brannan bigman edited

7/25/2019 Brannan Bigman Edited

1/14

89Ground Penetrating Radar and Resistivity at Singer-Moye (9SW2) Brannan and Bigman

INTRODUCTIONSinger-Moye (9SW2) is one of the largest

Mississippian period mound centers in Georgia,

both in terms of settlement area and complexity of

monumental construction. Unfortunately, despite

several decades of archaeological investigations

since the 1960s, Singer-Moye has remained one of

the lesser known Deep South centers. Recent re-

search by the University of Georgia has incorporat-

ed the systematic survey of the non-mound land-

scape and non-invasive prospection techniques on

extant mounds with data from prior mound exca-

vations. In this paper, we discuss the results of our

initial shallow geophysical survey on the summit of

Mounds D and F at Singer-Moye.

Singer-Moye is located in the lower Chat-

tahoochee River Basin on the north side of Pataula

Creek, approximately 45 kilometers from its con-

fluence with the lower Chattahoochee River at the

Walter F. George Lake (Figure 1). The most prom-

inent features at Singer-Moye are the remains of

five platform and three domed mounds arranged

around two plazas (Figure 2). These remnants of

the built environment are the most obvious mark-

ers of past human occupation and duration, but

the Singer-Moye landscape was home to groups

of people stretching back 10,000 years (Brannan

2012). At its greatest extent, the late prehistoric pe-

riod occupation exceeded 31 hectares, although we

stress that the site boundaries have not been fully

established (Brannan and Birch 2014). The site

preservation is such that much of the settlement

GROUND PENETRATING RADAR AND RESISTIVITYRESULTS FROM MOUNDS D AND F AT SINGER-MOYE

(9SW2)

by Stefan Brannan (University of Georgia) and Daniel P. Bigman (Georgia State University)

history is still intact. Although Singer-Moyes loca-

tion is potentially atypical due to the lack of accessto a broad alluvial floodplain, its size and location

point to social and environmental factors as well

as decision-making processes by local inhabitants

that extend beyond the mere needs of an agricul-

tural-based subsistence economy. Singer-Moye is

managed by the Georgia Museum of Natural His-

tory at the University of Georgia, which acquired

the 17-hectare central mound and plaza portion of

the site from the Columbus Museum in 2008 and

an additional 41 hectares from the Moye family in

2010. Future research directions include narrow-ing the focus to households and household groups.

Archaeological investigations by the Co-

lumbus Museum between 1967 and 2002 focused

on Mounds A, C, D, E, and H. Excepting Mound

D, the results of the Columbus Museum excava-

tions are beyond the scope of this paper but gen-

eral site overviews, (Blitz and Lorenz 2006: Appen-

dix A; Wood and Williams 2008), a description of

the work conducted by Russell and Gordy (2012)

on Mound H, and an initial ceramic chronology

(Knight 1979) have been published elsewhere.

More recently, research conducted by the

University of Georgia field school in 2012 and

2013 sought data to characterize the settlement

history in non-mound areas and refine the site-

specific chronology through large-scale systematic

survey and targeted excavation units. A complete

synthesis of all archaeological research is forthcom-

ing but particular findings contributed to formu-


2/14

90 Early Georgia volume 42, number 2

flank rises approximately 3 meters from

the adjacent plaza and the mound is

well defined on its southern boundary.

The northern flank is well-defined on

its western half but the northeastern

portion of Mound D is visually indistin-

guishable from the natural terrain.

Mound D is only one of two plat-

form mounds to be the target of both

limited flank and summit excavations by the Co-lumbus Museum (Gordy 1967-1969). The summit

excavation consisted of two non-contiguous blocks

spanning approximately 52 meters by 30.5 meters

to a depth of 15 to 30 centimeters. On the sum-

mit, the excavators noted a series of evenly spaced

features oriented along the southern flank they

believed to be pits or fire basins. The flank excava-

tion consisted of a single 1.5-meter by 15.25-meter

lating and answering research questions pertaining

to Mounds D and F.

OBJECTIVESMound D

Mound D (Figure 3) is the northernmost

mound at Singer-Moye. The base of Mound D

measures 80 meters by 55 meters and its summit

measures 65 meters by 40 meters. The southern

Figure 2. Singer-Moye Core Area on the north

bank of Pataula Creek. Contours are at 2 meter

intervals. Light rectangles are approximate plaza

locations. Dark rectangles are mound locations.

Mounds D and F are discussed further in text.

Figure 1. Location of Singer-Moye in the Interior Coastal Plain of

Georgia.


3/14

Ground Penetrating Radar and Resistivity at Singer-Moye (9SW2) Brannan and Bigman 91

Mound F

Mound F (Figure 4) is lo-

cated on the western edge of the

mound-and-plaza core area. It oc-

cupies a central location in the

civic-ceremonial site core (Woodand Williams 2008: 171). It is a

square platform mound measur-

ing 34 meters by 37 meters at its

base, 25 meters by 22 meters at

its summit, and rises 3 meters

above the surrounding plazas.

Mound F has had no systematic

archaeological excavations con-

ducted on either its flank or its

summit, though two looters pits

exist on the summit.We wanted to ascertain if

Mound F had been constructed

in a single episode or multiple

stages, if structures had been

built on its summit(s), and if

the mound were intact enough

to warrant future investigations.

Because Mound F fronts two plazas, and a classic

marker of town expansion at sites like Singer-Moye

is the addition of a second plaza (Lewis et al. 1998),then Mound F occupies an important spatial lo-

trench excavated in 30-centimeter levels to a depth

between 0.5 and 3 meters, although artifacts were

recovered no deeper than 0.6 meters below the sur-

face. The Mound D stratigraphic profile consists

of a shallow plow zone overlying a mottled natural

soil horizon without any identifiable mound stages

or construction episodes. This profile suggests that

Mound D was partially built from a natural terrace

formation which had the summit cut and filled

to create a rectangular platform (Blitz and Lorenz

2006: 162).

Because the eastern and western flanks are

well defined topographically, our objective was to

use non-invasive prospection techniques to tracethe horizontal extent of the cutting and filling ac-

tivities to the north of Mound D. If Mound D had

been built on top of an existing landform as sug-

gested by Blitz and Lorenz (2006:162), we wanted

to locate the transition between the built environ-

ment and the natural terrain and identify the de-

gree by which the landform had been modified.

Figure 3. Mound D plan view. Contours are at one meter intervals. The

mound summit is outlined in dark grey. Resistivity and GPR transects are

traced with a black dashed line. Black squares outline the 1967 and 1969 Co-

lumbus Museum excavations.

Figure 4. Mound F plan view. Contours are at one meter

intervals. The mound summit is outlined in dark grey. Re-

sistivity transects are traced with a grey dashed line. The

GPR grid is outlined with a black dashed line.


4/14


cation which may represent an important transi-

tion in the sites history. Our major concern was

that historic plowing had disturbed the summit of

Mound F and if it had been built in a single epi-

sode, then future research would be less successful

at reconstructed its social function, significance, orchronological sequence.

METHODSGround-penetrating Radar (GPR)

GPR sends electromagnetic waves into the

earth using a transmitting antenna that is dragged

along the ground surface to produce two-dimen-

sional profiles of the subsurface. Discontinuities

in the subsurface (such as archaeological targets

or changes in the physical properties of soil) re-

flect some of the waves energy back to the ground

surface which is recorded by a receiving antenna.

The greater the discontinuity encountered by the

wave, the higher the amplitude of the reflection.

The waves signal diminishes (or attenuates) as the

wave continues to travel through the earth because

the material the wave is traveling through captures

some of the waves energy. Different materials will

force the GPR wave to attenuate faster or slower.

For example, clay attenuates the GPR signal rap-

idly while sand attenuates the signal more slowly.We collected data with two different GPR

antenna frequencies (100 MHz and 400 MHz)

during our survey. Lower frequencies (100 MHz)

prospect deeper, but provide lower resolution im-

ages of the subsurface because the wavelength is

longer and may have difficulty recording small

targets such as those typically located at archaeo-

logical sites. Higher frequencies (400 MHz) pros-

pect to shallower depths, but have the potential to

record smaller archaeological targets because the

wavelength is shorter. Under clay-rich pedologicalconditions, the lower frequency may not attenuate

as rapidly as higher frequency signals (Bigman and

Brannan 2013).

The survey utilized a SIR-3000 GPR con-

sole and two separate antennae manufactured by

GSSI, Inc. Thirty-four transects were collected on

the summit of Mound F with the 400 MHz anten-

na using a cart and survey wheel. The 17 m x 17 m

square grid had a sampling interval of 2.5 cm and

a transect spacing of 0.5 m. The 400 MHz signal

on Mound F attenuated at approximately 30 ns in

two-way travel time. We attempted to collect data

on Mound D with higher frequency antennae, but

attenuation rates were so rapid that the data wasincomprehensible. Data were collected continu-

ously with the 100 MHz antenna on the summits

of both mounds and the surveyor controlled for

trace location by recording fiduciary markers every

meter. Attenuation rates were slower, but we col-

lected fewer transects with the 100 MHz antenna

because it was less efficient and more time con-

suming. High density of trees, tree falls, and gen-

eral ground cover limited overall data collection on

Mound D. We processed all GPR data with Reflex

2D and Reflex 3D software.

Electrical Resistivity

The electrical resistivity method introduces

an electric current into the subsurface using cur-

rent electrodes that are attached to a battery, and

measures the current density at or just below the

ground surface using potential electrodes that

are attached to a voltmeter. The primary physical

properties influencing current densities are water

saturation and porosity. Less saturated soil will bemore resistant, while more saturated soils will be

more conductive. Current and potential electrodes

may be configured in a variety of geometries, but

we used the Wenner array because of its ease in

data collection, processing, and visualization. The

Wenner array configures the electrodes equidistant

from each other in a straight line, with the cur-

rent electrodes at the two ends and the potential

electrodes in the middle. The survey used a basic

four probe resistivity meter (the schematics can be

found at Williams (1984)).In addition to saturation and porosity,

depth of prospection with the Wenner array de-

pends on distance between electrodes. The greater

the distance between the electrodes, the deeper

the instrument can prospect. Thus, multiple sur-

vey transects over the same line must be collected

at various electrode spacings to plot a two-dimen-

sional profile (pseudo-section) of the subsurface


5/14


(Sharma 1997). Others (e.g. Kassabaum et al. 2014;

Monagham and Peebles 2010) have had recent suc-

cess mapping construction stages and identifying

archaeological features in Mississippian mounds

by plotting resistivity pseudo-sections. The cur-

rent project collected one pseudo-section on eachmound by recording data with electrodes spaced

0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 m apart. We plotted pseudo-

sections using the mid-point of the probes as the

x-coordinate and the inverse distance between elec-

trodes as the y-coordinate. Depths of penetration

for electrical resistance vary from site to site (Bark-

er 1989), but our pedological background is clay

rich, retains water, and may draw currents deeper

into the subsurface. Our plots may not reflect ex-

act depths of penetration, but we believe they are

reasonable estimations that can be used for generalarchaeological interpretations.

RESULTSMound D

The GPR results indicate that the engi-

neers of Mound D utilized a rise in the natural

landscape to aid in the monuments construction.

The 100 MHz GPR antenna recorded a strong

high amplitude reflector at roughly 30 ns (all GPR

depths are presented in two-way travel times un-less otherwise noted) on the southern end of the

profile that continues north at relatively the same

depth, but begins to rise roughly 13 m into the

transect (Figures 5a and 5b). This reflector contin-

ues to rise until between 36-38 m into the transect

where it reaches its shallowest depth at just a few

nanoseconds (Figure 5b). The same reflector then

descends deeper into the subsurface between 38 m

and 50 m (Figure 5b). We interpret this reflectoras the original ground surface. The rise is unlikely

an original construction episode as no patterned

reflector occurs across the profile at 30 ns indicat-

ing a flat ground surface. The resistivity data sup-

port this interpretation. Apparent resistivity values

are generally low between 0-34 m, but they increase

between 34-50 m (Figure 5c). This indicates that

physical soil properties on either side of the GPR

reflection peak are different. Soil on the south

side is likely more saturated with water, but soil

on the north side of the peak likely contains ahigher frequency of air-filled pores. Different for-

mation processes should lead to differences in soil

moisture. We believe the soil on the southern side

is mound fill, while the soil on the northern side

was deposited after the abandonment of the site.

The topographic gradient at this location of the

site suggests ground water flows through this area

after rain. This flow likely created heterogeneous

soil deposits of minimal compaction over time.

The GPR reflection geometry north of the peakis indicative of this. The wave encountered numer-

ous inconsistencies in the subsurface between 40-

50 m represented as closely spaced reflections of

Figure 5. 100 MHz GPR data (a, b) and apparent resistivity data (c) collected from Mound D.


6/14


varying amplitudes (Figure 5a). On the southern

side however, there is a consistent low amplitude

reflection between the modern day summit and

the original ground surface (Figure 5b). An orga-

nized construction effort would likely have created

a more compact, and homogenous mound fill thatwould be less resistive to an electric current com-

pared to naturally laid, porous deposits from long-

term ground water deposition.

Mound D seems to have been constructed

in two phases. The GPR recorded a continuous

reflector between 14 m and 34 m that we inter-

pret as an earlier mound summit (Figure 5b). Cap-

ping mound construction episodes with different

materials was common practice during the Missis-

sippian period and these contrasts generally pro-

vide high amplitude GPR signatures (Bigman andLanzarone 2014). The two-way travel times for this

reflector are not uniform (measurements range be-

tween 5-20 ns), but the reflection geometry likely

does not represent the actual morphology of this

possible summit. Variation in recorded two-way

travel times is due to varying wave speeds result-

ing from encounters with subsurface tree roots.

The longest times recorded for this feature occur

directly below a tree visible on the surface at 20 m.

The roots complicate the subsurface and cause thewave to reflect and re-reflect off of discontinuities

in the ultra-shallow subsurface (Seinfeld and Big-

man 2013). This signature is observable in the two-

dimensional GPR profile at 20 m (Figure 5a). The

resistivity meter recorded higher resistivity values at

the same location indicating the extent of the root

system (Figure 5c). In addition, resistivity values at

2 m depth are lower between 0-14 m (approximate-

ly 0-200 ohms) compared with values between 15-

30 m (approximately 200-600 ohms) (Figure 5c).

This supports our interpretation that an earliersummit exists closer to the original landform rise.

The first episode was built into the landform mak-

ing the northern side of the natural rise the north-

ern slope of the mound. Singer-Moyes inhabitants

eventually expanded the mound more than 14 m

horizontally to the south, but only added little to

the mound vertically. Our limited investigations

do not inform us regarding more complicated con-

struction events that may have occurred in other

portions of the mound, or what the sequence was

concerning expansion east or west.

Finally, the GPR recorded a high amplitude

anomaly approximately 2-3 m long located just be-

low the surface near the southern limit of the GPRprofile (Figure 5b). This reflection geometry is rep-

resentative of some sort of pit. It is unlikely that

this anomaly denotes an excavation unit or looters

pit since the amplitude of the surface reflection

does not decrease over the anomaly. If a pit was

excavated out and refilled back in, then the more

limited contrast between the air above the ground

and the unconsolidated fill in the pit would pro-

duce a low amplitude ground reflection directly

over the pit compared to an area that remained in-

tact (Bigman 2014). The amplitude of the groundreflection is consistent across this portion of the

profile. It most likely represents a hearth, as exca-

vations on Mound Ds summit just south of this

GPR profile uncovered several hearths below the

ground surface. No anomalies representative of ar-

chaeological features were recorded further north.

However, the absence of anomalies in the northern

portion of the profile does not mean that the area

is devoid of archaeological features. Our sample

here is small and the 100 MHz antenna may nothave recorded extremely small targets such as post-

holes since the resolution of the lower frequency

antenna is relatively poor.

Mound F

The 100 MHz antenna recorded three dis-

tinct layers at Mound F (Figure 6) including the

current mound summit (0 ns), the original ground

surface (approximately 100 ns on the southern end

of the profile), and what we interpret as bedrock

(approximately 150 ns). We believe the deepestreflector is likely the transition to bedrock since

Singer-Moye is located on high elevation and the

signal does not seem to attenuate immediately af-

ter encountering this transition (a signature more

typical of the water table). Mound F seems to be

built on a slope which is consistent with the overall

landscape in the plaza area. The second to lowest

reflector recorded with the 100 MHz antenna be-


7/14


Figure 6. 100 MHz GPR data collected from Mound F.

gins at 100 ns in the south, but ascends to approxi-

mately 80 ns as the GPR was dragged north (Figure

6). This ascension stabilizes roughly 12 m into the

transect where the reflection anomaly remains at a

constant depth from 12 m to 17 m.

While the 100 MHz antenna did not re-cord any definitive mound summits other than the

most recent (i.e. the modern ground reflection),

the 400 MHz antenna suggests Mound F was con-

structed in more than one episode. However, the

attenuation of the 400 MHz antenna makes it dif-

ficult to interpret reflection data below approxi-

mately 25 ns and there may be additional episodes

of construction not identified with either antenna.

The GPR recorded a continuous reflector between

20 and 30 ns that may represent a previous mound

summit (Figure 7b). Travel times shorter than 20

ns provide high resolution data that can be used

to interpret the spatial distribution of architecture

and other archaeological features on the final sum-

mit.

There are two main sources of disturbance

in the area we tested on the final summit of MoundF (Figure 7). First, a looters pit was excavated and

left unfilled on the western central portion of the

mound (Figures 7a, 7c). Second, a small tree is lo-

cated on the eastern central portion whose roots

have only invaded into the shallow subsurface, but

have removed the GPRs ability to recognize the

presence or absence of any anomalies from cultural

sources within a 2-3 m radius of the tree (Figure 7).

Both of these created distinct GPR signatures that

can be distinguished from anomalies of possible

Figure 7. 400 Mhz GPR data collected from Mound F shown in (a) time-slice and (b, c) two-dimensional profile views

indicating reflection anomalies of probable summit architecture; and (d) pseudo-section indicating area of high ap-

parent resistivity values corresponding with high amplitude GPR reflection anomaly (x-axis of time-slice is facing

north).


8/14


cultural origins.

The 400 MHz antenna recorded several

high amplitude linear and rectilinear reflection

anomalies just below the ground surface (Figure 7).

The patterned reflection geometries suggest they

are of cultural origin and likely represent summitarchitecture and possibly other features. Some of

the linear anomalies recorded on the western side

of the summit overlap and may represent buildings

that were not contemporary. Also, the overlap and

articulation with the tree roots make it difficult to

accurately orient these possible structures, or to de-

termine definitive sizes. In two dimensional profile

view, the signature of the possible building in the

southwestern corner consists of a series of small

hyperbolic reflections indicative of small features

such as postholes (Figure 7b). The possible build-ing in the northwestern corner similarly consists of

small hyperbolic reflections just below the ground

surface, but these overlay a basin that reaches its

greatest depth at 16 ns (Figure 7c). This may indi-

cate the repurposing, refurbishing, or rebuilding of

archaeological features at the same location.

The rectilinear/square anomalies in the

northeastern and southeastern portions of the

mound are distinct and do not appear to overlap

with other high amplitude reflection geometries

produced from cultural sources (Figure 7). Sizes forthese anomalies are also difficult to define since

they extend beyond the eastern boundary of our

survey, but the reflection geometries indicate that

these are square and the amount that was recorded

with GPR indicates they are probably architectur-

al as opposed to smaller features. Both reflection

anomalies exhibit similar signatures in two-dimen-

sional profile view with small hyperbolic reflec-

tions recorded just below the surface indicative of

post holes (Figures 7b, 7c). The resistivity meter

recorded high apparent resistivity values over thesuspected building in the northeastern corner (Fig-

ure 7d). This anomaly is approximately 4 m long

(between 10 m and 14 m along the pseudo-section)

and the higher apparent resistivity may indicate a

prepared floor. Apparent resistivity values extend

another meter and a half south of the feature, but

we believe this is an artifact of our electrode ar-

ray. The Wenner array can introduce false posi-

tives when the first electrode crosses the target of

interest. This result occurs because the current

electrode pushes the electric current through the

target, but the measurements are not taken directly

over the target itself since the potential probes are

located in the center of the array.The anomalies discussed may not represent

all of the cultural targets located on the summit of

Mound F. Generally, the data visualized in both

time-slice and profile views is complicated. Other

features may exist, but if rebuilding occurred on

the summit, some features may be masked by lat-

er constructions. Variations in the composition

of targets, their function, and use life may cause

different responses from the GPR wave and some

targets might be deemphasized in the time-slices.

Our data strongly suggest that architecture wasconstructed on Mound Fs final summit and the

distribution of architecture was patterned along

the summit edges.

DISCUSSIONThe GPR and resistivity data has provided

a new look at two mounds that received only lim-

ited archaeological testing. Because mound-related

activities should be viewed as part of settlement-

wide processes, waxing and waning in importance

based on the requirements of the community-as-a-whole and not merely as a proxy for that com-

munity, coupling our prospection and traditional

survey data situates our results in their appropriate

historical context.

Our shallow geophysical survey results

demonstrate that Mound D was constructed

through filling activities for the purpose of creat-

ing a flat surface on a natural rise in the terrain.

We believe this occurred in two discrete episodes,

with the first stage resulting in a smaller horizon-

tal surface subsequently covered by a second stage,which extended to the edge of the north plaza. The

incorporation of a natural rise in mound building

activities is an unusual phenomenon in the south-

eastern United States (Williams 1999) and Mound

D at Singer-Moye is one of only a few known ex-

amples (c.f. Steponaitis 1974; Williams 1999).

An reevaluation of the artifacts recovered

from the Mound D summit excavation dates the


9/14


Table 1. Ceramic Assemblage from Mound D Summit (n=80 units).

ultimate stage to the final occupational phase of

Singer-Moye, based on the inclusion of Lamar

Plain (Caldwell 1953), Fort Walton Incised (Willey

1949), Lamar Complicated Stamped (Jennings and

Fairbanks 1939), and Columbia Incised (Schnell

et al. 1981) pottery, and the complete lack of CoolBranch Incised (Sears 1967) pottery (Table 1). Al-

though there is a small amount of Moundville In-

cised (Steponaitis 1983) pottery, based on the ratio

of sand\grit to shell tempered pottery recovered on

the summit, we believe the inclusion of shell tem-

pered pottery to be the result of mound fill being

brought in from elsewhere during the final con-

struction of Mound D. Except for Moundville In-

cised, none of these ceramic types have been found

in the region prior to A.D. 1200 and both Fort

Walton Incised and Lamar Complicated Stampedpostdate A.D. 1300 (Blitz and Lorenz 2006: Figure

4.1). The pottery types recovered from the sum-

mit of Mound D were also found on the summit

and flank of Mound A, and a two-sigma calibrated

radiocarbon date of A.D. 1294-1440 (Noakes and

Brandau 1974; Reimer et al. 2013) from the Mound

A summit supports the assertion that this local as-

semblage dates to approximately A.D. 1400-1450.

Because the summit excavations only ex-

tended to just below the plow zone, we were un-able to independently confirm the existence of any

additional mound stages on the southern flank as

seen in the GPR data. Regarding the final stage,

the excavators mentioned the existence of only

ephemeral post molds on the summit around the

fire basins (Gordy 1967-1969). Blitz and Lorenz

(2006: 162) suggest that the summit of Mound

D was free of structures based on the lack of wallpost patterns and the inference that the 6-meter

distance between the fire basins was too great for a

single structure to cover but too closely spaced for

each basin to be housed in a separate structure. Al-

though there is no current evidence to contradict

Blitz and Lorenz suggested lack of architecture,

large chunks of daub with wall post impressions

were found in most of the fire basins. This daub

must be accounted for somehow. It is possible that

at least one structure was located on the Mound

D summit. The current exposure of the summitmay need to be expanded to find intact wall posts

or other features, or it may be located in an area

yet to be examined by shallow geophysical survey.

Our GPR transect does suggest that at least one

additional large feature may be present on the sum-

mit and further fine resolution shallow geophysical

survey followed by targeted excavations may locate

additional evidence regarding summit activities.

In contrast to the relatively rich artifact

assemblage on the Mound D summit the surveyaround Mound D located few artifacts (Table 2), a

stark contrast to the rich midden deposits around

the other seven mounds (Brannan and

Bigman 2012). Until we have a better

idea of the activities, purposes, and com-

plete history of Mound D, it will be dif-

ficult to explain this pattern. However,

there are at least two likely possibilities.

We do know that the summit of Mound

D contains artifacts that date specifi-

cally to the final occupation of Singer-Moye. If Mound D was built and used

for only a short period of time prior to

the abandonment of Singer-Moye, we

would expect there may be little refuse

deposition in the vicinity. Although it

represents the final stage today, perhaps

it was built with the intention of being

the next of many stages, added to as nec-

Mound D Summit Count Percentage

Total Sand/Grit Ceramics 3151 98.2

Total Shell Ceramics 57 1.8

Total Ceramics 3208 100

Mound D Summit Diagnostic Ceramics Count Percentage

Moundville Incised1 2 2.8

Lamar Plain2 34 47.2

Lamar Complicated Stamped3 5 6.9

Fort Walton Incised4 16 22.2

Columbia Incised5 15 20.8

Total Diagnostic Ceramics 72 100.0

1) Steponaitis 1983; 2) Caldwell 1953, 3) Jennings and Fairbanks 1939, 4) Willey

1949, 5) Schnell et al. 1981


10/14


essary. Another possibility may be that Mound D

served some special purpose for the community-at-

large, and was situated in the central mound-and-

plaza complex at a location that was separate from

households, lineages, or clans that may have lived

nearby. The combination of multiple stages and

lack of non-mound deposits would suggest the lat-

ter possibility being the more likely of the two, butawaits more research before we can make a defini-

tive conclusion.

Our Mound F shallow geophysical survey

results suggest that it was built in more than one

stage, though the total number of building epi-

sodes is unknown. We identified several anomalies

which may be of cultural origin, including over-

lapping linear reflections indicative of diachronic

building episodes and several square\rectangular

anomalies resembling architectural features. These

anomalies are distributed throughout our surveygrid and suggest that the activities occurred more

than once on Mound F and were not confined to

a single structure.

The artifact density around Mound F is the

opposite of what we encountered at Mound D and

contains a small assortment of diagnostic artifacts

from most periods of the Singer-Moye chronologi-

cal sequence (Table 3). As of yet, there have been

no archaeological excavations on either the summit

or the flank of Mound F to pinpoint its functional

use and chronological sequence. Our only Mound

F summit artifact collection (Table 4) came as a re-

sult of a large tree fall, not the best conditions for

stratigraphic control. However, this sample does

contain a few diagnostic artifacts and dates the

final summit mound fill to somewhere between

A.D. 1200-1400, a period of time in which Singer-

Moye experienced significant population expan-

sion and modification of the built environment,

including the creation or expansion of plaza space.

Plazas are important elements of Missis-

sippian period settlements. They were used by

the community for ceremonies, rituals, and daily

life experiences (Lewis et al. 1998: 11). When the

existing community outgrew the original plaza, it

was expanded or a new one constructed. A second

plaza is a common occurrence at many Mississip-

pian settlements when the first plaza could not be

expanded (Lewis et al. 1998; Pauketat 2007). If we

may be allowed to speculate, although we do not

know the order of plaza construction at Singer-

Moye at this time, Mound F may in part have lim-

Table 2. Ceramic Count from Positive Shovel Tests within

40 Meters of Mound D (14 of 38 Positive). No Diagnostic

Ceramics Recovered.

Mound D Shovel Test Survey Count Percentage



Total Ceramics 59 100.0

Mound F Shovel Test Survey Count Percentage




Mound F Shovel Test Survey

Diagnostic Ceramics

Count Percentage

Moundville Incised1 1 16.7

Lamar Plain2 1 33.3

Fort Walton Incised3 1 16.7

Columbia Incised4 2 16.7

Cool Branch Incised5 1 16.7


1) Steponaitis 1983, 2) Caldwell 1953, 3) Willey 1949, 4) Schnell et

al. 1981, 5) Sears 1967

Table 3. Ceramic Count from Positive Shovel Tests within

40 Meters of Mound F (20 of 25 Positive).

Mound F Summit Count Percentage




Mound F Summit Diagnostic

Ceramics

Count Percentage

Lamar Plain1 1 50.0

Cool Branch Incised2 1 50.0


1) Caldwell 1953, 2) Sears 1967

Table 4. Ceramic Assemblage from Mound F Summit

(Treefall).


11/14


ited the expansion of the initial plaza and subse-

quently served to connect both plazas. Perhaps the

complexity in architectural features reflects a settle-

ment transition from a single plaza to two plazas.

Similarly to plazas, mounds are not simply

reflections of local institutions as they were, butrepresent these institutions coming into being

(Pauketat 2007: 42). Perhaps Mound F is one such

example. We do know that other changes occurred

at Singer-Moye during this time, including a five-

fold increase in settlement size (Brannan and Birch

2014). The area where Mound F is located was in-

habited for the complete duration of the Singer-

Moye occupation, and this area may help us under-

stand large-scale shifts in community organization

brought about by population movements (e.g. Blitz

1999). Future limited excavations on the summitwill help define the social and chronological rela-

tionships between Mound F and other community

elements at Singer-Moye.

Our work at Singer-Moye demonstrates

the benefits of conducting shallow geophysical

survey on mounds that have received limited-to-no

archaeological testing. Coupling our results with

localized non-mound survey data situates these

monuments in their settlement context, creating a

hinge point between the two. This hinge provides afoundation for exploring the decision-making pro-

cesses of the community-at-large without resorting

to privileging information from specific contexts

that may have only been in use for short periods of

time or represent only a small subset of the popula-

tion. We look forward to future research directions

at Singer-Moye and other sites as we continue to

explore the prehistoric settlements of the south-

eastern United States.

Acknowledgments. We would like to thankJared Wood for his thoughts and insightful com-

ments on an earlier draft of this paper. We would

also like to thank the 2012 University of Georgia

Field School for their hard work testing areas ref-

erenced in this paper and other portions of Sing-

er-Moye. This work would not have been possible

without the support of Mark Williams at the Uni-

versity of Georgias Laboratory of Archaeology..

REFERENCESCITEDBarker, R. D.

1989 Depth of Investigation of a Generalized

Collinear 4-electrode Array. Geophysics

54:1031-1037.

Bigman, Daniel P.

2014 Mapping Social Relationships: Geophysi-

cal Survey of a 19th Century American

Slave Cemetery. Archaeological and Anthro-

pological Sciences6:17-30.

Bigman, Daniel P., and Stefan Brannan

2013 Comparison of Three GPR Antennae Fre-

quencies from a Clay Rich Archaeological

Context. Proceedings from the Symposium on

the Application of Geophysics to Engineering

and Environmental Problems 26:1-6.

Bigman, Daniel P., and Peter Lanzarone

2014 Investigating Construction History, Labor

Investment, and Social Change at Ocmul-

gee National Monuments Mound A, Geor-

gia, USA, Using Ground Penetrating Ra-

dar.Archaeological Prospection. doi:10.1002/

arp.1483

Blitz, John H.

1999 Mississippian Chiefdoms and the Fission-

Fusion Process. American Antiquity 64(4):

577-592.

Blitz, John H., and Karl G. Lorenz

2006 The Chattahoochee Chiefdoms. University of

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Brannan, Stefan

2012 A Brief Report on the 2012 UGA FieldSchool Expedition at Singer-Moye (9SW2).

Paper presented at the 2012 Symposium on

Southeastern Coastal Plain Archaeology,

Douglas, GA.

Brannan, Stefan, and Daniel P. Bigman

2012 Do Mississippian Plazas Represent Open

Spaces or Rich Histories? Paper presented


12/14


at the 69th Southeastern Archaeological

Conference, Baton Rouge, LA.

Brannan, Stefan and Jennifer Birch

2014 Historical Settlement Ecology at Singer-

Moye: Mississippian Dynamics in the DeepSouth. Paper presented at the 79th Annual

Meeting of the SAA, Austin, TX.

Caldwell, Joseph R.

1953 The Rembert Mounds, Elbert County, Geor-

gia. River Basin Survey Papers No. 6. Bul-

letin 154. Bureau of American Ethnol-

ogy, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,

D.C.

Gordy, R. Donald1967-1969 Original unpublished field notes from

the Singer-Moye excavations. Manuscript

on file, Laboratory of Archaeology at the

University of Georgia, Athens.

Jennings, Jesse D., and Charles H. Fairbanks

1939 Pottery Type Descriptions. Southeastern Ar-

chaeological Conference Newsletter 1(2).

Kassabaum, Megan C., Edward R. Henry, VincasP. Steponaitis, and John W. Ohear

2014 Between Surface and Summit: the Process

of Mound Construction at Feltus.Archaeo-

logical Prospection21:27-37.

Knight, Vernon J. Jr.

1979 Ceramic Stratigraphy at the Singer-Moye

Site, 9Su2. Journal of Alabama Archaeology

XXV(2):138-151.

Lewis, R. Barry, Charles Stout, and Cameron B.Wesson

1998 The Design of Mississippian Towns. In

Mississippian Towns and Sacred Spaces: Search-

ing for an Architectural Grammar, edited by

R. Barry Lewis and Charles Stout, pp. 1-21.

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Monaghan G. William, and Christopher S. Peebles

2010 The Construction, Use and Abandon-

ment of Angel Site Mound A: Tracing the

History of a Middle Mississippian Town

Through its Earthworks. American Antiq-

uity75:935-953.

Noakes, John E., and Betty Lee Brandau

1974 University of Georgia Radiocarbon Dates

III. Radiocarbon16:131-141.

Pauketat, Timothy R.

2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delu-

sions. AltaMira Press, Lanham.

Reimer, P. J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G.

Blackwell, ... & J. van der Plicht2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age

Calibration Curves, 0-50,000 Years cal

BP. Radiocarbon55(4):1869-1887.

Russell, Margaret C. and R. Donald Gordy

2012 The Archaeology of Mound H, Singer-

Moye Mound Center, Stewart County,

Georgia. Early Georgia40(2):127-154.

Schnell, Frank T., Vernon J. Knight, Jr., and GailS. Schnell

1981 Cemochechobee: Archaeology of a Mississip-

pian Ceremonial Center on the Chattahoochee

River. University Presses of Florida, Gaines-

ville.

Sears, William H.

1967 The Tierra Verde Burial Mound. Florida

Anthropologist20(1-2):25-73.

Seinfeld Daniel M., and Daniel P. Bigman2013 Investigating Monumental Architecture

at the Letchworth Mounds Site (8JE337).

Manuscript on file, to Florida Department

of State, Division of Historical Resources:

Tallahassee, FL.


13/14


Sharma, Prem V.

1997 Environmental and Engineering Geophysics.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Steponaitis, Vincas P.

1974 The Late Prehistory of the Natchez Region: Ex-cavations at the Emerald and Foster Sites, Ad-

ams County, Mississippi. Unpublished Bach-

elor of Arts with Honrs thesis, Harvard

University, Cambridge.

1983 Ceramics, Chronology, and Community Pat-

terns: An Archaeological Study at Moundville.

Academic Press, New York.

Willey, Gordon R.

1949 Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. Smith-

sonian Miscellaneous Collections 113.Smithsonian Institution, Washington,

D.C.

Williams, Mark

1984 A New Resistivity Device. Journal of Field

Archaeology11:110-114.

1999 Archaeological Testing at the Kenimer Site,

9WH68. Lamar Institute Publication 47.

Electronic Document, http://www.thela-

marinstitute.org/images/PDFs/publica-tion_47.pdf, accessed September 26, 2014.

Wood, M. Jared, and Mark Williams

2008 A Fresh Look at the Singer-Moye Mound

Site, Stewart County, Georgia. Early Geor-

gia36(2): 157-172.


14/14


brannan bigman edited

Documents