"Rediscovering the Backcountry Battle of Kettle Creek in Wilkes County, Georgia" Daniel Edward Battle Cypress Cultural Consultants

1. The Battle of Kettle Creek

2. 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.

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

4. 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

5. Kettle Creek
The battle was
mostly a personal
fight among the
Whigs and Loyalist
backwoodsmen in
the region
nicknamed the
“Hornet Nest”

6. 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 1775
Ninety-Six, SC 1775
Moore’s Creek Bridge, N.C.1776
Kettle Creek, Georgia 1779
Kings Mountain, NC. 1780

7. Kettle Creek
British Strategy:
● Uniting and recruitment of settlers in the frontier back-country
● Relatively large numbers
of Scottish settlers had been
pouring 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.

8. 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 kept
volunteers from this
region to a minimum is
often an overlooked
fact by many historians

9. Kettle Creek
Sunday morning, Feb 14, 1779
Patriots Loyalists
Col. Andrew Pickens Col. John or James Boyd
● Commanded less than 400 men ● Commanded about 900 men
● 32 men killed in action ● 75 men taken prisoner
● 70 men killed in action

10. Kettle Creek

11. Kettle Creek
U.S.G.S.
1906 Map
showing
Battle Site

12. Kettle Creek
Force Locations

13. 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.)

14. Kettle Creek
Benefits of metal detector survey
● sparse artifact scatters
● Limited time for a large area

15. Kettle Creek
Artifact Located During
Metal Detection Survey

16. Kettle Creek
Metal detector Results:
● 14 metal concentrations
including farmsteads

17. 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

18. Kettle Creek

19. Kettle Creek
Conclusions:
● site boundary
recommendations were given
for preservation plans
● further site study potential
still present

20. Various Artifacts Found on Battlefield

21. Generally Metal Detectors can be used
in the following ways:
1.Quick non-evasive evaluation or mapping of a site 2.Supplement to shovel testing or as a stand alone
during the planning stages similar to the use of GPR: testing method of gaining valuable information at
historic sites
a) location and general dating of historical activity
areas in the field a) mimic the transects of any shovel testing to
assure activity areas are not missed
b) location of modern intrusions on a site to help b) evaluation of non-traditional archeological sites
effectively focus testing such as battlefields
c) conducting intense piece plotting of historic
c) evaluation of the integrity of sites for formulating artifact scatters.
additional testing strategies
d) reconnaissance of large tracts.
d) understanding of the placement and concentration of 3. Used non-evasively during excavation to give a
metal artifacts vertically and horizontally
heads up on the placement of fragile historical
artifacts or deeper buried features*
e) understanding of the preservation state of a
historical site damaged by non-professional metal
detector enthusiasts.

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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)

25. 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.