Ground Penetrating Radar and Resistivity at Singer-Moye (9SW2)
GROUND PENETRATING RADAR AND RESISTIVITY
RESULTS FROM MOUNDS D AND F AT SINGER-MOYE
(9SW2)
by Stefan Brannan (University of Georgia) and Daniel P. Bigman (Georgia State University)
Introduction
Singer-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
Brannan and Bigman 89
history is still intact. Although Singer-Moyes loca-
tion is potentially atypical due to the lack of access
to 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-
90
Early Georgia
volume 42, number 2

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.

flank rises approximately 3 meters from

Figure 1. Location of Singer-Moye in the Interior Coastal
Georgia.
lating and answering research questions pertaining
to Mounds D and F.
Objectives
Mound 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
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-
Plain of 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
 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 (Wood
and 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
Figure 3. Mound D plan view. Contours are at one meter intervals. The in a single episode or multiple
mound summit is outlined in dark grey. Resistivity and GPR transects are stages, if structures had been
traced with a black dashed line. Black squares outline the 1967 and 1969 Co- built on its summit(s), and if
lumbus Museum excavations. the mound were intact enough
to warrant future investigations.
trench excavated in 30-centimeter levels to a depth Because Mound F fronts two plazas, and a classic
between 0.5 and 3 meters, although artifacts were marker of town expansion at sites like Singer-Moye
recovered no deeper than 0.6 meters below the sur- is the addition of a second plaza (Lewis et al. 1998),
face. The Mound D stratigraphic profile consists then Mound F occupies an important spatial lo-
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 trace
the 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-
Figure 4. Mound F plan view. Contours are at one meter
ment and the natural terrain and identify the de- intervals. The mound summit is outlined in dark grey. Re-
gree by which the landform had been modified. sistivity transects are traced with a grey dashed line. The
GPR grid is outlined with a black dashed line.
92
Early Georgia
volume 42, number 2

cation which may represent an important transi- square grid had a sampling interval of 2.5 cm and
tion in the sites history. Our major concern was a transect spacing of 0.5 m. The 400 MHz signal
that historic plowing had disturbed the summit of on Mound F attenuated at approximately 30 ns in
Mound F and if it had been built in a single epi- two-way travel time. We attempted to collect data
sode, then future research would be less successful on Mound D with higher frequency antennae, but
at reconstructed its social function, significance, or
attenuation rates were so rapid that the data was
chronological sequence. incomprehensible. Data were collected continu-
ously with the 100 MHz antenna on the summits
Methods of both mounds and the surveyor controlled for
Ground-penetrating Radar (GPR) trace location by recording fiduciary markers every
GPR sends electromagnetic waves into the meter. Attenuation rates were slower, but we col-
earth using a transmitting antenna that is dragged lected fewer transects with the 100 MHz antenna
along the ground surface to produce two-dimen- because it was less efficient and more time con-
sional profiles of the subsurface. Discontinuities suming. High density of trees, tree falls, and gen-
in the subsurface (such as archaeological targets eral ground cover limited overall data collection on
or changes in the physical properties of soil) re- Mound D. We processed all GPR data with Reflex
flect some of the waves energy back to the ground 2D and Reflex 3D software.
surface which is recorded by a receiving antenna.
The greater the discontinuity encountered by the Electrical Resistivity
wave, the higher the amplitude of the reflection. The electrical resistivity method introduces
The waves signal diminishes (or attenuates) as the an electric current into the subsurface using cur-
wave continues to travel through the earth because rent electrodes that are attached to a battery, and
the material the wave is traveling through captures measures the current density at or just below the
some of the waves energy. Different materials will ground surface using potential electrodes that
force the GPR wave to attenuate faster or slower. are attached to a voltmeter. The primary physical
For example, clay attenuates the GPR signal rap- properties influencing current densities are water
idly while sand attenuates the signal more slowly. saturation and porosity. Less saturated soil will be
We collected data with two different GPR more resistant, while more saturated soils will be
antenna frequencies (100 MHz and 400 MHz) more conductive. Current and potential electrodes
during our survey. Lower frequencies (100 MHz) may be configured in a variety of geometries, but
prospect deeper, but provide lower resolution im- we used the Wenner array because of its ease in
ages of the subsurface because the wavelength is data collection, processing, and visualization. The
longer and may have difficulty recording small Wenner array configures the electrodes equidistant
targets such as those typically located at archaeo- from each other in a straight line, with the cur-
logical sites. Higher frequencies (400 MHz) pros- rent electrodes at the two ends and the potential
pect to shallower depths, but have the potential to electrodes in the middle. The survey used a basic
record smaller archaeological targets because the four probe resistivity meter (the schematics can be
wavelength is shorter. Under clay-rich pedological found at Williams (1984)).
conditions, the lower frequency may not attenuate In addition to saturation and porosity,
as rapidly as higher frequency signals (Bigman and depth of prospection with the Wenner array de-
Brannan 2013). pends on distance between electrodes. The greater
The survey utilized a SIR-3000 GPR con- the distance between the electrodes, the deeper
sole and two separate antennae manufactured by the instrument can prospect. Thus, multiple sur-
GSSI, Inc. Thirty-four transects were collected on vey transects over the same line must be collected
the summit of Mound F with the 400 MHz anten- at various electrode spacings to plot a two-dimen-
na using a cart and survey wheel. The 17 m x 17 m sional profile (pseudo-section) of the subsurface
 Ground Penetrating Radar and Resistivity at Singer-Moye (9SW2)
(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 each
mound 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 general
archaeological interpretations.
Results
Mound 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
Figure 5. 100 MHz GPR data (a, b) and apparent resistivity data (c) collected from Mound D.
Brannan and Bigman
93
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 reflector
as 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 a
higher 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 peak
is indicative of this. The wave encountered numer-
ous inconsistencies in the subsurface between 40-
50 m represented as closely spaced reflections of
94
Early Georgia
volume 42, number 2
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 that
would 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 and
Lanzarone 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 the
wave 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 earlier
summit 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 GPR
profile (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 ground
reflection 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 not
have 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 deepest
reflector 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-
 Ground Penetrating Radar and Resistivity at Singer-Moye (9SW2) Brannan and Bigman
95

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 Mound
F (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).
96
Early Georgia
volume 42, number 2
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 summit
architecture 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 for
these 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 the
suspected 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 was
constructed on Mound Fs final summit and the
distribution of architecture was patterned along
the summit edges.
Discussion
The 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
 Ground Penetrating Radar and Resistivity at Singer-Moye (9SW2)
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 Cool
Branch 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 Stamped
postdate 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
Table 1. Ceramic Assemblage from Mound D Summit (n=80 units).
Mound D Summit
Total Sand/Grit Ceramics
Total Shell Ceramics
Total Ceramics
Mound D Summit Diagnostic Ceramics
Moundville Incised1
Lamar Plain2
Lamar Complicated Stamped3
Fort Walton Incised4
Columbia Incised5
Total Diagnostic Ceramics
1) Steponaitis 1983; 2) Caldwell 1953, 3) Jennings and Fairbanks 1939, 4) Willey
1949, 5) Schnell et al. 1981
Brannan and Bigman
97
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 wall
post 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 summit
may 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 survey
around 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-
Count Percentage
plete history of Mound D, it will be dif-
3151 98.2
ficult to explain this pattern. However,
57 1.8 there are at least two likely possibilities.
3208 100 We do know that the summit of Mound
Count Percentage D contains artifacts that date specifi-
2 2.8 cally to the final occupation of Singer-
Moye. If Mound D was built and used
34 47.2
for only a short period of time prior to
5 6.9 the abandonment of Singer-Moye, we
16 22.2 would expect there may be little refuse
15 20.8 deposition in the vicinity. Although it
72 100.0 represents the final stage today, perhaps
it was built with the intention of being
the next of many stages, added to as nec-
98
Early Georgia
volume 42, number 2

Table 2. Ceramic Count from Positive Shovel Tests within Table 3. Ceramic Count from Positive Shovel Tests within
40 Meters of Mound D (14 of 38 Positive). No Diagnostic 40 Meters of Mound F (20 of 25 Positive).
Ceramics Recovered.
Mound F Shovel Test Survey Count Percentage
Mound D Shovel Test Survey Count Percentage
Total Sand/Grit Ceramics 532 92.7
Total Sand/Grit Ceramics 51 86.4
Total Shell Ceramics 42 7.3
Total Shell Ceramics 8 13.6
Total Ceramics 574 100.0
Total Ceramics 59 100.0
Mound F Shovel Test Survey Count Percentage
Diagnostic Ceramics
essary. Another possibility may be that Mound D
Moundville Incised1 1 16.7
served some special purpose for the community-at-
large, and was situated in the central mound-and- Lamar Plain 2
1 33.3
plaza complex at a location that was separate from Fort Walton Incised 3
1 16.7
households, lineages, or clans that may have lived Columbia Incised 4
2 16.7
nearby. The combination of multiple stages and Cool Branch Incised5 1 16.7
lack of non-mound deposits would suggest the lat-
Total Diagnostic Ceramics 6 100.0
ter possibility being the more likely of the two, but
awaits more research before we can make a defini- 1) Steponaitis 1983, 2) Caldwell 1953, 3) Willey 1949, 4) Schnell et
al. 1981, 5) Sears 1967
tive conclusion.
Our Mound F shallow geophysical survey
Table 4. Ceramic Assemblage from Mound F Summit
results suggest that it was built in more than one (Treefall).
stage, though the total number of building epi-
sodes is unknown. We identified several anomalies Mound F Summit Count Percentage
which may be of cultural origin, including over- Total Sand/Grit Ceramics 39 92.9
lapping linear reflections indicative of diachronic Total Shell Ceramics 3 7.1
building episodes and several square\rectangular Total Ceramics 42 100.0
anomalies resembling architectural features. These
Mound F Summit Diagnostic Count Percentage
anomalies are distributed throughout our survey Ceramics
grid and suggest that the activities occurred more
Lamar Plain1 1 50.0
than once on Mound F and were not confined to
a single structure. Cool Branch Incised 2
1 50.0
The artifact density around Mound F is the Total Diagnostic Ceramics 2 100.0
opposite of what we encountered at Mound D and 1) Caldwell 1953, 2) Sears 1967
contains a small assortment of diagnostic artifacts
from most periods of the Singer-Moye chronologi- including the creation or expansion of plaza space.
cal sequence (Table 3). As of yet, there have been Plazas are important elements of Missis-
no archaeological excavations on either the summit sippian period settlements. They were used by
or the flank of Mound F to pinpoint its functional the community for ceremonies, rituals, and daily
use and chronological sequence. Our only Mound life experiences (Lewis et al. 1998: 11). When the
F summit artifact collection (Table 4) came as a re- existing community outgrew the original plaza, it
sult of a large tree fall, not the best conditions for was expanded or a new one constructed. A second
stratigraphic control. However, this sample does plaza is a common occurrence at many Mississip-
contain a few diagnostic artifacts and dates the pian settlements when the first plaza could not be
final summit mound fill to somewhere between expanded (Lewis et al. 1998; Pauketat 2007). If we
A.D. 1200-1400, a period of time in which Singer- may be allowed to speculate, although we do not
Moye experienced significant population expan- know the order of plaza construction at Singer-
sion and modification of the built environment, Moye at this time, Mound F may in part have lim-
 Ground Penetrating Radar and Resistivity at Singer-Moye (9SW2)
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, but
represent 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 summit
will 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 a
foundation 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 thank
Jared 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..
Brannan and Bigman
99
References Cited
Barker, 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 Sciences 6:17-30.
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 Field
School 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
100
Early Georgia
volume 42, number 2

at the 69th Southeastern Archaeological Monaghan G. William, and Christopher S. Peebles

Conference, Baton Rouge, LA. 2010 The Construction, Use and Abandon-
ment of Angel Site Mound A: Tracing the
Brannan, Stefan and Jennifer Birch History of a Middle Mississippian Town
2014 Historical Settlement Ecology at Singer- Through its Earthworks. American Antiq-
Moye: Mississippian Dynamics in the Deep uity 75:935-953.
South. Paper presented at the 79th Annual
Meeting of the SAA, Austin, TX. Noakes, John E., and Betty Lee Brandau
1974 University of Georgia Radiocarbon Dates
Caldwell, Joseph R. III. Radiocarbon 16:131-141.
1953 The Rembert Mounds, Elbert County, Geor-
gia. River Basin Survey Papers No. 6. Bul- Pauketat, Timothy R.
letin 154. Bureau of American Ethnol- 2007 Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological Delu-
ogy, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, sions. AltaMira Press, Lanham.
D.C.
Reimer, P. J., E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G.
Gordy, R. Donald Blackwell, ... & J. van der Plicht
1967-1969 Original unpublished field notes from 2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age
the Singer-Moye excavations. Manuscript Calibration Curves, 0-50,000 Years cal
on file, Laboratory of Archaeology at the BP. Radiocarbon 55(4):1869-1887.
University of Georgia, Athens.
Russell, Margaret C. and R. Donald Gordy
Jennings, Jesse D., and Charles H. Fairbanks 2012 The Archaeology of Mound H, Singer-
1939 Pottery Type Descriptions. Southeastern Ar- Moye Mound Center, Stewart County,
chaeological Conference Newsletter 1(2). Georgia. Early Georgia 40(2):127-154.

Kassabaum, Megan C., Edward R. Henry, Vincas Schnell, Frank T., Vernon J. Knight, Jr., and Gail
P. Steponaitis, and John W. Ohear S. Schnell
2014 Between Surface and Summit: the Process 1981 Cemochechobee: Archaeology of a Mississip-
of Mound Construction at Feltus. Archaeo- pian Ceremonial Center on the Chattahoochee
logical Prospection 21:27-37. River. University Presses of Florida, Gaines-
ville.
Knight, Vernon J. Jr.
1979 Ceramic Stratigraphy at the Singer-Moye Sears, William H.
Site, 9Su2. Journal of Alabama Archaeology 1967 The Tierra Verde Burial Mound. Florida
XXV(2):138-151. Anthropologist 20(1-2):25-73.

Lewis, R. Barry, Charles Stout, and Cameron B. Seinfeld Daniel M., and Daniel P. Bigman
Wesson 2013 Investigating Monumental Architecture
1998 The Design of Mississippian Towns. In at the Letchworth Mounds Site (8JE337).
Mississippian Towns and Sacred Spaces: Search- Manuscript on file, to Florida Department
ing for an Architectural Grammar, edited by of State, Division of Historical Resources:
R. Barry Lewis and Charles Stout, pp. 1-21. Tallahassee, FL.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
 Ground Penetrating Radar and Resistivity at Singer-Moye (9SW2) Brannan and Bigman
101

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
Archaeology 11:110-114.
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-
gia 36(2): 157-172.
102
Early Georgia
volume 42, number 2