
This evidence seems convincing proof that the Great Kiva was the
"drawing card" which caused people to settle again and again at
this site. This unit, then, was the only one used during all periods.
As suggested in my conclusions, the several withdrawals might have
been the physical outlets for group repressions and inhibitions.

This village, then, was a common meeting spot where cultural
ideas were interchanged, where a stem of the Chaco branch, the
roots of which lay far to the south, met and mingled with an indig-
enous culture, a stem of the Mesa Verde branch.

Such assemblages or encounters as I envisage would naturally
produce many repercussions, the effects of which one might hope to
find. Such evidence of conflicts is found in the architecture, in the
masonry, and possibly in the pottery. The masonry of the nucleus
is Chaco-like and is easily distinguishable from other Lowry types.
In some of the other rooms, the masonry partakes of both Chacoan
and Mesa Verde characteristics, a partial degeneration of a well-
fixed masonry-pattern.

Another inference which may be made at this time and to which
casual reference was previously made, is that small pueblos of the
"unit-type" were probably inhabited by a simple, conservative,

Synthesis 209

homogeneous group of people — members of a folk society (?) — a
society which did not welcome new ideas.

I also conjecture that these small, unit-type pueblos were occupied
each in entirety and then abandoned after a very short time and
that the people of these small pueblos were living literally amidst
the ruins of their fathers' houses.

And conversely, I feel convinced that the large pueblos were
cultural foci where cultural ideas were interchanged and where dis-
integration and reintegration of folk-ways took place at a rapid
rate. It is also extremely likely that these large buildings, such as
Cliff Palace, were not entirely occupied at any one time, but that
simultaneously, some rooms may have been lived in while others were
abandoned and used as rubbish bins.

LOCATION OF PRINCIPAL SITES MENTIONED

Aztec; San Juan County, northwestern New Mexico.

Cliff Palace; Mesa Verde National Park.

Far View House; Mesa Verde National Park.

Kayenta district; Navajo County, northeastern Arizona.

Mesa Verde National Park; Montezuma County, southwestern Colorado.

Pecos; San Miguel County, north-central New Mexico.

Pueblo Bonito; Chaco Canyon, McKinley County, western New Mexico.

Red Mesa district; McKinley County, western New Mexico.

Abbreviations

AA

AE

AJA

AJPA

AMNH-AP

B

BAE-B

BAE-R

BMSAP

CGS-B

HB

ICA

JANS

JCN

MMFUT

MNA

MP

MSAP

NAF

NGS
PM-P

PS

PTRSL

PZ

USGGST
ZMA

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Anthropologist

Annals of Eugenics

American Journal of Archaeology

American Journal of Physical Anthropology

American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers

Biometrika

Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletins

Bureau of American Ethnology, Annual Reports

Bulletin et memoires de la Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris

Colorado Geological Survey, Bulletins

Human Biology

International Congress of Americanists, Proceedings

Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia

Journal of Comparative Neurology

Mitteilungen medizinischen Fakultat, University of Tokyo

Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, Arizona

Medallion Papers, Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona

Memoires de la Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris

North American Fauna, published by Bureau of Biological Survey,

United States Department of Agriculture
National Geographic Society of Washington, D.C.
Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard

University Papers
Palaeontologia Sinica

Philosophical Transactions, Royal Society of London
Praehistorische Zeitschrift

United States Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories
Zeitschrift flir Morphologie und Anthropologic

Anthony, R. and Rivet, P.

1908. Etude anthropologique des races precolombiennes de la republique de
I'Equateur. BMSAP, ser. 5, t. 9, pp. 314-430.

Bello y Rodriguez

1909. Le femur et la tibia chez I'homme et les anthropoides. These de Paris.

Black, Davidson

1925. Skeletal remains from the Sha Kuo T'un Cave deposit. PS, ser. 1,
vol. 1, fasc. 3.

BoNiN, G. von

1931. Beitrag zur Kraniologie von Ost Asien. B, vol. 23, pp. 52-113.

1934. On the size of man's brain. . . . JCN, vol. 59, pp. 1-28.

1935. European races of the upper Palaeolithic. HB, vol. 7, pp. 196-221.

Brew, J. 0.

Report on excavations on Alkali Ridge, Utah. In preparation.

Cary, M.

1911. A biological survey of Colorado. NAF, No. 33.

Coffin, R. C.

1921. Radium, uranium, and vanadium deposits of southwestern Colorado.
CGS-B 16.

210

Bibliography 211

DORSEY, G. A.

1897. The long bones of Kwakiutl and Salish Indians. AA, vol. 10, pp.

174-182.

Douglass, A. E.

1935. Dating Pueblo Bonito and other ruins of the Southwest. NGS, Con-
tributed Technical Papers, Pueblo Bonito Series, No. 1. Washington.

Dubois, Eugen

1898. Uber die Abhangigkeit des Hirngewichtes von der Korpergrosse bei den
Saugethieren. Archiv fiir Anthropologie, Bd. 25, pp. 1-28.

ESCALANTE, SiLVESTRE VELEZ DE

No date. Derrotero y diario ... 20 Julio del ano de 1776 - 3 de Henero de
1777. Manuscript in Newberry Library, Chicago.

Fewkes, J. W.

1912. Casa Grande, Arizona. BAE-R 28, pp. 25-180.

1919. Prehistoric villages, castles, and towers of southwestern Colorado.
BAE-B 70.

Fischer, E.

1906. Die Variationen am Radius und Ulna des Menschen. ZMA, Bd. 9,
pp. 147-247.

Fisher, R. A.

1928. Statistical methods for research workers. 2nd ed. London.

FOWKE, G.

1910. Antiquities of central and southeastern Missouri. BAE-B 37.

Gladwin, W. and H. S.

1928. A method for designation of ruins in the Southwest. MP, No. 1. Globe,
Arizona.

1931. Some southwestern pottery types. MP, ser. II, No. 10. Globe, Arizona.
1934. A method for designation of cultures and their variations. MP, No. 15.

Globe, Arizona.

Hargrave, L. L.

1932. Guide to forty pottery types from the Hopi country and the San Fran-
cisco Mountains, Arizona. MNA, Bull. 1.

1933. The Museum of Northern Arizona archaeological expedition, 1933.
MNA, Museum Notes, vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 23-26.

Hawley, F. M.

1934. The significance of the dated prehistory of Chetro Ketl, Chaco Canyon,
New Mexico. University of New Mexico Bulletin, vol. 1, No. 1.

Hayden, F. V.

1881. Atlas of Colorado. USGGST. Washington.

Holmes, W. H.

1878. Report on the ancient ruins in southwestern Colorado examined during
the summers of 1875 and 1876. USGGST, 10th annual report, 1876, pp.
383-408. Washington.

1919. Handbook of aboriginal American antiquities. BAE-B 60, pt. 1.

HooTON, E. A.

1930. The Indians of Pecos Pueblo. New Haven, Conn.

212 The Lowry Ruin

Hrdlicka, a.

1909. Report on an additional collection of skeletal remains from Arkansas
and Louisiana. JANS, ser. 2, vol. 14, pp. 171-249. Philadelphia.

1916. Physical anthropology of the Lenape or Delawares, and of the Eastern

Indians in general. BAE-B 62.
1920. Anthropometry. Philadelphia.
1932. The principal dimensions, absolute and relative, of the humerus in the

white race. AJPA, vol. 16, pp. 431-450.

Huxley, J.

1932. Problems of relative growth. London and New York.

Jackson, W. H.

1876. Ancient ruins in southwestern Colorado. USGGST, annual report,

1874, pp. 367-381. Washington.
1878. Report on the ancient ruins examined in 1875 and 1877. USGGST,

10th annual report, pp. 411-450. Washington.

JuDD, Neil M.

1928. Pueblo Bonito and its architectural development. ICA, 23, pp. 70-73.
New York, 1928 (1930).

Kidder, A. V.

1910. Explorations in southeastern Utah in 1908. AJA, ser. 2, vol. 14, pp.
337-359.

1924. An introduction to the study of southwestern archaeology. New Haven.
1932. The artifacts of Pecos. New Haven.

and Guernsey, S. J.

1919. Archaeological explorations in northeastern Arizona. BAE-B 65.

Klaatsch, H. and Hauser, O.

1910. Homo aurignacensis hauseri. PZ, pp. 273-338.

Koganei, Y.

1893. Beitrage zur physischen Anthropologie der Aino. MMFUT, Bd. 2.

Lee, a. and Pearson, K.

1901. Data for the problem of evolution of man. VI. A first study of the
correlation of the human skull. PTRSL, ser. A, vol. 196, pp. 225-264.

MacCurdy, G. G.

1923. Human skeletal remains from the highlands of Peru. AJPA, vol. 6,
pp. 218-329.

Manouvrier, L.
1888. Sur r interpretation de la quantite dans I'encephale et dans le cerveau
en particulier. MSAP, ser. 2, t. 3, pp. 137-328.

March, Benjamin

1934. Standards of pottery description. Occasional Contributions from the
Museum of Anthropology of the University of Michigan, No. 3.

Martin, Paul S.

1929. The 1928 archaeological expedition of the State Historical Society of
Colorado. The Colorado Magazine, vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-35.

1930. The 1929 archaeological expedition of the State Historical Society of
Colorado in co-operation with the Smithsonian Institution. The Colorado
Magazine, vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1-40.

Bibliography 213

Martin, R.

1928. Lehrbuch der Anthropologie. 2nd ed. Jena.

MiNDBLEFF, VICTOR

1891. A study of Pueblo architecture: Tusayan and Cibola. BAE-R 8, pp.

1-114.

Miyamoto, H.

1926. Morphologische Untersuchungen liber die Querschnitte der Rohren-
knochen der rezenten Japaner. Acta Scholae medicinalis Universitatis
imperialis in Kioto, vol. 7, p. 553, and vol. 8, pp. 323-340.

MORANT, G. M.

1927. Studies of palaeolithic man. II (neanderthaloid). AE, vol. 2, pp.
318-381.

1930. Studies of palaeolithic man. IV. A biometric study of the upper palaeo-
lithic skulls of Europe. AE, vol. 4, pp. 109-214.

MORLEY, SYLVANUS G.

1908. The excavation of Cannonball ruins in southwestern Colorado. AA,
n.s., vol. 10, pp. 596-610.

Morris, Earl H.

1928. The house of the great kiva at the Aztec Ruin. AMNH-AP, vol. 26,
pt. 2, pp. 109-138.

MoRss, Noel

1931. Notes on the archaeology of the Kaibito and Rainbow plateaus in Ari-
zona. PM-P, No. 2, vol. 12, pp. 1-17.

Newberry, J. S.

1876. Report of the exploring expedition from Santa Fe, New Mexico, to the
junction of the Grand and Green rivers of the Great Colorado of the West,
in 1859, under the command of Captain J. N. Macomb, corps of topographical
engineers. United States Engineering Department. Washington.

Pearl, R.

1927. Medical biometry and statistics. Philadelphia.

Pearl, R. and Miner, J. R.

1935. On the comparison of groups in respect of a number of measured char-
acters. HB, vol. 7, pp. 95-107.

Pearson, K.

1898. On the reconstruction of the stature of prehistoric races. PTRSL, ser.

A, vol. 192, pp. 169-244.
1926. On the coefficient of racial likeness. B, vol. 18, pp. 105-117.

1928. Notes on the standardization of method of using the coefficient of racial
likeness. B. vol. 20B, pp. 376-378.

and Bell, J.

1919. A study of the long bones of the English skeleton. Part I, the femur.
Draper's Company Research Memoir, Biometric Series, No. 10. Cambridge.

and Davin, A. G.

1924. On the biometric constants of the human skull. B, vol. 16, pp. 328-363.

Pepper, George H.

1920. Pueblo Bonito. AMNH-AP, vol. 27.

214 The Lowry Ruin

Prudden, T. M.

1914. The circular kivas of small ruins in the San Juan watershed. AA, n.s.,
No. 1, vol. 16, pp. 33-58.

1918. A further study of prehistoric small house ruins in the San Juan water-
shed. Memoirs, American Anthropological Association, No. 1, vol. 5, pp.
3-50.

Ranke, J.

1909. Uber altperuanische Schadel von Ancon und Pachacamac. Abhand-
lungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Miinchen, Bd. 23,
abt. 3.

Roberts, Frank H. H., Jr.

1929. Shabik'eshchee village. BAE-B 92.

1930. Early pueblo ruins in the Piedra district, southwestern Colorado.
BAE-B 96.

1931. The ruins at Kiatuthlanna, eastern Arizona. BAE-B 100.

1932. The village of the great kivas on the Zuni reservation. New Mexico.
BAE-B 111.

Roys, Lawrence

1934. The engineering knowledge of the Maya. Publication 436, Carnegie
Institution of Washington, pp. 27-105.

RUDINGER, N.

1887. iJber kiinstlich deformierte Schadel und Gehirne von Siidseeinsulanern.
Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Miinchen, 2.
CI., Bd. 16, Abt. 2.

Sarasin, Fritz

1916-1922. Anthropologic der Neu Caledonier und Loyalty Insulaner. Berlin.

Snell, Chr. a. R. D.

1934. De tibia der Javanen. Geneeskundig Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-
Indie, Afl. 12, Deel 74, pp. 723-754; and Afi. 19, Deel 74, pp. 1225-1234.

Stevenson, P. H.

1929. On racial differences in stature long bone regression formulae. . . . B.
vol. 21, pp. 303-318.

Wagner, K.

1927. Mittelalterknochen aus Oslo. Skrifter Norske Videnskapsakademien,
No. 7, p. 137.

Warren, E.

1897. Investigation on the variability of the human skeleton; with special
reference to the Naqada race. PTRSL, ser. B, vol. 189, pp. 135-227.

Warren, Edward R.

1910. The mammals of Colorado. New York.

Woodbury, G. and E.

1932. The archaeological survey of Paradox Valley and adjacent country in
western Montrose county, Colorado, 1931. Colorado Magazine, No. 1, vol.
9, pp. 1-21.

INDEX

Additions, fifth, 200; first, 195; fourth,
200; second, 196-198; third, 198-200
Alterations, 37, 200-202
Appearance of ruin, 21
Architectural knowledge, 202
Atlas of Colorado, 20
Awls, bone, 69
Axes, 54

Ball, stone, 56

Batrachians of Lowry area, 18

Biotic conditions of Lowry area, 15

Birds of Lowry area, 18

Block-like stones, 29

Bonded corners, 38

Bonding, 26

Bones, see Skeletal material

Building plans, 202

Building sequence, 194

Burials, 143; see also Skeletal material

Buttons, sandstone, 60

Casa Grande, 139

Casas Grandes, 139

Ceilings of pueblo, 33-35; beams used
in, 34; height of, 33; secondary sup-
ports of, 34; types of, 33

Chacoan characteristics at Lowry, 205

Chaco-like masonry, 28

Cliff Palace, 31, 209

Climatological data, 16

Coal, anthracite, 62

Comparison with other ruins, 204

Conclusions, general, 204

Corners, bonded, 38

Cupboards, 31

Dam, prehistoric, 18
Deviation, standard, 145
Digging stick, 71
Dominquez, 20
Doorways, sealed, 38
Dow, Courtney, 16

Effigy, clay, 62
Error, standard, 145
Escalante, 20

Fewkes, 20
Fleshers, bone, 69

Floors, 31-33; alterations of, 32; bins
in, 32; firepits in, 32; material of, 31

Great Kiva, 207, 208; see also Kiva,

Great
Growth, mechanics of, 194; reasons for,

205, 206

Hayden, F. V., 20
Header stones, 26
Hemispherical object, 60
History of site, 20
Holmes, W. H., 20

Inbond stones, 26

Inferences, 206

Intermediate masonry, 28; see also

Masonry
Irrigation, 18

Jackson, W. H., 20

Kayenta culture, 114

Kiva, Great, 46-51; beam sockets of,

48; bench of, 50; deflector of, 49;

dimensions of, 46; fill of, 46; firepit

of, 49; floor of, 47; masonry of, 46;

niches of, 49; peg sockets of, 48;

peripheral rooms of, 51; pits of, 49;

position of, 46; roof of, 47; stairway

of, 50; vaults of, 48; ventilator, of 49
Kivas, small, 40-46; details of, 44;

entrances to, 46; masonry of, 40;

mural decorations of, 42; number of,

40; positions of, 40; roofs of, 40;

shelves in, 40; vaults in, 42
Knives, 54

Laminated stones, 29

Lino black-on-gray pottery, 79; gray

ware, 79
Lintels, 31

Mammals of Lowry area, 18

Manos, 58-60

Masonry, 115-142; analysis of, at
Lowry ruin, 116-123; block-like,
120-122; Chaco-like, 119-120; core
of, 120, 122; coursing of, 119, 121;
dissection of, 130-134; dry, 126;
Intermediate, 125, 127; of Chaco
area, 117; results of analysis of,
135-138; slabs in, 120, 126; sources
of, 138-142; spalls in, 120, 121, 127;
summary of Lowry, 122; surface
appearances of, 134; types of, at
Lowry ruin, 119-123; see also Wall-
building

Maul, 54

McElmo black-on-white pottery, 80

Mesa Verde black-on-white pottery, SO

Metates, 56-60

Methods of excavation, 23

Mortar, 120, 125

215

216

The Lowry Ruin

Needles, bone, 69
Newberry, 20
Non-Chaco masonry, 28
Notched implement, 56

Nucleus, 28

Pendants, stone, 60

Peripheral rooms of Great Kiva, 51

Photography, 24

Physical anthropology, see Skeletal
material

Physiographic conditions, 15

Pipe Shrine House, 28, 29

Pipes, tobacco, 62

Plans, building, 202

Polishers, of bone, 69; of stone, 56

Population, 202

Pottery, 79-114; corrugated, 80, 94-98;
decoration of, 85; discussion and sum-
mary of, 110-114; Man cos black-on-
white described, 80-94; paint used,
84; paste of, 88; refuse areas contain-
ing, 109; rim forms of, 94; shapes of,
80; sizes of, 80; slip, 84; stratigraphic
tests on, 98-114; surface texture of,
88; thickness of body of, 94; traded,
80

Prayer-sticks, 71

Problematical grooved implement, 56

Problems, 22

Projectile points, 54

Red Mesa black-on-white pottery, 79

Red Mesa district, masonry of, 139-140

Refuse areas, 109

Reptiles, 18

Ring, stone, 60

Robison, Anna F., 20

Rooms, number of, 35; use of, 35

Scrapers, bone, 69

Sealed doorways, see Doorways, sealed
Secondary walls, 39
Shrubs of Lowry area, 18
Shouldered implement, 56
Skeletal material, 143-193; conclusions
about, 177-178; long bones, 148-164,

femur, 153, 162, humerus, 151, 157,
159, radius, 160, tibia, 153, 162-163,
ulna, 160; methods of measuring,
144; skulls brachycephalic, 170, ca-
pacity of, 172, 173, deformed, 166,
dolichocephalic, 170; tabulation of,
144

Skulls, see Skeletal material

Spalls, false, 29; stop, 28, 29; true-
bearing, 28, 29; see also Masonry

Springs, 16

Standard deviation, 145

Standard error, 145

Stones, re-used, 138

Stone-robbing, 202

Stories in pueblo, number of, 35

Stratigraphic study, results of, 203

Tablet, 60

T-doors, 30

Torsion, angle of, 157

Trade wares, see Pottery

Tree ring dates, 194-196, 201, 204

Trees in Lowry area, 18

Trenches, 23

Tubes, bone, 70

Ventilator openings, 31

Wall analysis, positive results of, 135-
138

Wall-building, mechanics and principles
of, 123-128; summary of knowledge
of, 128-130

Walls of Lowry ruin, 26-31; construc-
tion of, 26; dimensions of, 26;
dissection of, 130-134; foundations
of, 26; joints in, 29; materials used
in building, 28; mortar in, 29; spalls
in, 29; surfaces of, 29; types of
masonry in, 28; ventilator openings
in, 31; wall plates in, 31

Well, ancient, 16

Whistle, bone, 70

Wingate black-on-white pottery, 80

Zoomorphic image, 60

^t^'

**".

&^^

i'ii

D

tf

3

o

^

-^

be

oi

^

^

o

£

k5

_c

§

_c

O

*3

«

c

fe

3

o

K

s

Eh

<D

o

►J

O

w

H

t4

o

^

S

W

^3

Z "a

a n

q >

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate V

^#

<-<

^

^J^%i,'.

^^

(e-;;-- •

,:T'>' -"•/■'^■^

JJ-V- - ; - ^

^^ /'

"'.(f •' ''■■

;■■-■ ..

1 ' ■' ■

'^M.

GREAT KIVA, LOWRY PUEBLO, BEFORE EXCAVATION
Looking west

Field Must'Um of Natural History

Anthropology. Vol. XXIIl, Plate VI

.iid

^ai*'

■^i'

1

NORTH TRENCH, LOWRV PUEBLO
Looking southwest

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate VII

SOUTH TRENCH, LOWRY PUEBLO

Looking northwest

Field Museum nf Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate VIII

■tp,

MINE DUMP-CAR AND CHUTE AT SOUTH END OF LOWRY RUIN

'"'^^

^

.^

•:«^-

%

"4

i. '-4

Fiold Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate X

PHOTOGRAPHIC TOWER, LOWRY PUEBLO
Tower 35 feet high; base 8 feet high

Kield Musfum of Natural HislDPy

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XI

'••y^/ .;

-^"^^v:

■'s---.-

?f;,V

■^; . V, ■ ^^

•^'.

...• z^- ^ \-'<-. ^rft-":

ROOM 10, SOUTH HALF, LOWRY PUEBLO

o
J

03
W

O

9 §

<

V.

n

Field Muspum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XIII

LOWRY PUEBLO; KIVA A IN FOREGROUND
Looking north

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XVII

LOWRY PUEBLO; UPPER PART OF ROOM 17 IN FOREGROUND
Looking northwest

L

/V

^

-c

►J o
c

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XIX

ROOM 27, LOWRY PUEBLO
Looking southwest

>

3

Ph

rt

>-■

0/

Pi

O

^

"o

o

0)

h5

bi

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XXII

CHACO-LIKE MASONRY; ROOM 15, LOWRY PUEBLO
Height of section shown, 43-i feet

Field Museum of Natural Hist..ry

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XXIII

.1* :-«

"J^^

? _ai

^-^

CHACO-LIKE MASON K

V; WEST WALL. ROOM 32. LOWRY PUEBLO

•^ ffl

« §

p m

O c
W J

^ I

6

O

<:
a
o

^v-|

O "

o s

W .2

6
o

O

■.]4't^

mi^^

iW:"

\ X.

o "

O m

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XXVII

NON-CHACO OR BLOCK-LIKE TYPE OF MASONRY; EAST WALL, ROOM 1

LOWRY PUEBLO

Height of section shown, 35-i feet

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XXVIII

NON-CHACO OR BLOCK-LIKE TYPE OF MASONRY; SOUTH WALL, ROOM 9

LOWRY PUEBLO
Distance between chalk marks, 3 feet

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XXIX

INTERMEDIATE TYPE OF MASONRY; SOUTH WALL, ROOM 12, LOWRY PUEBLO
Distance between chalk marks, 3 feet

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XXX

INTERMEDIATE TYPE OF MASONRY; SOUTH WALL, ROOM 31, LOWRY PUEBLO
Divisions on stadia rod, 1 foot each

M :5

a -g

§ I

fe .2
O Q

W

<

Q
W

2;

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XXXII

3

..-, ;"^^ij

>■'-

f - ;i|

-

^K

^^^

1

^^-^

HlME •

m^ .J

T-DUURWAY; WEST V.ALL, UuoM 9, LOWRY PUEBLO
Overall height, 7 feet

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XXXIII

RECTANGULAR DOORWAY; EAST WALL, ROOM S, LuWKV i v. LijLO
Overall height, 5 feet 2 inches

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XXXIV

RECTANGULAR DOORWAY; WEST WALL, ROOM 15, LOWRY PUEBLO
Overall height, 3 feet 5 inches

-iyT. J

1 i

il

1)1

k-': '

^

iCM

i

Field Muspum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XXXVI

LOOKING WEST INTO SPACE BETWEEN ROOMS 14 AND 16, LOWRY PUEBLO
Showing circular opening in background where wall plate was inserted in north wall, Room 15

o
o
ci

2

s

o
o

25

O

Ph

a
z

<

O
2

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XXXIX

FIREPIT (FOREGROUND) AND SECONDARY ROOF SUPPORT (BACKGROUND)

ROOM 13, LOWRY PUEBLO

Looking west

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XL

FIREPIT "A"; ROOM 35, LOWRY PUEBLO

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XLI

FIREPIT "B"; ROOM 35, LOWRY PUEBLO

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XLII

WEST WALL. ROOM 15; SHOWING SOCKETS FOR MAIN ROOF BEAMS AND LEDGE
ON WHICH RESTED TERTIARY BEAMS

ttow ■tC'i'iTra^

o =

S a

S ^

Z c

W o

« "5

o 5

§ '^

a

C 3

tf •-

< -g

i-J _^

w i

o >■

Q ^

o *

a "

W 1

S 8

^ "-5

W 3

o

2 I

pa o
a *-

d, c

o

>■ w
~. IS

3 I

Q -^

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XLV

SEALED T-DOORWAY BETWEEN KIVA H AND ROOM 9, LOWRY PUEBLO
In foreground kiva pilaster which is part of seal

fit: .:A::tv-; -0^'^-'.

Ah 3

2 «

mmAsik'j 2^^

Wmkf

m

o &

•J ^

pa ^

o .

> .5

■A

"V : -^

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate LI

KIVAS A AND B, LOWRY PUEBLO; LOOKING SOUTH
Lateral ventilator openings for Kiva A in background; sub-floor ventilator opening for Kiva B in foreground

^ E

•< 0)

z I

m
o .s

. o

4ii'.*H_ J>il«j

Z i5

O .2

2i C

C 3

2 I-

t- "5-

f o

a '^

^ !^'

M ^

O I

so >

z s

-3 c

O «4

o ■5

Z -^

Q

2;

H

a

'z

<

"Z,

o

2;

o

Q

Q
W
H
2

O ;o
O

< ^

> o

< •

W c

^ 'c

« I

^ 2

Z 3

z g

o S

OT -a

Q -JS

Q ^

H
Z

:^

^ Si

S 5

a, -f

O ai

-1 =

ri c

■< o

a I

o
2

' /#'a

O
J
aj

o

h3

7. 2

w

Z w

<

Q

<:

D

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate LXX

c;;cEAT KIVA, LOVVUV I'UEULU
Looking north at recess which had contained stairway. Length of trowel, 9 inches

a

C3

D

is

(U

ai

J3

'%

hJ

to

•i.-

1

1-5 .2

tri a

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate LXXV

METATE AND MANO; TROUGH OF METATE OPEN AT BOTH ENDS
Length, 1 foot 4 inches. Found on floor of Kiva F

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate LXXVI

METATE AND MANO; TROUGH OF METATE OPEN AT ONE END ONLY
Length, 1 foot 8 inches. Found in Basket Maker III(?) house, under floor. Room 11

< §

3 c

^ .2,

9 §

o S

■< 0.

iJ I.

« S

O ^

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate LXXVIII

POTSHERDS FROM UPPERMOST CUT (CUT 1); ROOM 8, LOWRY PUEBLO

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate LXXIX

POTSHERDS FROM CUT 4; ROOM 8, LOWRY PUEBLO

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate LXXX

y

I

k

^

POTSHERDS FROM CUT 6; ROOM 8, LOWRY PUEBLO

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, piate LXXXI

POTSHERDS FROM UPPERMOST PTTt //-ttt^ .x ..r,^

28

Fifld Museum of Natural History

/*<-

^^

-ft^?L.

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate LXXXII

i^-.

POTSHERDS FROM CUT 4; REFUSE AREA WEST OF ROOMS 4 AND 28
LOWRY PUEBLO

<

hJ CO

H o

S '^

^ '^"

O fe

W "o

< S

M S

O '-'

o

^:

<!

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plato LXXXIV

PORTION OF LINO GRAY WARE JAR
Found in remains of Basket Maker III house, just east of Room 10. Height, 1734 inches

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIIl, Plate LXXXV

.»*5

f '

I V^

MALE ULNA AND HUMERI

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology. Vol. XXIII, Plate LXXXVI

\.

%

)

uw

MALE AND FEMALE FEMORA

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate LXXXVII

i

ik

■■^■- 4

MALE AND FEMALE TIBIAE

FioUl Musoum of Natural History

AnlhropoloRy, Vol. XXIII, Plato LXXXVIII

PATHOLOGICAL LONG BONES

Showing post-mortetn deformation of fibula; healed fractures of radius and ulna;

abscess of distal epiphysis of femur

ij

^

^

p

'^

M

s

E»

'j3

(I

»

"

>-]

<5

s

^1 \J-, '■:

^h

'^m

'\

v^-

i \

v-.^

<^

k^^

S o

Q §

Q I

Z 5

W "

H -a

'^^""M

P9 "o

Field Museum of Natural History

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plate XCIII

PORTION OF DEMOLISHED WALL (right edge uf plate), "X" AREA, LOWRY PUEBLO

^ 3

J 2
o g

05 S

J

Q

^

<

bi

^

s

W

tM

H

o

t-i

5

0)

^

E

2;

.2

o

(5

«

o

J

g

a

o

w

a

O

.

o

o

■z

<

*"

»<H

c

«^

o

T3

c

3

o

fe

1 1

& ^-

o o

^«

«

[i(

o

w
o

<u o
m O

S.£

M O

W "

3 6

go

E? B

*?^

O '3

o

« S

o 8

W o

^^^

E

13

4J

S

J2 ^

w

i! S

H

•^ s

3 9

5

O tf

>

"O .

!>

m S

z

2 3

9

M 5

w

3 c3

o

-s;

es o

S^.

o

^ <^

S

g M

o'^

I

^ 6

O 3

n S

^ 2

^ i

^ PS

o .

o ^

PQ S

J 8

Field MuRpum nf Natural Ilistorv

Anthropology, Vol. XXIII, Plato TV

McELMO BLACK-ON-WHITE BOWL
From passageway leading to Room 10. Diameter, 5 inches

Q -S

o fe

< S

« i

§ 5

<

^

9i «

H

09

J

0)

Q

s

<

i;

►J

O

H

H

0)

HH

W

t

^

:z;

g

9

^

s

o

<j

ei

pq

^

E^

\'

/

"^4

o "
O s

< 2

^ o

J 5

O o

O .S

j %

81

M g

o a

i.

o
7\

•{HE UBRARV OF THt

O v-J ^- *~'

UNIVERSITY OF llLiHOlS

p