Ninety Six Archeology and History
Archeology at Ninety Six
AN OVERVIEW OF ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT NINETY
SIX NHS
[adapted from "A Research Design for Archeological
Investigations at Ninety Six National Historic Site," SEAC 1996,
by Guy Prentice]
Introduction
William Edwards' Investigations - 1961
Stanley South's Investigations - 1970
Stanley South's Investigations - 1971
Holschlag and Rodeffer Investigations - 1973
to 1975
Holschlag and Rodeffer Investigations - 1975
to 1976
Ellen Ehrenhard's Investigations - 1977
W.H. Wills' Remote Sensing Assessment - 1978
John Weymouth's Investigations - 1978
Ellen Ehrenhard's Investigations - 1978
Ellen Ehrenhard's Investigations - 1979
James Scurry's Investigations -1982
Paglione and Ehrenhard Investigations - 1983
Rodeffer Investigations - 1985
SEAC Investigations 1991 to 1996
References Cited
Introduction
Many of the architectural details known about Ninety Six National
Historic Site have been revealed through historical archeology.
Historical archeology is the study of the material remains of
past societies that also left behind some other form of historical
evidence. Historical archeology differs from prehistoric or "pre-Columbian"
archeology in that it uses historical documents and often adds
important new information allowing for more accurate and complete
historical accounts.
The first archeological work at what would later become Ninety
Six National Historic Site began in 1961. At that time, William
Edwards explored the area around the Star Fort and the Ninety
Six Village Jail. Extensive work was subsequently carried out
by Stanley South, Michael J. Rodeffer and Stephanie Holschlag
(Rodeffer), and Ellen Ehrenhard. The last of this extensive research
was completed in 1985. Since then, the only archeological investigations
that have been completed have been small Section
106 compliance projects.
William Edwards' Investigations - 1961
Archeological research at what would eventually become Ninety
Six National Historic Site was begun in 1961 by the Department
of Archeology, University of South Carolina. William Edwards,
the principal investigator, worked sporadically with varying crews
on a five year testing program that focused on the Star Redoubt,
the offensive patriot siegeworks, and the Ninety Six Village (South
1971:2). Eight trenches of varying lengths were excavated in and
around the Star Fort and two long trenches were excavated at the
site of the jail and the courthouse. The Star Fort Commission
had a surveyor prepare a field map of these features, showing
the excavated trenches (South 1971:3).
Seven years later, the surveyor's map could not be found by Stephanie
Holschlag, Michael J. Rodeffer, and Marvin Cann, who included
information about Edwards' jail trench in their 1978 jail excavation
report. They state that "although his [Edwards'] field notes and
maps have not been located, Edwards' work [in the jail area] generally
can be reconstructed using the artifact catalogue" (Holschlag,
Rodeffer, and Cann 1978:29).
Stanley South's Investigations - 1970
Stanley South began his investigations at Ninety Six in 1970
with a four week exploratory program (May 4-May 28). During these
four weeks, one week was spent on each of the following: attempting
to locate and follow the fortification ditches and palisade ditches
around the Ninety Six Village; surveying the position of the Star
Fort and its related features, including Kosciusko's tunnel; exploring
the area thought to be Gouedy's trading post and the site of Fort
Ninety Six during the French and Indian War period; and locating
the site of Holmes Fort through fortification or palisade ditches.
A great deal of the work was accomplished by "slot trenching,"
the purpose being simply to locate the architectural features
and accurately plot them on a map.
South's exploratory work revealed the general locations of the
targeted sites: Gouedy's Trading Post Site of 1751 and its successor,
Fort Ninety Six (1759-61) (38GN1); Holmes Fort Site of 1780 (38GN2);
Kosciuszco's tunnel, Ninety Six Village; and the Stockade Fort
(around Ninety Six Village) of 1780. The Star Redoubt (which has
been visible since its construction) was only surveyed and Williamson's
Fort, which underlies Holmes Fort were not singled out for investigation
during this project (South 1970).
Fort Ninety Six and Gouedy's Trading Post (site #38-GN-1)
South chose the Gouedy Trading Post area for examination because
of the presence of a large rectangular depression (former cellar)
lined with stones around the edge close to where he placed his
Reference Point (RP) 2. Four slot trenches were excavated in this
area by South, and three palisade ditches associated with Fort
Ninety Six were located. One 80 foot long E-W palisade ditch was
intruded on by another and therefore later ditch. South hypothesized
that the former was a palisade ditch for the 1759 Fort Ninety
Six and that the intrusive ditch may represent Moultrie's 1761
fort or his documented enlargement of the existing Fort Ninety
Six. A small earth-filled cellar seems to be temporally related
to this later trench. A third palisade ditch with two slight angles
was followed by South for 60 feet, and it is proposed to be either
the 1761 stockade or Moultrie's addition. All three palisade ditches
seem to correspond with a high knoll north of the open, stone-lined
cellar. This would imply that this high ground was the area on
which the three forts were positioned and that the open cellar
may be associated with Gouedy's house. South suggested that further
investigation of the open cellar may give insight into whether
or not this was part of Gouedy's original house (burned by the
Cherokees in 1760), his second house, or something else. The lack
of any creamware in the second, earth- filled cellar led South
to believe that it was filled in before the 1770s, clearly representing
the French and Indian War Period. In addition, an unidentified
Archaic projectile point and an unidentified triangular projectile
point were recovered from the trenches.
Holmes Fort (38-GN-2)
Historical documentation stated that this 1780 fort was located
on the hill above Ninety Six Village, was stockaded, had a formal
fortification ditch and parapet protecting two blockhouses inside,
and would have evidence of Harry Lee's parallel approach trenches
present. South cut a series of 11 slot trenches in an area thought
to be good for locating the fort ditches, but found only plow
scars. He then cut a slot trench north of this original area,
and found a large ditch varying from seven to eleven feet in width.
One angle was found and South projected the fort location from
this. He also believed that a depression in the face of the hillside
below this apparent fort location appeared to be the remains of
the Caponier (communications trench) that connected Holmes Fort
with the town of Ninety Six (South 1970:11). A surface collection
was also made. Ceramic age ranges were in the 1780s to 1850s with
only a few pieces extending as late as the 1850s. None of the
early ceramics, such as white salt-glazed stoneware and delft,
that were seen at Gouedy's Trading Post and the Fort Ninety Six
were present at Holmes Fort, which indicated to South that this
site was not occupied at the earlier period (South 1970:14). A
1773 Spanish coin minted in Mexico and a pipe bowl fragment similar
to those made by Gottfried Aust, the Moravian potter in North
Carolina from 1755 to 1788, were recovered. In addition, several
Savannah River (Late Archaic) projectile point fragments were
recovered from the area (South 1970:16).
The Star Fort (38-GN-3)
This feature, an eight-point star parapet with a dry ditch around
it, is still very visible at the site. Another outstanding feature
is the crater inside the east point of the star that marks the
40 feet deep hole where a fruitless attempt was made to dig a
well during the 1781 siege. South carried out no excavation here
during this initial study, but did map the position of various
features in the area. In addition, a measurement of Kosciusko's
Mine was undertaken. This tunnel (which ranges from three to four
feet in height) was found to extend east and south for a total
of over 125 feet from what was then a still obvious opening (South
1970:17-19).
Ninety Six Village (38-GN-4)
A map that was compiled in 1909 from earlier maps of the site
dating back to 1822 shows that the town of Ninety Six had thirteen
structures besides the jail and courthouse. South used this map
to direct the excavation of five long trenches near the Charleston
Road. South believed that he may have cut across the cellar of
the courthouse in Trench GN4-3, but dry weather prevented confirmation
of this interpretation. Trench GN4-5 crossed Edward's Trench "I"
and a possible cellar hole, but this area was also not examined.
Two additional trenches (GN4-6 and 4-7) were excavated, with GN4-7
revealing a garbage dump containing materials that South used
to date the accumulation to the 1780s and 1790s. These dates were
based upon the absence of rich cream-colored English creamware
(typical of the 1770s) and the presence of a relatively large
amount of very pale creamware. Additional materials (slag, tool
blade fragments) gave indications of a blacksmith operation nearby
(South 1970:23). South was surprised at and puzzled by the paucity
of material recovered from the town (South 1970:26).
Stockade Fort at Ninety Six Village (38-GN-5)
Historical documentary evidence shows that Ninety Six Village
was surrounded by a stockade, ditch, and embankment and flanked
by blockhouses. South indicates that an embankment is visible
on each side of the county access road leading to the Star Fort.
A test unit (GN5-5) approximately 10 feet by 15 feet was excavated
in an attempt to reveal other features, such as a palisade ditch,
but none were located. South of the town, eight slot trenches
(GN5-7 to GN5-14) were cut and GN4-2 and 4-4 were extended in
an attempt to locate the palisade. A ditch was located in trenches
5-8 through 5-12, but was absent from 13 and 14, presumably as
a result of heavy erosion in this higher spot caused by later
agricultural activity (South 1970:30). A series of trenches was
excavated to the south of the Star Fort (on the south side of
the County Access Road) to locate the ditch and follow it in plan.
"This ditch measured three and one-half feet deep, and three to
five feet wide at the top, with a bottom width of two feet" (South
1970:30). This ditch was exposed for one hundred yards where it
intersected with a larger ditch at a right angle (seen in GN5-28).
South interpreted this intersection as the northeast corner of
the town (South 1970:30). The larger ditch was postulated to be
the Caponier Ditch or Defensive Parapet Ditch from the town to
the Star Fort. Trenches GN5-32 and 5-33 were the only trenches
used to expose the northern palisade. The western palisade was
not examined on this project. Because only plan and profile cuts
were made, no artifacts were recovered (South 1970:32-33).
South resumed excavation later that same year with an eight week
project that extended from October 5-November 25. In this project,
Holmes Fort (38GN2), the Ninety Six Jail and Redoubt (38GN4),
and the blockhouse and ditches around Ninety Six (38GN5) were
focused on. South's (1971) subsequent report emphasizes the historical
perspective derived from contemporary documents and stresses the
corroboration of these documents with evidence from the ground.
South also lists excerpts from documentary sources that contain
clues to features that may be traced archeologically. Only a small
part of this report deals with the excavations.
Holmes Fort (38-GN-2)
One goal for this second round of investigations was to delineate
the walls of Holmes Fort and to excavate its ditches. Fifty-four
exploratory trenches were excavated, leading South to a surprising
revelation. The fort was not shaped as historical documents had
indicated. Instead, it was designed like a British hornwork, which,
as South notes, looks "like that of a large mitten" (South 1971:86).
The main ditch was formed by two bastions, resulting in overall
dimensions of 100 by 200 feet. Detailed interpretation of the
ditches was possible, but the proposed positions of the two blockhouses
were based entirely on historic maps. In addition, a ditch was
found to the north of the small bastion on the west ditch of the
fort. It extends to the west from the fort ditch. The function
of this ditch was not determined. Finally, the location of the
covered way ditch from Holmes Fort was hypothesized but not discovered.
All artifacts recovered from this area were from the plow zone,
and show a general occupational period from the 1780's to the
mid- nineteenth century. More work in this area in the future
was planned.
The Palisade and Ditches around Ninety Six Village (38-GN-5)
South excavated about 100 exploratory trenches in this area,
exposing many features. From these, South interpreted Cruger's
original town palisade as encompassing an area 220 by 400 feet.
The north blockhouse was located in the northwestern corner of
the palisade, and there was a bastion on the northeast corner.
A small ditch to the south of the entrance is thought to be a
Ninety Six town structure. Most slot trenches in this area were
concentrated on the north wall, with only two excavated on the
east wall. A palisade wall was predicted on the south side. To
the north and west, a ditch was located inside the palisade, but
on the east side an interior ditch was lacking. This ditch may
have been dug outside the palisade. The dirt would then have been
thrown up against the stockade to give added protection. This
possibility could result in a profile similar to one drawn by
Major Patrick Ferguson in February 1780 of works that had been
built by the British (South 1971:93- 94). However, South's work
was not concentrated on this east side.
The Blockhouse Site at the Northwest Corner of the Town of
Ninety Six (38- GN-5)
A cellar located in the northwest corner of the enclosure permitted
South's inference of a north blockhouse that measured 15 by 30
feet (if the foundation wall were placed inside the cellar) or
25 by 35 feet (if the cellar were totally enclosed inside a structure
whose footing was wider than the cellar). A disturbance that reached
to over three feet in depth was found along the east side of the
cellar. The nature of this disturbance was not discovered (South
1971:95-100).
The Jail Redoubt (38-GN-5)
This fortification ditch ranges from four to ten feet wide and
forms a pointed bastion (80 feet across) that surrounds the jail
site. No work was done where the Redoubt turns toward the south
(near South's Reference Point 11). A west palisade, extending
south between South's RP37 and RP11 from the redoubt was located
and presumed to be the west palisade for the Royal Provincial
encampment area (South 1971:101).
Stanley South's Investigations - 1971
In 1971, South again resumed excavations at Holmes Fort, Williamson's
Fort, and Cambridge Village. These excavations were carried out
from June 7 to June 30. During this phase, the outline and features
of Holmes Fort of 1780, the west bastion of the British fortifications
around the town of Ninety Six, and any information about Williamson's
Fort of 1775 and the town of Cambridge (built on the site of Williamson's
and Holmes forts after 1783) were to be examined (South 1972)
.
Features were revealed in a three step process: 1) removing the
eight to ten inch plow zone with a ten foot mechanically driven
blade; 2) "dressing" the area with a small motorized grader; and
3) "schnitting" (shovel shaving)
the exposed surface (South 1972:10-11). When features were exposed,
the intensity of the mid-summer sun quickly baked the red clay,
creating cracks and obscuring the differentiating of soil colors
and organic stains of the archeological features. In order to
have time to effectively record and map the features, South arranged
to have the Greenwood County Fire Department spray hundreds of
gallons of water over the exposed areas each day until the recording
and mapping had been accomplished.
Williamson's Fort and Holmes Fort (38-GN-2)
When this area was stripped in 1971, the area was found to be
more complicated than expected. The hornwork intruded on a palisade
trench in several places. The presence of this palisade, the Williamson's
Fort Complex, was a surprise to South. The documents only mentioned
flimsy construction of fence rails and cowhides built in three
days in November of 1775 (South 1971). The only archeological
feature that was expected was the remains of a forty feet deep
well that was dug inside the stockade during its use. This new
evidence showed that this structure was not flimsy at all, but
that these fence rails were set vertically in traditional stockade
manner.
Williamson's Fort of 1775 (38-GN-2)
The trenches exposed in this area were found to enclose an area
85 by 150 feet. These trenches were found to end at three places
with each of these places containing "footing holes" (post holes)
for three structures. The south structure had seven footing holes
that formed a rectangle 15 by 30 feet, the west structure was
represented by six footings forming a square 19 by 21 feet, and
the north structure had four footing holes and measured 21 by
32 feet. When matched with a 1821 map that portrayed Williamson's
Fort of 1775, these three structures matched those structures
identified as John Savage's barns shown on the map. A fourth building
was also shown on the map, but South didn't investigate this;
he simply extrapolated its location. A bastion was found just
west of the south barn location. Most of the fort had been intruded
upon by Holmes Fort. Very little excavation was done in the ditches
(which were found to be one foot wide and two feet deep). Near
the center of the area of Williamson's Fort, a rectangular pit
was found measuring 3.8 by 8 feet, and 2 feet deep; thought to
be a possible burial, there was no evidence of a body. A few feet
to the north of the south barn, a larger shallow feature containing
a two by six feet burial pit was
found. This pit contained human remains, a large pocket knife
(at the hip), large brass coat buttons (near the center of the
body), pewter buttons (near the rib cage), and brass wire eyes
(near the ankles) (South 1972:30). It is possible that these are
the remains of James Birmingham who was the sole fatality in the
brief conflict at the fort between Loyalists and Patriots in 1775.
Holmes Fort of 1780-1781 (38-GN-2)
Primary archeological features of Holmes Fort were defined as:
1) a fortification ditch from eight to ten feet wide at the subsoil
level and from three to four feet in depth with a
burned firing step trench paralleling the large ditch;
2) a 100 foot long south curtain that includes a
small bastion with the area inside the fort being roughly
80 by 200 feet; 3) a heavily burned firing step trench containing
burned posts that range from three to five inches across; and
4) a posthole (within the small bastian) for a swivel gun on the
west end of the south barn (South 1972:33). This fort was found
to intrude on Williamson's Fort, with John Savage's north and
south barns being integrated in both constructions.
A shallow ditch 8 feet wide and 35 feet long, accompanied by a burned
firing wall trench (found inside the works at the east end of the
south barn) was interpreted as "a ditch for a parapet protecting
the blockhouse against attack from the covered way" (South 1972:36).
The function of a small angular section of trench with posts similar
to those in the firing step ditch that is visible along the edge
of the south barn just west of the firing wall trench is unknown
(South 1972:38). A few musket balls and fragments of a swivel gun
were the only military artifacts recovered. The covered way that
is shown on the 1822 map of the area was not found, but was postulated
to be at the east end of the site between the fortification ditches
where South did not explore (South 1972:44).
"Light Horse Harry" Lee's Approach Trench (38-GN-2)
This feature was found to "begin 110 feet west of the north bastion
of Holmes Fort and extend with slight angle toward the north a
distance of 160 feet to end at the bank of the old roadbed to
Ninety Six" (South 1972:42). The trench measured 2.3 feet wide
and 3.0 feet deep below the subsoil level, "making the original
approach trench about four feet deep" (South 1972:42). Because
of the mention of "triangular fire" in Mackenzie's 1787 account
of the battle of Ninety Six, South concluded that it was "likely
that there were approach trenches on the south as well as northeast
of Holmes Fort" that had not yet been discovered (South 1972:42).
The Town of Cambridge (38-GN-2)
The remains of Cambridge can be seen archeologically in the form
of many square and round postholes spaced six to eight feet apart.
These are aligned in rows, possibly representing fence posts on
lot lines. Ten rows run east- west and vary from three to fifty
feet apart. Three north-south rows were 200 to 250 feet long,
with two spaced three to five feet apart. Six cellar holes were
located but only one was excavated (see comment on Steven Baker,
immediately below). The town intrudes on Williamson's Fort and
Holmes Fort (as seen in postholes and a privy) (South 1972:44-45).
During South's 1971 Holmes Fort project, the brick lined cellar
of a house believed to have been constructed around 1785 was excavated
under the direct supervision of Steven G. Baker (Baker 1972).
The house was moved or torn down in the late eighteenth or very
early nineteenth century, and the cellar hole was subsequently
used as a refuse dump until sometime prior to 1820. Detailed information
on construction phases were gleaned from the excavation results.
A large and varied assemblage of late 18th and early 19th century
creamware and pearlware ceramics were recovered as well.
Holschlag and Rodeffer Investigations
- 1973 to 1975
In 1973, Stephanie Holschlag and Michael Rodeffer began an extensive
series of excavations at Ninety Six. In 1973, 1974 and 1975, they
were principal investigators in the excavation of Holmes Fort
and the Caponier for the Star Fort Historical Commission (Holschlag
and Rodeffer 1976a). This excavation resulted in the construction
of a model of Holmes Fort. During these same years, work was also
carried out at the siegeworks opposite the Star Redoubt (Holschlag
and Rodeffer 1976b). In addition, Holschlag and Rodeffer were
joined by Marvin L. Cann for excavation of the Ninety Six Jail
(Holschlag et al. 1978).
Holmes Fort (38-GN-2) and the Caponier
Holschlag and Rodeffer's 1973 investigations of Holmes Fort (and
its attendant caponier) covered a total of about 3550 square feet
and were reported as follows: ...the plowzone over the eastern
one-fifth of the fortification was removed by a road grader and
the surface cleaned by shovel shaving. A grid system of 15 foot
squares was superimposed over this area with the 0N/0E designation
on South's reference point #3. These grid squares were numbered
as Units 250-270 beginning with the southeast corner and moving
from east to west. Only surface collections were made in the grid,
and all features exposed were mapped. In addition, three long
road grader cuts and six exploratory trenches were excavated in
the meadow directly east of and below the fortification to expose
the caponier linking the redoubt with the town. These cuts were
one feet deep on the west edge. A single erosional feature with
a maximum width and depth of 1.8 feet and 1.2 feet, respectively,
was encountered (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976a:19).
Various ceramics, ammunition, buckle fragments, and glass were
recovered, but none were associated with features. In addition,
several chipped stone artifacts, including bifacially and unifacially
retouched flakes, a broken quartzite biface, and gunflints, were
recovered (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976a:28).
The 1974 excavations were designed to test or excavate all features
located the preceding year. Eleven features were designated (Units
271-281) and excavated (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976a:23). Eleven
test trenches were excavated using a backhoe in the meadow east
of the redoubt to locate the caponier ("covered way"/trench) connecting
the fort to Ninety Six Village. A short segment of what was thought
to be the caponier was uncovered in an excavation trench on the
east side of the redoubt and was further inspected by ten excavation
trenches to the east.
In 1975, stabilization work was conducted on the fortification.
During this time, the surface of South's (1972) "shallow ditch"
6-8 feet wide and 35 feet long was uncovered with a tractor blade.
This feature was designated 135- 138 by Holschlag and Rodeffer.
South's "ditch" was found to have an irregular base, a plank lined
floor, and no artifacts associating it with the fortification.
Holschlag and Rodeffer thought that a defensive ditch feature
would be deeper and more regular (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976a:96).
The Siegeworks at Star Fort (38-GN-3-SW)
Siegework investigations at the Star Redoubt were carried out
over all three field seasons (1973-1975). Holschlag and Rodeffer
summarized the results of all three phases at the siegeworks in
their 1976 report (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b).
During the first season (July 2 to August 24, 1973), 75 exploratory
trenches (Units 1-73) were excavated to define the mine entrance
and to investigate the relationship of the mine to other features.
Trench locations were mapped from South's Reference Point #15.
The second phase (June 18 to July 5, 1974) was conducted to demarcate
the siegework system. Fifteen new trenches were opened (Units
73-97) and 18 of the 1973 units were extended. This work was used
to form "the basis for inferences on the articulation of the siegework
system, the function of specific features, and the location of
additional anticipated components" (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b:29-30).
Additional work was conducted from January 14 to June 14, 1975.
During this effort, a reference grid oriented on magnetic north
was established with 0N/0W 250 feet east and 50 feet south of
South's Reference Point #15. The plowzone of most of the siege
trenches was removed by backhoe and the dirt piled in the probable
location of the original parapet. Cross sections of the trenches
not exposed at the intersection of the county access road were
excavated. The seventeen features examined included the first
parallel, second parallel, third parallel, the first approach,
the second approach, nine approach legs, the left final approach,
the right final approach, and the mine (Holschlag and Rodeffer
1976b:31-65). A detached sap, an access trench, a rifle battery,
and possible artillery batteries were also located in the excavation,
but were not identified as offensive features. Fifty-five artifacts
were recovered from the seventeen offensive siegeworks. Musket
balls and shot were the only artifacts recovered from the trench
fill of all the offensive features except the third parallel.
The third parallel contained glass, a bayonet, two barrel hoop
fragments, blue shell-edged pearlware sherds, a gray quartzite
flake, brick, a hand-forged nail fragment, and a possible piece
of brass web gear (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b:67).
The Star Fort and the Circular Redoubt (38-GN-3)
The goal of work in this area was to "clarify the relationship
of the north and south features to the Star Redoubt and the village,
and to determine the position of the abattis" (Holschlag and Rodeffer
1976b:84). During the project (April 15-June 15, 1975), thirteen
slot trenches were excavated. A feature revealed by five slot
trenches located between the Star Redoubt entrance and the county
access road was interpreted as the caponier connecting the town
with the Star Redoubt. This interpretation was made in spite of
the fact that the feature size was much less than the expected
size of a caponier. Six slot trenches to the north revealed a
feature with no artifacts, that "may have served as a lane for
early visitation of the Redoubt" (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b:86).
The search for the abattis (three slot trenches on the northwest
flank of the redoubt, 30-35 yards from the Star ditch) were unfruitful.
However, it was not a total loss, as further exploration of a
feature with a backhoe revealed what was interpreted as "a circular
fortification that preceded the Star Redoubt, referred to as the
Circular Redoubt. These excavations showed that the Star Redoubt
and siegeworks varied in magnitude from specifications in the
18th century military manuals, but the basic placement and configurations
conform to specifications. The Circular Redoubt measured approximately
97 feet in diameter and averaged 9.8 feet wide on the west and
8.7 feet wide on the east. A 20 feet wide opening oriented 45
degrees east of north was located on the southwest side. The Circular
Redoubt's antecedence to Star Fort was established by the latter's
intrusion onto this circular feature. Lack of documentation and
artifacts (only a single grapeshot was recovered) limits the interpretation
of the history and use of the circular fort (Holschlag and Rodeffer
1976b:90).
The Dozier Cemetery (38-GN-3-DZ)
A survey of a large patch of periwinkles (Vinca minor), almost
always present in family cemeteries in this section of South Carolina
(Watson and Watson 1972:2), revealed an earthwork 75 feet square
located 200 feet to the northwest of the Star Redoubt. Continued
excavation in 1975 revealed two burials inside the earthwork.
Documentary research showed this to be the family burial ground
of Abram Giles Dozier which dates no earlier than the beginning
of the nineteenth century (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b:104).
Thus, it is not historically associated with Ninety Six Village
or the 1781 assault.
Holschlag and Rodeffer Investigations
- 1975 to 1976
In 1975 and 1976, Rodeffer and Holschlag carried out a three
phase excavation in the southwest quadrant of the 1769-1781 Ninety
Six Village (38-GN-4). Only the village center was explored, as
the remainder of the town (consisting of farmsteads in a 10 to
15 mile radius from the village center) was unavailable for excavation
at the time of the project (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:1).
During phase one (October 28, 1974 to October 31, 1975), eleven
slot trenches were excavated in the presumed location of the jail.
South's RP #12 was established as 0N/0W and a permanent bench
mark was established approximately 100 feet north of this reference
point. A rectangular feature measuring 48.5 feet long (E-W) and
38.5 feet wide (N-S) was revealed. Removal of the plowzone and
the relatively sterile layer of fill overlying brick rubble proved
arduous and was suspended on January 31, 1975. The goal of phase
two (June 16 to September 5, 1975) was to excavate Feature 18
(brick rubble) "to determine whether this was the remains of the
Ninety Six jail constructed from 1769-1772" (Holschlag and Rodeffer
1977:45). A cellar, brick rubble, a charred floor, foundations
of two chimneys, and the presence of defenses indicated that this
could have been the jail. However, the absence of jail related
material (such as bars, grates, etc.) makes the researchers call
this interpretation into question. Marvin Cann joined Holschlag
and Rodeffer in this project to provide an historian's view when
considering specific research problems (Holschlag et al. 1978).
From June 22 to September 3, 1976, Holschlag and Rodeffer carried
out the third phase, which was to test the specific hypotheses
of space utilization at Ninety Six, e.g. separate test implications
for residential units, residence/business units, business units,
and public building units (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:28-38).
To accomplish this, a large part of the southwest corner of the
village was exposed, revealing eighty-five features. Feature functions
were interpreted according to material correlates expected of
an activity or construction. In this way, several function areas
were interpreted.
Ninety Six Village Defense Line (38-GN-5)
The interpreted elements of the defense line included the fortification
ditch, stockade, possible banquettes, a parapet, and personnel
trenches. In addition, four small rectangular features (not interpreted)
and a possible earlier fortification feature (possibly built around
1776 to protect Ninety Six from Indians) were identified (Holschlag
and Rodeffer 1977:81-87). Ninety Six Village Jail Fortifications
(38-GN-5)
The deductions made about the jail fortifications were not as
complete as those concerning the town fortifications. A ditch
surrounding the area and a possible palisade line with related
banquettes were inferred (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:89-90).
Ninety Six Village Residential Unit (38-GN-5)
Excavations revealed data from which only tenuous conclusions
could be made. These include: 1) lots "may have enclosed ¼
acre, 100 square feet" (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:92); 2) structures,
trash pits, a possible well, and privies were present; 3) these
structures are located in the area that was historically identified
as the courthouse location, but the material associated with the
structures seems to more closely resemble that of a house unit
than a courthouse. However, the researchers emphasize that not
enough exploration was carried out to reach definitive results
(Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:90-92).
Ninety Six Village Blacksmith Shop (38-GN-5)
This area was first defined by South (1972) and tested during
this project. In both projects, the presence of clinkers is the
only evidence of historic use of this area (Holschlag and Rodeffer
1977:99).
There were many other whole and partial features uncovered in
this area during the excavation, that could not be attributed
to a particular function. The only information that could be derived
from these features was size and configuration; time and context
could not be determined from the initial exposure that was carried
out. Thus these features were simply located and described (Holschlag
and Rodeffer 1977:100).
Ellen Ehrenhard's Investigations - 1977
Ellen Ehrenhard of the Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC),
National Park Service, conducted a brief survey in an attempt
to locate the area of Greene's 1781 patriot encampment during
July and August 1977. The camp was believed to be located to the
north of the Star Redoubt, directly behind the siegeworks. The
research design incorporated analysis of aerial photographs, pedestrian
reconnaissance, and auguring. Black and white aerial photographs
were analyzed for vegetal anomalies that could be the result of
cultural activity. All anomalies, surveyed by walking reconnaissance,
were found to be the result of erosion, sharecroppers homesites,
or past cultivation of the field. The cultural material that was
collected was assigned to "temporary NPS site numbers" that included:
NPS-96-1 (Spring Site)
NPS-96-2 (East knoll of Tolbert field)
NPS-96-3 (West knoll of Tolbert field)
NPS-96-4 (Ridge NW of Island Ford Road)
NPS-96-5 (Camp Creek Branch on M-45)
When the pedestrian and auger survey failed to yield any 18th
century military artifacts, a soil chemistry investigation was
executed in the hope that high phosphate levels would be indicative
of past site occupation. Ehrenhard (1978) explains that a base
grid was created by establishing a permanent datum at Tolbert
Field and staking out a modified grid system in 100 foot increments.
From there
A north-south baseline intersected the datum (designated 00)
on a NE- SW angle in order to take advantage of the cleared portion
of the field. The E-W axis was established at a 90? angle from
the N-S line...A second datum was located on the earthworks of
the north salient of the Star Redoubt. This was tied into the
00 marker established by Rodeffer in 1975 and over Datum (00)
in Tolbert Field... The angles formed by the parallels and approaches
were taken with a transit set up over DP1. These angles were then
averaged to obtain the median line which was 0? 20' east of north.
A meridian line was established at this angle from DP1 out to
2590' [actually 2490'], staked at 100' intervals... An intersecting
E-W line was established at 2000N. This line was at an angle of
116? 40' east of north. A modified grid system was laid out with
N-S and E-W intersecting lines established by triangulation. A
tie line was established from the meridian line at 2590N to the
grid in Tolbert Field. This line was designated M-45 (Ehrenhard
1978:17-18).
Phosphate samples were taken at 50 foot intervals (10 foot intervals
on the baseline) with a 1 inch bit auger to a depth of about 18
inches. A 4 inch bit was used at first, but it was thought that
a one inch bit would be less destructive to possible features
and may be better able to penetrate the soil. Samples were subjected
to three Hach Chemical Company tests: the wide range pH test,
soil extraction, and orthophosphate. Two test units (Pits B and
C) were later excavated to evaluate unusually high phosphate test
values recorded at two auger locations. A third unit (Pit A) was
randomly located within grid square 100SW, 100NW (Ehrenhard 1978:25)
and excavated prior to phosphate testing as a control. Test Pit
B was a 10 by 5 foot unit excavated in the area of two high (225
ppm P) phosphorous readings that occurred at 70NE 0 and 75NE 0.
A charcoal concentration was visible in all three (6 inch arbitrary)
levels. A 5 foot by 3 foot trench was staked to the north of Test
Pit B at 75NE 0, 75NE 3 SE, 80 NE 0, 3 SE. The charcoal concentration
was present in this trench until the bottom of Level 2. A Big
Sandy type projectile point (misidentified as a Decatur point
in Ehrenhard's report) was found at the interface of the charcoal
concentration and sterile soil. This was interpreted as an erosional
feature in which brush was piled and burned.
Test Pit C was excavated because the "Phosphorus value" was the
only "high value recorded for samples taken along the meridian
line system" (Ehrenhard 1978:25). This unit was a 6' by 6' square
that intersected an "erosional mound" (Ehrenhard 1978:31). A single
chert primary decortification flake (incorrectly reported as 11
limestone flakes [Ehrenhard 1978:40]) was found at the base of
Level 1, but no other culturally associated material was recovered.
Ehrenhard concluded that the high reading in this area was the
result of animal activity or that this was the remains of an old
field.
Summarizing the Results of Ehrenhard's 1977 Investigations
On the basis of the prehistoric and historic artifacts recovered
during the pedestrian and auger survey, Ehrenhard assigned five
"temporary" field numbers. NPS 96-1, Spring site, artifacts consisted
of two pieces of shoe leather, one blue transfer printed pearlware
sherd, one gaudy-Dutch pearlware sherd, five pieces of green transfer
printed stoneware from a chamber pot. NPS 96-2, Tolbert Field
East Knoll, artifacts consisted of a cast iron pot leg, an amber
glass bead, two brown saltglazed pottery sherds, one gray saltglazed
pottery sherd, one ironstone sherd, two pieces of quartzite debitage,
one chert flake, one limestone flake, one quartzite scraper, and
a possible sandstone abrader. The artifact assemblage from NPS
96-3, Tolbert Field West Knoll, consisted of a 25 cal. lead bullet,
a piece of quartz debitage, a quartzite Morrow Mountain II type
point and a quartzite Ledbetter Stemmed point (incorrectly classified
as Morrow Mt. I). NPS 96-4, Island Ford Road, artifacts consisted
of six rhyolite flakes, one quartzite flake, a rhyolite biface,
a rhyolite unifacial scraper, and a quartzite Guilford point.
The artifacts from NPS 96-5 consisted entirely of historic artifacts:
one piece of lavendar glass, one ceramic button, one alkaline
glazed sherd, and three ironstone sherds.
The artifacts recovered from the test units (A-C) were not assigned
temporary field numbers in Ehrenhard's (1978) subsequent report.
Lack of site assignment of Pit B artifacts may be presumed to
be because of the erosional nature of the deposits (Ehrenhard
1978:31). It appears likely that these were eroded and redeposited
downslope from NPS 96-2/3. The artifacts recovered from Pit B
consisted of one ceramic insulator, seven clear glass fragments,
one ironstone sherd, and one Big Sandy point (incorrectly identified
as a Decatur point). A similar questionable origin (Ehrenhard
1978:34) for Pit C's single cortical chert flake may also have
been the reason for Ehrenhard's not assigning the artifact to
a particular site. Pit A produced no artifacts.
As a result of these investigations and the lack of 18th century
military artifact, Ehrenhard concluded Based on these data our
results are inconclusive. There are however, close correlations
between the camp location as defined by the aerial photography,
the hypothetical model of the camp and the higher phosphate values
(Ehrenhard (1978:34). The tenuous results ultimately led to the
camp location hypothesis as being regarded by Ehrenhard (1978)
as only a possibility, however. Until additional work is conducted,
the location of Greene's 1781 encampment(s) remains unknown.
Wills' Remote Sensing Assessment - 1978
Early the following year, W.H. Wills (1978) completed a remote
sensing assessment that formulated research questions providing
a new perspective on the possible location of Greene's encampment.
He drew upon historic sources to generate a model of the hypothetical
location of camp elements for Greene's encampment (May 22 to June
18, 1781) with which to guide a remote sensing study. He then
identified "target locations" that would have a greater probability
of containing a military encampment. These target areas included:
1) a relatively flat, open, and large area that is easily defensible;
2) out of artillery range yet close enough to allow easy movement
of troops and supplies; 3) close to a roadway that would increase
efficiency of the flow of information and supplies; and 4) close
to necessary resources (i.e. water and wood). Black and white
aerial photographs were taken in January 1978, as were false-color
infrared film. Eighteen features were identified but only five
of these were identified by Wills as needing further attention.
Weymouth's Investigations - 1978
John W. Weymouth (Nebraska Center for Archaeophysical Research,
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln)
conducted a study of a four hectare magnetometer survey conducted
by the Midwest Archeological Center from March 23 to May 12, 1978.
Although the results of Weymouth's study were not published until
three years later (Weymouth 1981), the findings were promptly
made known to Ellen Ehrenhard and were included in her Cultural
Resource Inventory (Ehrenhard 1979b).
Weymouth's magnetometer survey area included Gouedy's Trading
Post and Fort Ninety Six (38-GN-1), Ninety Six Village (38-GN-4)
in four sections, Cambridge Village Complex, including Holmes
Redoubt (38-GN-2), and an aboriginal site (38-GN-26) (Weymouth
1981). The survey of these seven different regions resulted in
a large number of magnetic anomalies, some of which correlated
with known locations of subsurface features previously tested
by South and Rodeffer (Ehrenhard 1979b:46-48). Anomalies in other
areas of the park were not investigated through subsurface testing.
Ellen Ehrenhard's Investigations - 1978
Ellen Ehrenhard returned to the park in August of 1978, to conduct
additional investigations as part of the park planning and development
process. During this second visit (August 16 to September 14),
areas being considered for planning and development or future
site management needs were surveyed by systematic subsurface inspection.
A baseline and transects were established, with five liter soil
samples taken at 100 foot intervals along the transects. No artifacts
were collected during this process, but these samples were examined
for the "presence or absence of artifacts, soil, color, composition,
and any unusual properties which would indicate cultural activity
[and results of this examination] were recorded" (Ehrenhard 1979b:51).
Approximately 1000 samples were taken in this manner. The remainder
of the property was not subsurface tested, but examined by pedestrian
survey. As Ehrenhard (1979b:51) explained, "Soil samples were
not taken systematically in these areas, however, an attempt was
still made to examine the subsurface at regular intervals."
Three sites located during her 1977 Greene's Camp survey were
revisited by Ehrenhard in 1978. These were referred to by the
"temporary" field designations NPS-96-1, 96-4, and 96-5, and were
briefly described in Ehrenhard's (1979b) cultural resource inventory
as follows:
NPS-96-1
Late historic artifacts were scattered about on the surface of
an extinct spring just south of Camp Creek. Upon revisiting the
site during the present survey it became obvious that this locale
was merely a surface artifact scatter or dumping location associated
with NPS-96-5, a house site, also located during the 1977 survey
(Ehrenhard 1979b:52)
NPS-96-4
This site is a prehistoric site generally located along the north
side of the Island Ford Road just as the roadbed turns in an easterly
direction....the majority of artifacts being located in ruts of
a logging cut and roadbed. One point was located in a test excavation
unit and a large blade was uncovered by the auger on a transect.
Artifacts collected include argillite primary and secondary flakes,
argillite uniface scraper, argillite bifacial knife, and a quartzite
Guilford projectile point (Ehrenhard 1979b:52).
This site was located during the 1977 field season and revisited
during the 1978 season ... A total of 15 lithic artifacts have
been observed here for both seasons, including projectile points
of Archaic (MMI, II, Guilford) and possibly Woodland periods (Jacks
Reef) (See Table 5). The site is fairly eroded from past timbering
and agricultural practices (Ehrenhard 1979b:68).
NPS-96-5
This historic house site was still standing in 1949 although
there are presently no standing structural remains. The Ninety
Six U.S.G.S. quadrangle map indicates a structure in approximately
the same location as the surface debris noted during the 1977
survey. This site is on property purchased by the National Park
Service from Mr. Joseph L. Tolbert and is assumed to be the home
of a tenant farmer who share-cropped the Tolbert property until
recent years (Ehrenhard 1979b:52).
The possible Jacks Reef (Corner Notched) projectile point collected
from NPS 96-4 in 1978 mentioned in Ehrenhard's 1979 account cited
above has been reanalyzed for the purpose of preparing for the
forthcoming fieldwork, and its identification has been changed
to that of a Big Sandy as a result. The erroneous identification
of another Big Sandy point collected from NPS 96-4 in 1977 has
already been noted in the earlier section dealing with Ehrenhard's
1977 investigations.
Two prehistoric sites, the Williams (38GN21) site and 38GN59,
located during Rodeffer's unpublished 1977 Greenwood County Survey
were also included in Ehrenhard's park site inventory with the
following descriptions: 38GN-21
This site was first recorded by Michael Rodeffer on a survey
for Greenwood County. Portions of this site were resurveyed during
the 1977 field season. It is also a lithic site containing two
artifacts, one of which is a projectile point. The Decatur projectile
point affiliates the cultural activity with the Archaic period
(Ehrenhard 1979b:69).
38-GN-59
This site was first recorded by Rodeffer on the Greenwood County
Archeological survey. It was resurveyed during the 1978 field
season and is considered a lithic site. It is a promontory site
located near the confluence of Spring Branch and Ninety Six Creek.
Rodeffer reported finding 10 cryptocrystalline flakes. Our [1978]
survey observed one quartz bifacial knife of the Guilford type
and has been tentatively affiliated with the Archaic period. The
site is on Chewacla Loam at an elevation of 420 ft. It is located
on the south side of a bench overlooking the floodplain (Ehrenhard
1979b:69).
Ehrenhard's (1979b:69) stated collection of a "Decatur" point
from 38-GN- 21 in 1977 is somewhat problematic to evaluate. The
only record of a Decatur point (actually an Early Archaic Big
Sandy point) from Ehrenhard's earlier 1977 investigations was
the one collected from Test Pit B. Pit B was located approximately
600m north of 38-GN-21, and there is no apparent reason to connect
the two.
In addition to the five revisited prehistoric sites in the park,
Ehrenhard reported the discovery of five new sites as a result
of the 1978 survey. Three are prehistoric sites; two are historic.
They were described by Ehrenhard as follows:
NPS-96-6
This small site was previously unidentified. It is located within
the planted pine forest 975 ft south of, and 50 ft east of RP3.
No artifacts or features were initially observed on the surface.
The specified soil sample revealed Caroline slate flakes-subsequent
to the discovery of the first flake four additional five-liter
samples were taken along a 10 ft radius from the initial sample.
A total of five Carolina Slate and quartzite flakes were recovered.
No artifacts were observed which could proved a date for the site.
The site boundaries and depth are not known (Ehrenhard 1979b:53).
NPS-96-8
A small late historic to modern homesite was located 654 ft west
of BM 484 431 and 500 ft north of RP21 in the open field east
of the larger lake (Ehrenhard 1979b:53).
NPS-96-9
This prehistoric site is situated on a bluff above Ninety Six
Creek, 250 ft southwest of 38-GN-27 the unidentified cemetery.
Large quantities of quartzite are visible in the bridle trail
which bisects the two [sic] sites. The surface was slightly disturbed
by several shallow potholes of varying dimensions. Numerous lithic
artifacts were noted in this disturbance. Ceramic sherds were
present but in fewer number, at least as far as we were able to
observe. The site appears relatively small, approximately 200
ft east-west by 40 ft north-south. It is anticipated that the
dimensions will change with additional investigation (Ehrenhard
1979b:53).
A total of 17 artifacts were collected from this site. This site
has been slightly disturbed and all artifacts observed were seen
in the disturbed areas. This site falls into the category of a
less intensive habitation site as based on characteristics given
by House and Ballenger (p: 83)....The single projectile point
recovered from this site corresponds to Type 1 (Morrow Mt. I)
and is culturally affiliated with the Middle Archaic. The evidence
of pottery indicates occupation during the Woodland period also
(Ehrenhard 1979b:69-70).
NPS-96-10
This site located on the eastern bank of the 27-acre lake is
entirely prehistoric although it was indicated as being a possible
foundation on the photogrammetric map. No indications of such
a subsurface feature were encountered however, numerous lithic
artifacts were observed. The majority of these were located in
the ruts of a dirt trail. Soil samples were taken along the prescribed
transects but no subsurface remains were encountered. Undoubtedly
years of cultivation and erosion have destroyed most of the site
(Ehrenhard 1979b:54).
NPS-96-11
This site is documented on the 1949 U.S.G.S. quadrangle of Ninety
Six. It is located on the south side of the cinder road and east
of South Carolina 248. Numerous artifacts were noted on the surface
and several were observed in soil samples taken along transects.
The tentative date assigned is late 19th-20th century (Ehrenhard
1979b:54). Of all the prehistoric sites known to occur in the
park, Ehrenhard only considered NPS-96-9 eligible for nomination
to the National Register on the basis of its relatively undisturbed
contexts and the presence of temporally diagnostic lithic and
ceramic artifacts. The diagnostic lithic artifacts reported from
NPS 96-9 by Williams (1979:60) have been reanalyzed for this overview
with the result being that the original Morrow Mountain I designation
has been retained. This indicates a Middle Archaic presence at
the site. The plain sand tempered sherds were too small to accurately
type, and have retained their unspecified Woodland association
as well.
Likewise, the temporally diagnostic artifacts reported from NPS
96-10 by Williams (1979:60) have been reanalyzed recently with
the result being that the thermally altered chert projectile point
originally reported as a Copena Triangular has been reclassified
as a Late Woodland/Mississippian Triangular Cluster point (Justice
1987), and the Ottarre Stemmed point has been recategorized as
"untyped" due to critically missing portions on the notched base.
Although assignment to type for this second point is not possible
because of the broken nature of the artifact, it is clear that
it is a side or corner notched point, probably akin to Large Side
Notched or Kirk Corner Notched Cluster types (Justice 1987). In
any event, the point is not an Ottarre Stemmed.
Summarizing the Results of Ehrenhard's 1978 Investigations
Ehrenhard conducted additional work in 1978, and subsequently
compiled a cultural resource inventory for the park (Ehrenhard
1979b) based on the prior research of South, Holschlag and Rodeffer,
and herself. Ehrenhard listed the known archeological "sites"
as:
38GN-1 Gouedy's Trading Post Complex and Fort Ninety Six
38GN-2 Holmes and Williamson's Forts and the town of Cambridge
38GN-3 Star Redoubt
38GN-3-SW Siegeworks associated with Star Redoubt
38GN-3-DC Dozier Cemetery
38GN-4 Ninety Six Village
38GN-4J Ninety Six Jail
38GN-21 Prehistoric Site (Archaic)
38GN-26 Prehistoric/post-contact 38GN-27 Historic Cemetery
38GN-28 Prehistoric
38GN-54 Tolbert Brick Kiln
38GN-57 Historic house site
38GN-58 Historic house site
38GN-59 Prehistoric lithic scatter
Ehrenhard reported that four of the historic sites (38-GN-27,
38-GN-54, 38- GN-57, and 38-GN-58) and none of the prehistoric
sites had been archeologically tested (Ehrenhard 1979b:27-29).
Two sites, NPS-96-2 and NPS-96-3, that were located in the 1977
Greene's camp survey were not mentioned in this subsequent Cultural
Sites Inventory. There is no explanation for this omission, but
it appears likely that they were omitted because they did not
fall within the then proposed park boundaries. Photo interpretation
paired with ground truthing and proton magnetometry were utilized
at known sites in the park to determine its worth as a site location
method. As a result, Ehrenhard concluded that, while photo interpretation
and photogrammetric mapping can provide valuable data and greatly
increase research and cost/time efficiency, more refinement in
methodology is needed in order to accurately locate sites in densely
vegetated regions (Ehrenhard 1979b:55).
Ellen Ehrenhard's Investigations - 1979
Ehrenhard returned to Ninety Six in August, 1979 to conduct investigations
for a proposed waterline in Cambridge (38-GN-2). The research
design for the project stipulated that construction should take
place in the right of way of an historic road, if possible.
A 1783 Plat of Cambridge was used to try to locate visual landmarks
that may still exist. The only one identified was the intersection
of Hamilton's Great Survey Line and Spring Branch. The location
of the town was then hypothesized using appropriate angles and
distances from this landmark. A trench was then excavated at a
right angle to the proposed location of Pinkney Street. A second
trench (128.2 feet long and five feet wide) was excavated on an
east-west line, intersecting the first (N-S) trench. These trenches
proved that the projected location of the Cambridge lots in relationship
to the intersecting east-west streets was inaccurate. Ehrenhard
found that a 4 1/2 degree clockwise rotation in the plat map resulted
in a plan more in accordance with the features that were found.
Magnetometer results from a previous survey also suggested that
the plat should be shifted one lot distance to the east. A distinct
roadway was never located, but a corridor was cleared for the
waterline. Five hundred artifacts were recovered and two of the
six features that were located were identified as "structural
components" (Ehrenhard 1979a:24).
James Scurry's Investigations -1982
On June 24 and June 25, 1982, James D. Scurry (South Carolina
Institute of Anthropology and Archeology) completed investigations
for proposed restroom and septic facilities for SEAC. This testing
was completed in three phases: 1) excavation of eight, three foot
square test units along the water and drain lines, 2) total excavation
of the septic tank area and the testing of the restroom facilities
site, including a 3 by 7 foot test unit and a five foot square
test unit, and, 3) on-site monitoring of the construction excavation
of the water and drain lines. Three of the ten test units contained
historic material (with date ranges of 1780 to present) in the
plowzone. One subsurface feature, a probable posthole measuring
8 inches in diameter and eleven inches deep, was exposed in a
grader cut near test unit 3. Because of the consistency of its
form, Scurry suggested that it was of modern origin. However there
was nothing significant enough to affect the progress of the facility
construction (Scurry 1983).
Paglione and Ehrenhard Investigations
- 1983
The decision to construct a visitor center at Ninety Six that
contained restroom facilities prompted the need for investigations
of the proposed site. Teresa L. Paglione and Ellen Ehrenhard (SEAC)
traveled to the park on January 12 and 13, 1983 to complete these
investigations. The visitor center plans called for the building
to be placed on piers. Shovel tests conducted in the pier locations
revealed 12 historic artifacts and nine quartzite fragments and
flakes (of which only one had been utilized/worked). In addition,
a tractor blade was "utilized to remove the duff and humus from
between the staked areas to check the subsurface area for any
features the shovel test may have failed to reveal (Paglione 1983:3).
It was determined that construction in this location would have
no adverse affect on significant archeological remains (Paglione
1983).
Rodeffer Investigations - 1985
In March, 1985, the Southeast Archeological Center contracted
with Backcountry Archeological Services to archeologically test
six anomalies found during the magnetic and aerial photo reconnaissance
conducted previously by Weymouth (1981). Shovel tests, test pits,
and block excavations were used. Michael J. Rodeffer supervised
the: excavation of 19 blocks overlying magnetic anomalies and
totaling ca. 500 square meters. Shovel testing of seven areas
within three anomalous, airphoto locales resulted in identification
of four areas likely associated with residential or agricultural
complexes; the remaining three areas probably derive from geomorphic
processes. An ethnohistoric occupation of 38GN26 is postulated,
but only weakly supported by sparse evidence. The location of
the colonial courthouse is discussed, but it remains an enigma
despite rejection of South's (1970) postulated site. Fortification
elements composing the northeast corner of the 1780-1781 village
redoubt are identified and described with reference to contemporary
military practices. Tested loci associated with the 18th century
Gouedy plantation are reviewed; none date to the appropriate period
although four areas evidence mid-19th or early 20th century occupation
complexes (Rodeffer 1985:iii).
Nine areas (localities), located through the use of aerial photographs,
were shovel tested. These occurred in the northeast corner of
the colonial village of Ninety Six (with emphasis on the defensive
works, 38-GN-4-NE), the Ninety Six courthouse site (in 38-GN-4-SW),
a portion of the Gouedy plantation, and the Old Field Site (38-GN-26).
Two magnetic anomalies and three localities contained material
with the potential for providing information on antebellum and
post-bellum use of the Gouedy complex lands. Excavations also
confirmed that the defensive line is well preserved in the northeast
corner of the colonial village and represents the full cross section
of the fortification system. Rodeffer (1985) provides a full report,
including maps of testing locations and a proposed lot plan for
colonial Ninety Six. In addition, Rodeffer points out that the
inability of the magnetometer survey alone to locate as of yet
undefined resources shows that this method is not an acceptable
substitute for traditional archeological methods.
Ken Wild's Investigations - 1991
In November 12-15, 1991, SEAC Archeologist, Ken Wild, conducted
archeological investigations for the installation of a gas line
measuring 130 meters. A quartz biface (identified by Wild as Archaic-Woodland)
and a Woodland period sand-tempered sherd were recovered form
the plow zone. Six features were located, but only two were excavated.
A minor change in the gas line route left the others unimpacted.
Because of the ceramics associated with one of these features,
Wild interpreted these as being associated with a house in Cambridge
(SEAC Accession No. 974)(Wild 1991).
Jones and Leabo Investigations - 1995
On April 11, 1995, Jeffrey Jones and Regina Leabo (SEAC) tested
an area where additional vehicle parking and a gate would be constructed.
Six shovel tests and two 50 by 50 centimeter units were excavated.
Historic and prehistoric materials were recovered, but there was
no significant find (SEAC Acc. No. 1176)(Jones 1995)
John Cornelison's Investigations - 1995
John Cornelison tested at Ninety Six on September 7, 1995, prior
to the construction of a septic tank and drain system. Six shovel
tests were dug to the south of the Maintenance Building on the
east side of the fenced lot. Only Shovel Test 1 was positive,
and it only contained modern material (a beer can and a piece
of modern colorless glass). In addition, Global Positioning System
(GPS) data was collected on the Star Fort, the Jail, the Ninety-Six
Village area, and the Gouedy Trading Post area.
Guy Prentice's Investigations - 1996
During 1996 SEAC conducted archeological field investigations
at the Ninety Six as part of the NPS Regionwide Archeological
Survey Program (RASP) (Keel et al. 1996). The major focus of the
field work, directed by Guy Prentice, was: 1) to conduct systematic
metal detector survey in the northern portion of the park in an
attempt to relocate the camps where Nathaniel Greene's men stayed
during their 1781 seige of Ninety Six; and 2) conduct systematic
power auger and/ or systematic shovel test surveys in various
areas of the park where previous work has identified the presence
of cultural resources, but their extent and integrity are unknown.
These included: the pre-Revolutionary War Gouedy Trading Post
(38-GN-1) area, and seven prehistoric sites. It was hoped that
these investigations should provide the means of: 1) determining
site limits for both historic and prehistoric components at the
sites; 2) evaluating the integrity of the archeological resources
encountered during the field work, including assessing their eligibility
for the National Register of Historic Places; and 3) recommending
appropriate strategies for conserving, managing, and interpreting
those resources. In addition, the park staff requested that the
corners of Ninety Six Village be relocated and marked for future
interpretive purposes and that the historic cemetery (38-GN-27)
located south of Gouedy's Trading Post be investigated to determine
site boundaries, and, if possible, the age of the cemetery. A
report of findings is expected to be completed in 1998.
REFERENCES CITED
Baker, Steven G.
1972 A House on Cambridge Hill (38-GN-2); An Excavation Report.
Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript
Series #27, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Cann, Marvin L.
1974 Ninety Six--A History of the Backcountry 1700-1781. Manuscript
on file, Department of History, Lander College, Greenwood, South
Carolina.
Cornelison, John E., Jr.
1995 Research Design for an Archeological Survey of Selected Areas
and Limited Site Testing at Stones River National Battlefield,
Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Research design on file, SEAC Acc.# 1167,
National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
Ehrenhard, Ellen B.
1978 The Utilization of Inorganic Phosphate Analysis for the location
of General Nathanael Greene's Revolutionary War Camp. Manuscript
on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center,
Tallahassee.
1979a Cambridge 38-GN-2; Ninety Six National Historic Site, South
Carolina, Waterline Investigation. Manuscript on file, National
Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1979b Cultural Resource Inventory Ninety Six National Historic
Site. Manuscript on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological
Center, Tallahassee.
Holschlag, Stephanie L. and Michael J. Rodeffer
1976a Ninety Six: The Stockade Fort on the Right. National Park
Service, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, Washington,
D. C.
1976b Ninety Six: Siegeworks Opposite Star Redoubt. National
Park Service, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation,
Washington, D. C.
1977 Ninety Six: Exploratory Excavations in the Village. National
Park Service, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation,
Washington, D. C.
Holschlag, Stephanie L., Michael J. Rodeffer, and Marvin L. Cann
1978 Ninety Six: The Jail. Star Fort Historical Commission, Ninety
Six National Historic Site, Ninety Six, South Carolina. House,
John H., and David L. Ballenger
1976 An Archeological Survey of the Interstate 77 Route in the
South Carolina Piedmont. Institute of Archeology and Anthropology,
Research Manuscript Series 104, University of South Carolina,
Columbia.
Jones, Jeffrey L.
1995 Trip Report on the Archeological Investigations at Ninety
Six National Historic Site (SEAC Acc. No. 1176) for the Expansion
of the Parking Lot 4/11/95. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological
Center, Tallahassee.
Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and
Eastern United States: A Modern Survey and Reference. Indiana
University Press, Bloomington.
Keel, Bennie C., John E. Cornelison, Jr., and David M.Brewer
1996 Regional Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area,
National Park Service. National Park Service, SoutheastArcheological
Center, Tallahassee. With contributions by Mark Barnes, Allen
Bohnert, Dennis Finch, Guy Prentice, George Smith, and Robert
Wilson.
National Park Service
1975 Old Ninety Six and Star Fort South Carolina, Alternatives
for Management and Use. Area Study of Ninety Six and Star Fort
South Carolina. Manuscript on file, National Park Service, Southeast
Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1979 Assessment of Alternatives, General Management Plan, Ninety
Six National Historic Site, South Carolina. Manuscript on file,
National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1980 General Management Plan, Ninety Six National Historic Site,
South Carolina. Manuscript on file, National Park Service, Southeast
Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1990 Catalog Manual for Archeological Objects. National Park
Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1993 Resource Management Plan, Ninety Six National Historic Site.
National Park Service, Ninety Six National Historic Site, Ninety
Six.
1994 NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline, Release
No. 4. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C.
Paglione, Teresa L.
1983 Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Visitor Center
and Facilities at Ninety Six National Historic Site, South Carolina.
Manuscript on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological
Center, Tallahassee.
Prentice, Guy
1996 Standard Field Procedures Manual for the Southeast Archeological
Center's Regionwide Archeological Survey Program. National Park
Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
Rodeffer, Michael J.
1985 Ninety Six National Historic Site: Archaeological Testing
of Selected Magnetic and Airphoto Anomalies. Manuscript on file,
National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
Rodeffer, Michael J., Stephanie Holschlag, and Mary Catherine
Davis Cann 1979 Greenwood County: An Archaeological Reconnaissance.
Lander College, Greenwood, South Carolina.
Rodeffer, Stephanie H., and Michael J. Rodeffer 1974a Cultural
Resources of the Ninety Six District. Manuscript on file, National
Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
1974b Holmes Redoubt Stabilization and Interpretation. Manuscript
on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center,
Tallahassee.
Scurry, James D.
1983 Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Restroom and
Septic Facilities at the Ninety-Six National Historic Site Near
Ninety- Six, South Carolina. Manuscript on file, Institute of
Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
South, Stanley
1970 Exploratory Archeology at Ninety Six (38-GN-1, 38-GN-5).
Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript
Series 6, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
1971 Historical Perspective at Ninety Six With a Summary of Exploratory
Excavation at Holmes Fort and the Town Blockhouse. Institute of
Archeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 9, University
of South Carolina, Columbia.
1972 Archeological Excavation at the Site of Williamson's Fort
of 1775, Holmes Fort of 1780, and the Town of Cambridge 1783-
1850's. Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript
Series 18, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Watson, Margaret J., and Louise M. Watson
1972 Tombstone Inscriptions from Family Graveyards in Greenwood
County, S.C. Drinkard Printing Company, Greenwood.
Weymouth, John W.
1981 Analysis of Magnetic Surveying Data from Archeological Sites
at Ninety Six National Historic Site, South Carolina. Manuscript
on file, National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center,
Lincoln.
Wild, Kenneth S.
1991 Trip Report on Investigations at Ninety Six for the Installation
of a Gas Line 11/12-12/15. Manuscript on file, SEAC Accession
#974, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
Williams, Maurice A.
1979 Prehistoric Sites at Ninety Six: A Preliminary Analysis.
In Cultural Resource Inventory, Ninety Six National Historic Site
by Ellen B. Ehrenhard. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological
Center, Tallahassee.
Wills, W. H.
1978 The Location of Greene's Encampment: A Remote Sensing Assessment
of Ninety Six National Historic Site. Manuscript on file, National
Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.
Return to Ninety Six Archeology and History
|