Partially stacked stone pile, Little Mulberry Park, 26 Dec. 2013
Returning home from my visit to Little Mulberry Park in Gwinnett County, I set to work finding out what I could online about the origin and purpose of the mysterious stone piles I had seen. Were they “almost certainly associated with native american cultures” as the information sign in the park indicated? If so, how old were they, and what evidence has been found linking them to prehistory? The more research I did, the more convinced I became that “almost certainly” is, almost certainly, not an accurate phrase to use. Indeed, the Little Mulberry Park Master Plan drafted in 2001 did not offer a definitive explanation for the piles, instead noting that “the stacked stone mounds have been variously attributed to pre-Columbian habitation by Native Americans and to post-settlement agriculture….” Based upon this uncertainty, the master plan added, “it is intended that appropriate interpretive signage will be placed to present the various theories about the mounds” [emphasis added]. Various theories? What do we truly know about these stone piles, and what is conjecture? Where is the evidence?
Clearly, I thought, there must be some fairly strong evidence leading archaeologists to conclude that the mounds are prehistoric. In 1989, the site (officially termed the Parks-Strickland Archaeological Complex) was added to the National Register of Historic Places, where it is listed as a prehistoric site dating from between 499 BC and 499 AD. According to the National Recreation Trails website (hosted by AmericanTrails.org), the site’s “pre-historic stone mounds” date to the Middle Woodland period of Native American prehistory, between 100 BC and 500 AD. Furthermore, “Portions of the stone mounds appear to be patterned to represent a stylized serpent figure which demonstrates careful and consistent techniques of early construction.” It should be noted that this was the only source I could find that claimed some pattern or structure to any of the mounds, beyond observations that many of the mounds show signs of rock stacking and some are roughly cylindrical in shape.
What evidence is there for ascribing a Late Woodland age to the stone structures, and what do archaeologists think they were intended to be? It turns out that the mounds were first investigated by Atlanta archaeologist Patrick Garrow, and he is responsible both for raising awareness of the potential cultural significance of the stone piles, and for proposing and strongly advocating that they are pre-settlement in origin. According to a May 1990 article in the Free-Lance Star, a Fredericksburg, Virginia newspaper, Garrow found over 200 rock mounds, and is quoted in the article as speculating that “I think it was a complex for burial of the dead and a ceremonial complex.” “But,” he added, “I’m guessing here. No one is absolutely sure.” In fact, no Woodland period (or prehistoric in general, for that matter) artifacts were found in or near any of the stone piles, nor were any human remains encountered.
In a 1988 archaeological investigation report by Patrick Garrow and David Chase of Garrow Associates, Inc. (discussed here), the authors gave several arguments as to why the stone piles are likely prehistoric. While some of the mounds are situated parallel to previous boundary lines, others are not. If the piles were formed by farmers removing rocks from a field, wouldn’t they collect the stones along a property line, to keep “wasted” land to a minimum? Also, why would area farmers bother to pile rocks in the first place, since the area was used as pasture and never actually plowed? Why would farmers clearing a field bother to stack the rocks with so much care? Finally, the rock piles are not random; many are located at equal distances from each other. Wouldn’t rock piles formed by farmers clearing their fields be more randomly situated? (Random, that is, if one overlooks the first idea, that the piles should be preferentially parallel to boundary lines.) All of these arguments are based upon the rejection of one alternative explanation for the stone piles: namely, that they could have been the work of post-settlement farmers clearing their land of rocks. By arguing against this scenario, Garrow and Chase somehow managed to conclude that the piles have to be prehistoric because there is no other reasonable explanation for their origin. In short, there is not one single piece of evidence that the stone piles at Little Mulberry Park are actually prehistoric. As we shall see in the final installment of this series, however, there is considerable evidence pointing to a different story behind the stone piles.
You have no idea what you are talking about, Sir. None whatsoever. Mr.Garrow and his associates were on the payroll of the developer. The two person crew from University of Georgia sent to investigate was laughable. There is more than just “piles of stones” at that place. I have been there, and have seen it for myself. Another example of myopic attention and money in hand at work.I intend to return this summer.I can prove these structures are indeed precolonial contact. Prehistory is a relative point of view. There is evidence to suggest continual pilgrimage / use of the site by later peoples such as descendants. They are indeed made by indigenous people though. I cannot abide willful ignorance.
Correction and addendum to my comment, it was meant to state that Mr. Gresham from UGA with his inexperienced assistant were laughable, and Mr. Steven Webb from RS Webb and Associates who was paid by the developer of the adjacent property at Poole Mountain where there are scattered structures as well.
He also stated in his opinion that the Mulberry Park structures were not legitimate. His expertise in stone structure analysis is very limited, and I doubt he is as qualified to make such a statement as he thinks he is. It is also interesting that in most of the publicly available records I have seen, Mr. Webb argues against indigenous occupation or evidence in the majority of cases where he is hired by property developers or clients needing an expedient remedy to clear the way of legal impediments so they can move on with their projects, after all a lot of money is invested in those developments. Who cares about a bunch of dead indians turned to dust under a few piles of rocks in the woodlands anyway? . Georgia has a lot of corruption and people know this. It is the gool ‘ol boy system at work. I know it well, as I am from Georgia and my father was a developer. He did what he had to do if there were obstacles to developments. It happens all the time. Discussions and plans laid over lunch. Innuendo and a wink over drinks at the country club. I have seen it. The matter of Poole Mountain is still being litigated from what I have heard. Lots of shady goings on, and strange mischief in that neighborhood. Mr.Garrow and Mr. Chase are good eggs, although I do not agree with all of their conclusions they had it right. It is a ceremonial stone landscape in a ravine next to a source of running water. Exactly where native people would bury their dead, and make small altars and cairns of remembrance. If you have ever been to any of these ceremonial stone landscapes up north scattered across 11 other states you would recognize what you are seeing. But you have not, have YOU?