North American Database of Archaeological Geophysics
North American Database of Archaeological Geophysics
Abstract/Summary:
Project Name: Hollywood Mounds Site (22TU500), MS;
Reference: Johnson, J.K., Stallings, R., Ross-Stallings, N., Clay, R.B., and V.S. Jones (2000). Remote Sensing and Ground Truth at the Hollywood Mounds Site in Tunica County, Mississippi. Univ. Prepared for the Mississippi Department of Archives and History.
Johnson, J.K. (2001). Remote Sensing at the Hollywood Mound Center in Northeastern Mississippi Website: http://www.olemiss.edu/research/anthropology/top.html.
Clay, R. B. (2002). Complementary Geophysical Survey Techniques: Why Two Ways are Always Better Than One. Southeastern Archaeology 20(1):31-43.
Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc. (2001).Hollywood Site, Tunica County, Mississippi. Website: http://www.crai-ky.com/geophysical/hollywood.htm
The Hollywood Site consist of four obvious mounds more or less lined up along the front edge of the natural levee of an abandoned channel of the Mississippi River. The largest by far is Mound A, reaching a height of 27 feet above the surrounding surface. A ramp is clearly visible on the south side of the mound. Mound B is located immediately to the south. It is an elongated elevation of about six feet with a saddle back in the middle. Mounds C and D are lower elevations to the north of Mound A. The elevation of each is exaggerated by gullies which have eroded along the front edge of the levee. A chimney fall marks the location of a 20th century tenant house on Mound D. Early aerial photographs show a larger house to have been built on Mound C.
The purpose of this project was to learn some more about the prehistoric occupation at Hollywood and to experiment with various forms of remote sensing. The original research design called for controlled surface collecting, additional contour mapping, and an overflight using the ATLAS airborne multispectral digital sensor. All of these goals were accomplished and we were able the use three additional sensors; a conductivity meter, a gradiometer, and ground penetrating radar. As a result of the interplay between the analysis of remote sensing data and the decisions about where to locate the ground truth test units, we now have a much better idea of how to interpret the various forms of imagery. For example, early on during the phase I testing, we recognized the signature for house floors in the conductivity imagery. It is a relatively restricted area of low conductivity which shows up as a dark patch in the image. We then selected seven more suspected house floors and located one meter test pits in the center of each. House floors were uncovered in five of the test pits. Likewise, the trench across the donut pattern west of Mound A revealed a buried truncated mound which we have labeled E. Additional halos of low conductivity line the plaza along its western edge to the south of Mound E. Although we have yet to test them, this pattern is distinctive enough that we are confident that we have identified the signature for the boundary mounds.
Our success with ground penetrating radar was dependent upon soil conditions. The silty clays that make up most of the site seemed to have masked any patterning in the returns that could be interpreted. We ran several GPR transacts across house floors and boundary mound locations which we had discovered using the conductivity survey and verified through test excavation and recorded no discernable pattern. At the end of the day we recorded one line in the coarser sediments on the crest of the levee and got what appear to be interpretable results. However, at that time, none of our imagery showed any cultural features in that area. Since then we have extended the gradiometer survey into that area and recorded a good deal of additional GPR data, all of which shows promise.
At Hollywood, the best of the remote sensors was the gradiometer. House locations north of Mound A are revealed in remarkable detail showing wall trenches, possible hearths, and possible platforms. The open patterns of the boundary mounds are much better refined even showing the two construction stages on the west end of Mound E. Mound F which shows as a defuse area of low return in the conductivity is revealed as a ring in the gradiometer data and that ring clearly marks the limits of the mound. In our latest gradiometer survey data, recorded in December of 1999 as part of our ongoing research at the site, the line of boundary mounds is easily discernable running south from Mound E and turning to the east just short of the southern limit of the MDAH owned portion of the site. We have also recovered what appear to be structural remains on the summit of Mound A. Moreover, the gradiometer does not seem to be nearly as sensitive to differences in soil texture as the conductivity meter for example. Likewise, difference in soil moisture do not appear too critical. We used the instrument when the site was so soggy that it was difficult to walk and again when it was dry and dusty with no difference in the amount of information that was revealed.