The Battle of Kettle Creek

Battle at Kettle Creek and notes on Standardizing Metal Detector Surveys.

By Daniel E. Battle Cypress Cultural Consultants, LLC

under the direction of the LAMAR Institute, Inc.funded by a Preserve America Grant from the National Park Service,

and the citizens of Wilkes County, Georgia.

Kettle Creek

Goal:Locate evidence to aid in our understanding in the historical event known as the Revolutionary war Battle of Kettle Creek.

What was the Battle of Kettle Creek?

● An ongoing campaign against loyalists trying to take up arms

● Fought on Feb. 14th, 1779 on the heals of the British Invasion of Georgia

● History more known for formalized armies on famously known battlefields

● Over 200 Battles and Skirmishes in SC alone--more than other colonies.

● Not your typical Revolutionary War Battle

Kettle Creek

The battle was mostly a personal fight among theWhigs and Loyalist backwoodsmen in the region nicknamed the “Hornet Nest”

Kettle Creek

What amounts to be successful campaign by the patriot backwoodsmen that should be viewed as a sum of its parts:

“Snow Campaign” SC/NC 1775Ninety-Six, SC 1775Moore’s Creek Bridge, N.C.1776Kettle Creek, Georgia 1779Kings Mountain, NC. 1780

Kettle Creek

British Strategy:

● Uniting and recruitment of settlers in the frontier back-country ● Relatively large numbers

of Scottish settlers had beenpouring into the Frontier regions in the South and were viewed as loyal to the crown

● The British Authorities from as early as 1775, had made it a key strategy to take advantage of the Scottish and other immigrant populations.

Kettle Creek

Why it did not work:

● An Equal numbers of Patriot settlers countered several attempts by the Loyalist to take over control

● The over all campaign effort of the Patriots was a success and keptvolunteers from this region to a minimum is often an overlooked fact by many historians

Kettle Creek

PatriotsCol. Andrew Pickens● Commanded less than 400 men● 32 men killed in action

LoyalistsCol. John or James Boyd● Commanded about 900 men ● 75 men taken prisoner● 70 men killed in action

Sunday morning, Feb 14, 1779

Kettle Creek

Kettle Creek

U.S.G.S. 1906 Map showing Battle Site

Kettle CreekForce Locations

Kettle Creek

Archaeological Methods● Shovel testing (overall

unsuccessful)

● Excavation units were placed in areas found during a Metal Detection Reconnaissance

● ground penetrating radar (GPR)

● metal detection (located all the metal activity areas.)

Kettle Creek

Benefits of metal detector survey

● sparse artifact scatters

● Limited time for a large area

Kettle Creek

Artifact Located During Metal Detection Survey

Kettle Creek

Metal detector Results:

● 14 metal concentrations including farmsteads

Kettle Creek

Metal detector Results:

● 3 general areas produced elements of the battle

● Two probable areas are located in the flood plan.

● One probable area in heavy underbrush

Kettle Creek

Kettle Creek

Conclusions:● site boundary

recommendations were given for preservation plans

● further site study potential still present

Various Artifacts Found on Battlefield

Generally Metal Detectors can be used in the following ways: 1.Quick non-evasive evaluation or mapping of a site during the planning stages similar to the use of GPR:

a) location and general dating of historical activity areas in the field

b) location of modern intrusions on a site to help effectively focus testing

c) evaluation of the integrity of sites for formulating additional testing strategies

d) understanding of the placement and concentration of metal artifacts vertically and horizontally

e) understanding of the preservation state of a historical site damaged by non-professional metal detector enthusiasts.

2.Supplement to shovel testing or as a stand alone testing method of gaining valuable information at historic sites

a) mimic the transects of any shovel testing to assure activity areas are not missed

b) evaluation of non-traditional archeological sites such as battlefields

c) conducting intense piece plotting of historic artifact scatters.

d) reconnaissance of large tracts.

3. Used non-evasively during excavation to give a heads up on the placement of fragile historical artifacts or deeper buried features*

Kettle Creek

How can we better use metal detectors at Archaeological sites. Ideas on Standardizing the use of Metal detectors to better be used as a consistent tool:

Generally SHPO’s recognize the value of using Metal detectors in evaluation of historical sites but have stopped short of committing to any type of standard or guidelines in their usage in the field by archaeologists.

Problems with Standardization of Metal Detector Surveys

Big Misconception -

If you can turn on the machine, you can use it with little training!

● few standards and guidelines

● no training classes

● most archaeologists have insufficient experience

● technical control of search areas given to non-professional volunteers

● large variation in metal detectors

Some Possible Standardization Approaches:

● Choose detectors that offer professional features

● Develop sufficient methodology and goals that can be replicated:

– Set Search Depth Parameters and Max Retrieval Depth

– Conduct Depth Detection Test

– Determine Sample Interval (similar to shovel tests interval)

Some Possible Standardization Approaches:

● Standardize Search Methods– Search Head or Coil Sweep

● Keep Adequate Field Records

● Consistent Plotting and Recording of Sampled Artifacts

● Participate in Training and Education on your Machine

● Field Identification and Mapping of Metal Anomalies or “Hits”

● Choose Volunteers Carefully and Educate them.