Berle and I have frequently discussed the conundrum that is partly an historical accident of words used by William Mills in pre-radiocarbon times: the relationship between the archaeological cultures represented by the labels Adena and Hopewell. Elements of our discussions even became chapters in the same volume noted on this slide (Applegate and Mainfort 2005).
To quote part of Berle’s conclusions (this may not be his favorite part):
“Now it may be best to move ahead, minus Adena as an integrating concept, although it may have local applications. Perhaps started with the best of intentions to order local archaeological matters in conceptual space, it has been hopelessly confused by conflicting interests.” (Clay 2005: 95-96).
(I emphasize the word “local”)
And mine:
“We might find a new naming system that recognizes both the diversity and the unity of the archaeological cultural remains that overlap in space, time or both across the Central Ohio Valley, although such a scenario is unlikely. An elegant single word name that combines space and time could complicate cross-region comparisons. Because knowledge of space is more readily available, for many purposes longer phrases would at least define a local region (for example): Middle Muskingum Adena, Middle Muskingum Hopewell.” ( Greber 2005: 39).
Contemplating relationships between the two phenomena, it is most useful to begin at a local level. There is no reason to assume that the historical trajectories were the same within or across river valleys, and consideration evidence that indicates that they were not. It is easiest for me to deal with the Central Scioto area, where conveniently the “type” sites are found.