The following discussions will present only the results of preliminary analyses of the artifacts that have been recovered from Wallace Ruin.
Ceramics
The Wallace Ruin ceramic assemblage has presented the usual difficulties of typological analysis. Generally the types defined by Breternitz et al. (1974) have been followed for the San Juan and Mesa Verde Whitewares. Cibolan types conform to those defined by Hawley (1936, 1939). Tsegi Orangewares, especially Tusayan Black-on-red, and Tusayan Polychrome (Fig. 6h), and Tusayan Whitewares follow the descriptions presented by Colton (1955, 1956). Other types include White Mountain Redwares (Carlson 1970), an unidentified smudged redware, and some unidentified Hopi Orangewares (E. Charles Adams 1985, pers. comm.). Two sherds have also been tentatively identified as early Zuni Area polychromes (Haury 1978, pers. comm.). Chaco Black-on-white (Fig. 6g) has been conservatively defined to include only those examples with fine-line hatching. Chaco/McElmo Black-on-white (Fig. 60 is also present (Windes 1985). The San Juan Redwares and Tsegi Orangewares have been particularly difficult to identify consistently because of the overlap of the attributes that the Wallace Ruin collection exhibits. In only about one-half of the cases it is obvious into which category a sherd should be placed. In the other one-half, the sherds exhibit traits of both wares. This difficulty should be considered when examining the counts and percentages of these wares.
Another group of vessels does not fit into a particular typological category. In this case they are all whitewares but they exhibit characteristics of both Mesa Verde/McElmo Black-on-white and Chaco/Gallup Black-on-white (Fig. 6a-d). The vessel forms are consistently typical of Mesa Verde whiteware but the technological attributes and the design styles and execution are more similar to Cibola Whitewares. All of the examples of this variety are restorable or complete vessels associated with burials originating during the post-A. D. 1200 use of the site. Total type counts for all of the excavated architectural features and construction deposits are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Counts and percentages of types by each stratigraphic unit have also been completed but are not included in this report.
A large sample of ceramics has been recovered from the excavations. These are predominantly local San Juan and Mesa Verde Whitewares and Graywares. Nearly 94 % of the whitewares and redwares may be considered local types. The remaining 6.3 % of the decorated sherds include a wide range of nonlocal types. This relative proportion of local to nonlocal types is slightly higher than those reported for other contemporary sites in the Mesa Verde area (Hayes and Lancaster 1975; Lister 1965). Viewing this collection as a unit is not very informative about what was present or originated during any of the separate occupations and uses of the site. In addition, the majority of sherds have been recovered from mixed stratigraphic units. As an example, of the contents of a structure that was built after A.D. 1200 (F-1 ), 27 % of the decorated sherds (n = 671) are Mancos Black-on-white and only 11% are Mesa Verde Black-on-white. On the other hand in a room (F-15) whose construction and use dates to the A.D. 1000's, 15% of the decorated sherds (n = 5,402) are McElmo/Mesa Verde Black-on white and 30% are either Cortez or Mancos Black-on-white, with the remainder being unpainted whiteware or of nonlocal origin (Table 1). In order to achieve a better understanding of the ceramic assemblages present during, and immediately following, each building episode, sealed floor units and other unmixed contexts were selected and tabulated separately' (Table 2). Even these figures exhibit substantial variation from the expected type percentages. Unfortunately the dating of ceramic types is still far from complete. Breternitz (1966) gives a range of A.D. 1030-1300 for Mesa Verde Black-on-white, which spans the entire use-history of Wallace Ruin! The ceramic data have been used. in this study, only as a general indication of the chronological sequence of the use of the site.
Projectile Points
Wallace Ruin has yielded a total of 355 artifacts that have been classified as projectile points. This is an extremely large number when compared to other sites in the Mesa Verde Region; however, quantity alone is not a very useful indicator of their relative abundance. In order to make useful comparisons between sites an index of projectile point abundance has been devised. To be useful this index has to include data that are commonly included in most archaeological site reports. After examination of many reports, it became clear that volume of excavated deposit, structure count, and area of excavations were to.consistently reported. Generally data concerning artifact counts are available, so it was decided to calculate the ratio of the numbers of projectile points to the number of decorated sherds. This is not intended to imply that there is a functional relationship between these artifact types. When compared to other sites in the Four Corners area, it is clear that projectile points are relatively abundant at Wallace Ruin (Table 3).
Results range from 1 projectile point to 57 decorated sherds at Wallace Ruin to 1 to 7,030 at Mesa Verde 875 (Lister 1965). The site that most closely approximates Wallace Ruin is Kin Kletso in Chaco Canyon (Vivan and Mathews 1973) at 1 to 87. The next closest is from Badger House Community (Hayes and Lancaster 1975) with an index 7.5 times that at Wallace Ruin..The reason for this abundance at Wallace Ruin is unclear but when this is examined in the context of other data some .tentative conclusions may be made.' Lekson (n.d.) has recognized a relatively abundant occurrence of projectile points at Great House sites in Chaco Canyon based on point counts to room counts, and he concludes that projectile points are more abundant at Chaco Central sites than at either small Chaco sites or contemporary sites of other Anasazi traditions. It mav be that this difference reflects different functions for these site types.
Projectile points from Wallace Ruin are primarily styles that would be expected in a Pueblo II/III site in the Mesa Verde area. Only 19 (7%) have been classified as other than ranged (Fig. 7, Row 2 a-f), corner notched (Fig. 7, Row 2 j-s), or side notched arrow points (Fig. 7, Rows 3-5). Most of these may be attributed to earlier time periods including Paleo-India'n, Archaic, and BasketL maker (Fig. 7, Row 1). Totals of all of the styles are presented in Table 4. Raw materials used for the manufacture of the projectile points were mostly of local (20 km radius) stones; however, obsidian, basalt, Washington Pass chalcedony, cherts, jaspers, chalcedonies, and petrified woods of nonlocal origin are also present.Figure 7
Provenience data do not help indicate which point styles were associated with which use of the site except in a general context. Subfloor excavations into levels that were not mixed with strata from the main building phases of the site consistently yield small, corner notched, convex based, arrow points (Fig. 7, Row 2 j-r), and a group of 41 projectile points that were recovered from a thirteenth century burial were all side notched arrow points. These styles correspond to the types expected from their chronological contexts. No contextual information that would help determine when the pre-Pueblo points were incorporated in the site has been noted. In one instance three unusual serrated projectile points (Fig. 7, Row 2 g-i) were found together behind the lower lining wall of Kiva 1. Their provenience, unusual forms, and exotic materials may indicate that they were intentionally cached behind the kiva wall during its construction, possibly as a dedicatory offering.
Bifaces
Bifacially flaked artifacts, other than projectile points and drills, are not common in Pueblo II/III sites, although they are not unknown. A relatively large number of bifaces have been found at Wallace Ruin (Fig. 8). Generally they are well made percussion thinned bifaces, which exhibit selective pressure retouch around their margins. Several of the specimens are particularly well made and exhibit superb percussion thinning (Fig. 8 a,c,m, and o). Similar artifacts have not been reported from sites on Mesa Verde but several have been recovered from Great House sites in Chaco Canyon (,Judd 1954). Two of the bifaces from Wallace Ruin (Fig. 8 i-j) exhibit attributes that are unusual on Pueblo bifaces. Both were retouched abruptly along opposite margins on opposite faces producing a bibeveled effect. This style of biface is common in Antelope Creek focus sites in the Texas and Oklahoma Panhandles (Lintz 1984:332-333). Both of these were also made from nonlocal materials, which could have originated in that area. Figure 8
Drills
Stone drills have been recovered from ¬railace Ruin in lower relative concentrations than either projectile points or bifaces. Styles range from full bifacial artifacts. with or without notches, to small angular splinters of stone that served as bits in compound drills. None of the styles are unusual nor are they made from nonlocal materials.
Other Flaked Stone Artifacts
With the exception of the above described artifact types, few forrealized flaked stone tools have been recovered. A recurrent unifacially retouched tool type may be called a denticulate (Bordes 1972). These range from large heavy flakes with two or more irregularly spaced flake removals to small flakes with deep evenly spaced notches. Various other standardized artifact types were initially flaked and then finished by pecking and/or grinding. These include axes, tchamahias, pecking stones, disks, and tablets.
Flake Production Technology
Simple, expedient flake production was being done at Wallace Ruin. Cores are either irregular with one or more platforms or discoidal. There seems not to have been any standardized flake production sequence. Platform preparation is also generally absent. Raw materials are mostly local with only occasional flakes of obsidian, jasper, etc. Although present, biface flakes are rare and it is unlikely that much biface manufacture was taking place at the site.
Pecked and Ground Stone
The pecked and ground stone artifacts recovered from Wallace Ruin offer no substantial variations from those recovered from contemporary pueblo sites in the Mesa Verde area. Metates are of the slab variety with trough styles restricted to fragments incorporated in walls and a single specimen recovered from a use surface in F-14 and associated with large numbers of Chaco Blackon-white sherds.
Tchamahias recovered from Wallace Ruin are all of a dark gray shale rather than the usual banded hornstone like those recovered from other Mesa Verde area sites (Cattanach 1980:284--285; Rohn 1971:24-7-248), even though a banded hornstone was used for the manufacture of a majority of the flakes recovered from Wallace Ruin.
Several stone tablets have been recovered, two of which had solid red spots painted on one face. One of these was found in F-1 (a post-A.D. 1200 kiva) directly below a niche which it would have fit as a cover. The other was propped up against the wall of the lower story of Feature 6, by several manos and an axe, and was associated with the deposit of disarticulated human remains. Several carved stone fetishes have been recovered representing an unknown animal, a human figure, and a maize deity. Most axes are of the notched variety with mauls being full grooved.
Bone and Antler Tools
The bone tools from Wallace Ruin are currently being analyzed by Steve Shelley, along with' the unmodi~ed animal bones. His analysis has included 133 of the estimated 4-00 bone tools and fragments in the collection. Table 5 lists the counts and percentages of each of the types he recognizes. Although the tool types and manufacture technolog)' are very similar to those from other sites in the Mesa Verde area (Cattanach 1980; Hayes and Lancaster 1975; Rohn 1971; Swannack 1969) and the Chaco area (Judd 1954), the relative quantity of tools is substantially higher than in most of these sites.
Analysis of items that have been identified as ornaments has not been completed. A few observations may, none-the-less, be made. As noted for other classes of artifacts, ornaments are quite abundant (Fig. 9). Pendants are common and were made from a variety of materials including stone, shell, bone, and sherds. Most of the stone pendants are siltstone, but jet (Fig. 9f) and turquoise (Fig. 9 n-p) are also well represented. It is interesting to note that no occurrences of turquoise are reported for sites on Mesa Verde (Cattanach 1980; Rohn 1971; Swannack 1969) with the exception of Badger House Community (Hayes and Lancaster 1975:161). Shell pendants are dominated by G(ycymeris bracelet fragments (Fig. 9 bb) that have been modified for suspension, usually by perforation of one end. Other shell types and forms are also present, but the styles typical of stone and sherd pendants, discoidal and trapezoidal, are rare (Fig. 9q). The sherd pendants are primarily made from redwares, including White Mountain, Tusayan, and San Juan redwares (Fig. 9 g-j).
Other ornaments include beads and finger rings. Most of the beads are either modified Olivdla shells (Fig. 9 gg) or disk forms made of shell or stone (Fig. 9 r-w, y). Several figure-eight beads have also been recovered (Fig. 9z). No complete or partial necklaces have been encountered. When found, beads are either alone in the fill of structures or in small, loose groupings on floors. None have been associated with a burial. Only two finger ring fragments have been found. One was made from jet, while the other was made from bone. Neither showed anv evidence of decoration. Two bone discs that have been perforated and inlaid with galena crystals were recovered in association with a human burial (Fig. 9 a).Figure9
Perforated mammal tibiae have been recovered in relatively large numbers. Most have been made from rabbit tibiae with both cottontail and jackrabbit bones being used. All of these have exhibited a reamed-out proximal end and a small conical perforation on the main shaft of the bone. Two canid tibiae with reamed out proximal ends were recovered from a bench surface of Feature 1. How these items were used has not been determined but they seem to be associated with ritual features, either directly or indirectly as in the case of kiva trash. These items seem to be common in sites in the Mesa Verde Region, especially during Pueblo III times (Cattanach 1980:313; Rohn 1971:249-250). They have not been recovered from sites in the Chaco area, but artifacts that lack the side perforation but are proximally reemed have recently been reported (McKenna 1984; 304-305). It is possible that this artifact form was overlooked during the analyses of earlier collections.
None of the ornament forms or raw materials from Wallace Ruin are unique for Mesa Verde area sites but the relative abundance of shell and turquoise artifacts is unusual. In two instances, turquoise pendants have been found in contexts that may indicate that they were buried as part of a room dedication ritual. Both were by themselves and associated with small burn spots on pre-fioor surfaces. These surfaces showed no evidence of having been used and were covered with 10-15 cm of clean tan sand. This sand was capped by a prepared clay floor, which exhibited ample evidence of extended use. One other turquoise pendant was recovered from a disturbed unit that probably originated between an original floor surface and a subsequent floor. All of these occurred in Building Phase I rooms.
