ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS IN MISSOURI 197 



welliaii. Some of the traits regarded as characteristic of Elemental 

 and Ohio Hopewell have a comparatively limited distribution, 

 whereas the typical pottery elements, for example, are now known to 

 be exceedingly widespread. This is not the place to attempt an 

 analysis of the Hopewellian complex ; all I have sought to do in table 

 11 is to indicate those elements in Hopewellian sites that are also 

 present at Renner. It is hardly necessary to point out that by this 

 procedure a great many Hopev^•ellian diagnostics are omitted from 

 consideration. 



A more serious obstacle is the fact that at the Renner site a village 

 complex alone is represented, whereas elsewhere, with a very few ex- 

 ceptions, Hopewellian rests on finds at burial mound sites. A glance 

 at any published list of Hopewellian determinants will show that 

 almost all the elements concern burial practices that would not be ex- 

 pected to occur in a habitation site. For the northern Mississippi 

 Valley area, at least, Hopewell "culture" at present thus appears to 

 be a cult rather than a well-rounded assemblage of material culture 

 traits such as has been inventoried, for example, for the Fort Ancient 

 horizon. Because my data are not directly comparable to the Hope- 

 wellian remains elsewhere, any conclusions drawn from the following 

 comparisons are necessarily tentative and subject to revision or aban- 

 donment if and when additional data on the Hopewellian village 

 complex become available. 



Turning our attention eastward from the Renner site, we see that 

 the nearest published excavations having to do with Hopewellian 

 remains are those on the Mississippi River bluffs in Louisa, Muscatine, 

 Scott, and Jackson Counties, Iowa. Here, during the 1870's, a num- 

 ber of burial mounds were opened by individuals representing the 

 Davenport Academy of Science (see esp. Proc. Davenport Acad. Nat. 

 Sci., vol. 1, 1876) ; associated village sites are either undiscovered or 

 undescribed. For the most part the finds here show a much closer 

 similarity to Hopewell burial mounds east of the Mississippi; such 

 items as log-covered tombs, curved base bird effigy monitor pipes with 

 inset eyes, copper beads, axes, and awls, marine shell containers, pearl 

 beads, sheet mica, galena, and silver have no counterpart at Renner. 

 Flat-bottomed pottery jars with embossed rims, punctations, and al- 

 ternate smooth and roughened areas are indicated. Some of the pot- 

 tery elements, including vessel shapes (except for flat bases) and dec- 

 orative techniques, are reminiscent of material from Renner, but I 

 doubt that the resemblances can be taken as evidence of anything more 

 than a common ancestry. Large-stemmed flint projectile points, per- 

 haps the dressed antler cylinders, and an imitation bear tooth from a 

 mound near Albany, 111., also recall items at Renner. 



Much more fruitful is an inspection of the results of recent sys- 

 tematic investigations in the Illinois River Valley. In December 



