**6. Conclusions**

The goal for our research at the Johnston Site was to situate the site within the broader context of Middle Woodland activity along this stretch of the SFFDR. This included contextualizing the Johnston Site in relation to other mounds centers nearby, like Pinson Mounds and the Elijah Bray site. In doing so, we wanted to lay the foundations for creating a landscape biography of the area that focused on exploring the indigenous history of this region. The application of a robust remote sensing approach that integrated LiDAR-derived visualizations and geophysical methods allowed us to non-invasively examine the Johnston landscape from various scales of analysis. In doing so, we were able to build upon the earlier archaeological cartography of Johnston and the work of E.G. Buck and William Myer, as well as the interpretations by Kwas and Mainfort [30]. The results of our work at Johnston sugges<sup>t</sup> that there were most likely occupations that were precursors to the Middle Woodland occupation of Pinson Mound. In this sense, Kwas and Mainfort's assessment is probably correct. However, we would note that the majority of research at Pinson Mounds has focused on mounds and that the similarities between Johnston and Pinson in terms of their location on terrace landforms overlooking the SFFDR, suggests that Pinson too probably has a vast pre- and post-Middle Woodland occupation.

Our research shows the importance of integrating both aerial and terrestrial remote sensing methods. In our case study presented here, this amalgamation of remote sensing methods provided insights that no singular method could o ffer. Our methodology allowed us to critically assess the 1917 map of the Johnston site and identify a variety of surface and subsurface features beyond the original map. This integrative approach also permitted us to identify portions of the 1917 map that may have been embellished, although further geophysical surveys, archaeological excavations, and soil analyses should be performed to confirm this notion.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, E.R.H., A.P.W., S.C.S., S.B.C., C.R.B. and C.V.d.V.; methodology, E.R.H., A.P.W., S.C.S., S.B.C., C.R.B. and C.V.d.V.; formal analysis, E.R.H., A.P.W. and C.V.d.V.; investigation, E.R.H., A.P.W., S.C.S., S.B.C., C.R.B. and C.V.d.V.; resources, E.R.H., A.P.W., S.C.S., S.B.C., C.R.B. and C.V.d.V.; data curation, E.R.H.; writing—Original draft preparation, E.R.H. and A.P.W.; writing—Review and editing, E.R.H., A.P.W., S.C.S., S.B.C., C.R.B. and C.V.d.V.; visualization, E.R.H., A.P.W. and C.V.d.V.; supervision, E.R.H., A.P.W., S.C.S., S.B.C., C.R.B. and C.V.d.V.; project administration, S.C.S.; funding acquisition, S.C.S. and A.P.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by: A University of the South Faculty Development Grant to S.C.S. funded logistical needs for the field work. The magnetic susceptibility equipment and travel costs were funded by the American Philosophical Society, Franklin Research Grant awarded to A.P.W.

**Acknowledgments:** We thank our respective institutions for support throughout the duration of this project. The Tennessee Division of Archaeology (TDOA) provided access to the Johnston Site. We thank TDOA archaeologist Bill Lawrence, who helped facilitate our project logistics and aided in our fieldwork. Thanks are due to Tim Poole, site manager for PMSAP, for arranging access to the Group Camp at PMSAP. This project would not have been possible without Tristram R. Kidder, Director of the Geoarchaeology Laboratory at Washington University in St. Louis, who provided access to geophysical instruments and processing software.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
