This book, stemming from alternative mitigation efforts related to various infrastructure projects, represents an ambitious effort to bring color to the “gray” literature about a pivotal landscape in the Indigenous history of the Ohio Valley. It is refreshing seeing agencies support efforts to promulgate the results of publicly funded investigations, promoting and enhancing preservation beyond the construction footprint. Therefore, I looked forward to the opportunity to review—for specialists and the broader public—a coherent volume of synoptic and synthetic archaeological presentation.
David Pollack, Ann Tobbe Bader, and Justin N. Carlson note that archaeological research in the area of the Falls of the Ohio River (where the US states of Kentucky and Indiana meet) has a history of “more than one hundred years, [yet] no one had ever attempted to prepare a regional synthesis” (p. xvi), and they go on to lay out five foci for this volume: (1) land use change over time, (2) distinguishing characteristics of Falls-area social identities, (3) the extent of interregional interaction, (4) the extent to which the Falls was a social boundary, and (5) connecting developments in this study area to broader contexts. Bader and colleagues frame historical ecology as a unifying approach for the volume. Aiming to be a multifocal descriptive synopsis, and a theoretically driven analysis, this volume does neither well.
The chapters simply do not cohere. Period overview chapters are inconsistently structured. Many chapters read as summaries of large cultural resource management (CRM) projects, with minimal supporting data and uneven citations. There is a tendency to state conclusions that, although possibly supported in the original reports, are not supported by the data presented (e.g., pp. 34, 56, 129, 180–181). As a public-facing summary, limited details are somewhat justified; however, this is more problematic when citation of references relevant to firmly stated, yet unsubstantiated, conclusions are conspicuously avoided.
All period summary chapters present radiocarbon dates, but they do so inconsistently. C. Russell Stafford's chapter about Early Archaic chert usage and settlement mobility presents a host of problems in consistency and accuracy in the chronology section. Stafford presents two figures with dates (Figures 2.2 and 2.4), but there is no composite table. Several dates in the text do not match the figures, and others are absent from figures. Most similar chapters (3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11) have tables, but these are inconsistently formatted and are missing relevant sample information. As stand-alone chapters, insufficient detail is problematic but not atypical. As a coherent volume, the inconsistency is frustrating.
Most chapters attempt to stretch meager samples to grand conclusions, often facilitated by an essentialist perspective (e.g., phases; see p. 98). Jack Rossen and Jocelyn C. Turner dismiss the idea that Fort Ancient is an archaeological construct, and their conclusion that the formerly strong Fort Ancient–Mississippian barrier becomes permeable after AD 1300 is really describing a small sample that reflects distinct subsistence patterns for each site, not stand-ins for categories. Michael W. French and Pollack avoid discussing sites in southeastern Indiana and southwestern Ohio relevant to their argument. Both chapters assiduously avoid citing recent studies (e.g., numerous by Robert Cook and Aaron Comstock) that bear directly on the nature of relationships between Mississippian societies and Fort Ancient groups between AD 1000 and 1300. This is neither good scholarship nor good public synopsis.
As a regional synthesis, this volume is incomplete. The chapters successfully describe changes in land use (goal 1) and patterns of interaction (goal 3), and they are partly successful in contextualizing broader trends (goal 5). Specifically, many chapters address the fluctuating preferences for high-quality toolstone versus lower-quality local sources over time—and how this related to changes in residential mobility—and variable participation in regional horizons such as Adena and Hopewell ceremonialism. Some chapters attempt to define a distinctive Falls identity, and mentions of historicity and historical ecology are generally unincorporated into the main argument. The discussions of boundaries and identity generally suffer from a mismatch between the scope of data included and the scale of the conclusions desired.
There are formatting errors and inconsistencies sprinkled throughout the volume (e.g., Table 8.1, Table 9.1, Figure 9.6). Citations for the sources of figures and in-text references are periodically missing or incorrect (e.g., Figure 2.5, Figure 6.3). The inconsistencies in presentation, lack of coherence, and smattering of editing and production oversights (see p. 128) are not expected for a book from an academic press that costs $90.
Pollack, Bader, and Carlson ambitiously set out to provide descriptive regional synopsis, public presentation of “gray” literature along the border between Kentucky and Indiana, and a theoretically substantive contribution to the literature of historical ecology. Although there is immense value in making available publicly funded archaeological data and interpretations, the two scholarly objectives are unmet. The book lacks focus and coherence. A comprehensive synopsis would be enormously useful. The current volume moves significantly toward that. A theoretically informed, nuanced accounting of the historicity of human–environment relationships in the Falls region would be an important contribution to archaeology. The volume falls short here. Attempts to append a historical-ecology perspective to several chapters distract from their descriptive value. That said, the volume is a valuable and useful guide to findings from CRM archaeology in the area of the Falls of the Ohio River.
