Ninety Six National Historic Site	See also In the Footsteps of 'Light-horse' Harry Southeast Chronicles Home
CULTURAL OVERVIEW	by Guy Prentice (2003)

NATIVE AMERICAN ARCHEOLOGY AND CULTURE HISTORY

 Unfortunately, at the time of this writing there is little in the way of readily available published material that summarizes the current state of archeological knowledge on Native American sites found in the Greenwood County area. Other than some archeological surveys prompted by federal compliance regulations conducted on the Long Cane Division of the Sumter National Forest along Greenwood County’s western border (e.g., Price 1992a, 1992b; Chapman 2000), limited opportunistic reconnaissance surveys characterize the primary extent of Native American archeological investigations conducted within Greenwood County to date. In both cases, the recovery of temporally and culturally diagnostic artifacts have been relatively few, and this has impaired archeologists’ ability to reconstruct the precolumbian cultural history of the area. As a result, cultural chronologies that have been developed on the basis of more extensive archeological work conducted in adjacent areas have been utilized in the following chapter to provide a logical framework for those past Native American cultures that can be expected to occur within the Ninety Six National Historic Site vicinity. The chronological framework employed here has been largely adopted from information obtained from archeological sites occupying the Savannah River drainage to the west and the Saluda/Broad/Congaree River drainage to the north and east. Only future excavations in and around Ninety Six will be able to determine the local suitability of the chronological scheme presented here.

Paleoindian (ca. 9500-8000 b.c. )

The first well-dated evidence of human occupation in the southeastern United States occurs around 9500 b.c. (Anderson 1990a) with the appearance of the earliest documented Americans, who are now referred to as Paleoindians. Paleoindians were the makers of fluted lanceolate projectile points such as Clovis (Early Paleoindian, ca. 9500-9000 b.c.) and later unfluted points such as Beaver Lake, Quad (Middle Paleoindian, ca. 9000-8500 b.c.) and Dalton (Late Paleoindian, ca 8500-8000 b.c.). Although the general consensus is that large lanceolate points (i.e., Clovis) preceded the more waisted or eared forms (i.e., Beaver Lake, Quad) in the region, the temporal range, ordering, and extent of co-occurrence of these forms remains to be worked out (Anderson 1990a:164-166). Dalton points have been dated to roughly 8500-7900 B.C. (Goodyear 1982; Justice 1987:40), transcending the 8000 b.c. date commonly used as the chronological boundary separating the Paleoindian from the succeeding Archaic period. Given the vagaries of radiometric dating methods and for the sake of convenience, Dalton points are assumed, for the purposes of this summary, to date to the Late Paleoindian period (8500-8000 b.c.).

Low human population densities and vast lands and resources allowed Paleoindian peoples to be selective in the areas they frequented and the faunal resources they exploited. It is commonly assumed that Paleoindians were specialized, highly mobile foragers that hunted late Pleistocene fauna such as bison, mastodons, caribou, and mammoths (e.g., Chapman 1985), although direct evidence along these lines is meager in the Southeast (cf. Meltzer and Smith 1986; Anderson 1990a). Most likely, Paleoindians in the Southeast were fairly generalized hunter-gatherers who pursued a wide range of animals including the megafauna that soon became extinct following the end of the Pleistocene age (Goodyear et al. 1989). Pleistocene megafauna were primarily migratory animals that could be hunted as they seasonally traveled across the landscape. Ambushing of animals at salt licks, watering holes and river crossings appears to have been practiced (Tankersley 1990:97). By Late Paleoindian times, the megafauna had disappeared, and white-tailed deer had become the prey of choice for these hunter-gatherers.

Current interpretations of the archeological record portray Paleoindian peoples as nomadic, egalitarian bands composed of several nuclear or extended families. Loose social affiliations were probably maintained with other bands (forming larger macrobands) as a means of obtaining mates and exchanging information. Artifacts and sites dating to this period are relatively rare compared to later periods, apparently because of the generally low population densities, and post-depositional processes that have buried or eroded away sites, but also because lithic tool use focused on the utilization of curated, formal tools (Anderson 1990a:180).

At the close of the Pleistocene, the climate became warmer, the glaciers retreated in eastern North America, and sea levels rose.  With the warming climate, deciduous forests spread northward at the expense of the more cold tolerant jack pine and spruce forests (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981; Watts 1983; Whitehead 1973). As the forest compositions changed, fewer and fewer open patches and coniferous forests were available to support the Pleistocene megafauna while the denizens of oak-hickory forests such as deer expanded in numbers across the region. By the beginning of the following Early Holocene period (ca. 8000 b.c.) most of the megafauna and Paleoindian cultures had vanished and Archaic stage peoples had taken their place.

Anderson and his colleagues (Anderson 1990a; Anderson and Joseph 1988; Anderson and Sassaman 1996) note that there are, relatively speaking, concentrations of Paleoindian diagnostics (i.e., Clovis, Clovis-like, and Dalton points) in western South Carolina, but Paleoindian sites in Greenville County are rare. Most Paleoindian sites in South Carolina are located within or directly adjacent to major river valleys during the Early and Middle Paleoindian periods with slightly greater numbers of Late Paleoindian (i.e., Dalton) sites occurring in the inter-riverine zones, suggesting a shift in settlement and resource exploitation as a result of changing environments associated with the onset of the Holocene and the replacement of patchy boreal forests and grasslands with a closed canopy oak-hickory forest.

Archaic (ca. 8000 -1000 b.c.)

The Archaic stage in the Southeast is typically interpreted as a period during which: 1) the environment changed from a mixed forest to a closed canopy hardwood forest habitat, and 2) the population of hunter/gatherer bands grew, and 3) the hunting territories of the bands shrank in size (Watson and Carstens 1982; Caldwell 1958; Fowler 1959; Griffin 1967; Jefferies 1990).  These changes formed the basis for regional specialization in subsistence, resource utilization, and artifact manufacture.

The Archaic stage has generally been dated from ca. 8000 to 1000 B.C. Within the Archaic stage, three substages are generally recognized: Early Archaic (ca. 8000-6000 B.C.), Middle Archaic (ca. 6000-3000 B.C.), and Late Archaic (ca. 3000-1000 B.C.) which are usually identified on the basis of projectile point styles. The changes in different projectile point styles during the Archaic stage are usually interpreted as reflecting increasing numbers of socially distinct groups and changing subsistence modes. Archaic lifeways have generally been thought of as consisting of semi-nomadic bands that occupied separate territories in which they moved seasonally to take advantage of different natural resources as they ripened or became more easily exploitable within a generally woodland environment.

The Early Archaic (ca. 8000-6000 b.c.) in western South Carolina is characterized by changes in lithic technology where fluted lanceolate forms gave way to side and corner notched forms, including Big Sandy/Taylor (ca. 8000-7000 B.C.) and Palmer/Kirk Corner Notched (ca. 7500-7000 B.C.) types (Michie 1996; Sassaman 1996). In addition, the subsistence base was adjusted with a greater focus on plant foods and small game (with white-tail deer being a favorite prey). The Archaic toolkit was modified accordingly to include tools for plant food preparation and processing (House and Ballenger 1976). Research has shown that Early Archaic sites in the region occur in a wide range of microenvironmental zones, and nonlocal lithic raw materials are common in assemblages (Anderson et al. 1979; Goodyear et al. 1979; Hanson et al. 1978; O’Steen 1983; Anderson and Hanson 1988).

Sometime around 7000 b.c., a number of new projectile point styles exhibiting bifurcate stems appeared in the region. These include MacCorkle (ca. 7000-5800 B.C.), St. Albans (ca. 6900-6500 B.C.), Kanawa and LeCroy stemmed types (ca. 6500-5800 B.C.) (Chapman 1985; Justice 1987; Anderson and Joseph 1988:110). Near the traditional 6000 b.c. boundary line drawn between the Early Archaic and Middle Archaic periods, another new suite of projectile point styles arose. These new point styles are characterized by square to slightly contracting stems and include Kirk Stemmed/Serrated (ca. 6300-6000 b.c.), Stanly (ca. 5800-5500 b.c.), and Sykes/White Springs/Benton-like projectile points (ca. 6000-3500 b.c.) that have also been referred to as “MALA” points (Sassaman 1985; Ledbetter 1995:54-55; Sassaman and Anderson 1995:27). “MALA” points are primarily made from thermally altered cherts obtained from the Coastal Plain (Sassaman 1985; Wetmore and Goodyear 1986; Steen and Braley 1994:22) and the extent to which these are found in the Piedmont has yet to be discerned. This is a lithic resource use pattern which deviates dramatically, however, from the predominant use of quartz/quartzite in the manufacture of Morrow Mountain (ca. 5500-3500 b.c.), and later still Guilford Lanceolate (ca. 4500-3500 b.c.) projectile points (Steen and Braley 1994:21), the last of which are commonly found in the South Carolina Piedmont but are much less common in the Coastal Plain (Blanton and Sassaman 1989; Benson 1995:18; Sassaman and Anderson 1995:26).

Corresponding roughly in time with the Hypsithermal (6000-3000 b.c.), the Middle Archaic stage is generally viewed by most archeologists as a period of increased cultural regionalization as a result of growing populations and reduced territorial boundaries. As a result, there was a greater reliance on local raw materials in the manufacture of stone tools, a pattern that is reflected in the South Carolina Piedmont by the contrasting use of crystal quartz and quartzite (more precisely, orthoquartzite) in the manufacture of projectile points and other lithic implements in the Plateau and cherts in the Coastal Plain (Wetmore and Goodyear 1986:20; Blanton and Sassaman 1989; Benson 1995; Sassaman and Anderson 1995). Ground stone implements including atlatl (spearthrower) and axes appear for the first time during this period as do a number of plant processing tools—nutting stones and manos. These, along with the occurrence of storage pits and large quantities of fire-crack rock at some sites suggests there was a greater degree of sedentism and reliance on plant foods compared to previous Early Archaic practices, but a seasonal cycle and frequent movements in search of wild game and plants was still a way of life which has left behind an array of Middle Archaic sites in virtually every environmental setting within South Carolina, a pattern that have been characterized as fluctuating somewhere between short-term specialized extractive sites and longer-term base camps (Coe 1964; House and Ballenger 1976; Elliot 1987). Frequent movement and settlement in a wide array of environmental settings including the inter-riverine hinterlands characterizes the Middle Archaic period in the South Carolina Piedmont.

he Late Archaic (3000-1000 b.c.) was a period of major technological and economic change for South Carolina's native peoples. By the close of this two millennial span, Late Archaic groups over much of the state had, to some extent, adopted the use of pottery, participated in long distance exchange networks to obtain non-local resources, and, although direct evidence is currently lacking in some areas, were probably experimenting with plant husbandry.

Looking to the adjacent upper Savannah River valley (Anderson and Joseph 1988; Anderson 1994; Ledbetter 1995) and lower Broad River valley regions (Steen and Braley 1994; Benson 1995), (where there are better documented archeological records) for patterns of cultural development that one might expect to see replicated in the Ninety Six area, it is evident that Late Archaic lifestyles in northwestern South Carolina, in many respects, were simply a continuation of previous cultural processes. With increasing population levels and concomitantly shrinking territories, Late Archaic peoples experienced reduced residential mobility with riverine and upland base camps occupied for longer periods of time, but still continued a pattern of intraregional movements which accommodated the exploitation of natural resources as they became seasonally available at outlying temporary extractive camps (Sassaman and Anderson 1995; Sassaman et al. 1990).

Projectile point styles continued to change over time, although the exact timing of certain types remains somewhat ambiguous. Large Savannah River Stemmed points that began to appear near the close of the Middle Archaic were probably made throughout the Late Archaic (Sassaman and Anderson 1995:110; House and Ballenger 1976). By the end of the Late Archaic, quartz was no longer the nearly exclusive material of choice in manufacturing stone tools; locally available metavolcanics (e.g., argillite, rhyolite, and slate) now comprised a noticeable portion of the lithic assemblage (Novick 1980). Smaller varieties of Savannah River Stemmed, Ledbetter Stemmed, and Otarre Stemmed (Keel 1976; Sassaman and Anderson 1995) are common projectile point types for the period (3000-1000 b.c.).

Fiber-tempered Stallings and sand-tempered Thom's Creek ceramics are firmly dated to the latter three-quarters (i.e., 2500-1000 b.c.) of the Late Archaic, with a beginning date of 2200 b.c., currently being the best estimate for the introduction of pottery use in the Carolinas (Anderson et al. 1996:31). Their use, however, is largely confined to the Coastal Plain and the major river valleys of the lower Piedmont, with Stallings ceramics centered more toward the Savannah River drainage and Thom's Creek centered more on the Santee and Pee Dee River drainages (Anderson and Joseph 1988:194; Sassaman 1993:Figure 3; Sassaman and Anderson 1995; Anderson [editor] 1996:248-256). Stallings pottery, particularly the plain variety, is assumed to be the earliest pottery to appear in the state, as is the case with all fiber-tempered wares in the Southeast; however, Thom's Creek wares apparently coexist with Stallings wares for a long period of time, with the earliest Thom's Creek varieties dating perhaps as early as 2000 b.c. (Anderson et al. 1996). The terminal date of Thom's Creek wares remains somewhat problematic with many (Anderson et al. 1996; Trinkley et al. 1996) archeologists dating its passing at the traditional endpoint of the Late Archaic (ca. 1000 b.c.), some (e.g., Steen and Braley 1994:20) referring to it as an Early Woodland pottery type, while others call it “transitional Late Archaic-Early Woodland” (Benson 1995:19). Plain, incised, simple stamped, and punctated varieties of both Stallings and Thom's Creek wares occur, with the latter variety of Thom’s Creek ware reported by Rodeffer et al. (1979:331-333) for two sites in Greenwood County.

One of the more interesting practices that appeared during the Late Archaic period in South Carolina was the use of soapstone to make perforated slabs for stone boiling. Soapstone was apparently a highly valued trade item as prehistoric soapstone quarries have only been identified at a limited number of sites in the Piedmont and Fall Line areas of Georgia and South Carolina, and yet soapstone items dating to this time period are found at archeological sites throughout much of South Carolina (Sassaman 1993:53). Trade of perforated soapstone slabs began around 3000 b.c. and persisted in the Piedmont long after improvements in ceramic technology that allowed pots to be placed directly in the fire were adopted among South Carolina’s Coastal Plain inhabitants and diminished their desire for soapstone. This has led Sassaman (1993) to conclude that Piedmont peoples purposely resisted the adoption of ceramic innovations that were occurring on the Coastal Plain in order to preserve their monopoly in the soapstone trade. This may have been part of the impetus for the manufacture and trade of soapstone vessels throughout the Southeast beginning around 2000 b.c. (Sassaman 1993:220) and ending only after the widespread manufacture of serviceable pottery made trade of soapstone bowls simply too hard a sell. Relatedly, a modest traffic of soapstone items into the Long Cane Creek drainage consisting of bowls and perforated slabs and attributed to the Late Archaic period has been documented for the Sumter National Forest (Chapman 2000:22).

Perhaps what would become the most significant change in the lifestyles of some Archaic stage peoples was the adoption of plant horticulture starting sometime near the beginning of the Late Archaic period in some areas of the Southeast. The earliest planted crops included cucurbits (squashes and gourds), sunflower, sumpweed, and chenopod (Crites 1991; Smith 1989; Gremillion 1993). Currently, there is no direct evidence to support the proposition that Late Archaic peoples in the Ninety Six area were horticulturalists; but there is good evidence that peoples in nearby eastern Tennessee were planting gardens using native plant species (Chapman and Shea 1981; Gremillion 1993; Wetmore and Goodyear 1986) and it has been suggested that the adoption of pottery may have been commonly associated with the adoption of plant husbandry. Although the arrival of horticulture signals the beginning of new human/plant relationships in the Southeast, it appears that horticulture did not contribute a significant portion of the diet until well into Woodland times.

Woodland (ca. 1000 b.c.- a.d. 1000)

The Woodland period in South Carolina has also be divided into Early (ca. 1000-500 b.c. ), Middle (ca. 500 b.c.-a.d. 500), and Late (a.d. 500-1000) periods with certain ceramic types and projectile point forms used as general time markers for each of these periods. Overall, this major time period has been characterized by the establishment of semi-permanent or permanent villages occupied much if not all of the year, widespread adoption of pottery use, construction of mounds, and elaboration of an incipient system of horticulture (Struever and Vickery 1973; Smith 1986, 1989).

Again, with respect to the Woodland period, the Ninety Six area lies between better known cultural regions of South Carolina—the South Carolina Midlands, the Upper Savannah River Valley, and the South Carolina upper Piedmont. Near the South Carolina Fall Line, Woodland period sites have been identified at numerous places within the Congaree River drainage (Anderson 1975; Steen and Braley 1994). The Woodland period chronology (Badin, Yadkin, Uwharrie) of ceramic and lithic types which Coe (1964) developed for the Woodland cultures of the North Carolina Piedmont has generally been viewed as applicable to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont in South Carolina as well (House and Ballenger 1976; Trinkley 1989; Steen and Braley 1994:23; Benson 1995), but as Steen and Braley (1994:363) affirm "the ceramic sequence in the South Carolina Midlands is still in need of considerable refinement." Along the northern Georgia-South Carolina border, data recovery projects associated with dam and reservoir construction have provided a fairly refined chronology for the upper Savannah River Valley (Anderson and Joseph 1988; Ledbetter 1995), but like the other two culture areas its applicability to the current study area is as yet still in question and problems remain in distinguishing Early, Middle, and Late Woodland groups on the basis of ceramic types because of their apparent long history of use (Anderson 1996). And with respect to possible affinities to Woodland groups located to the north, previous researchers have previously pointed out that ceramics apparently related to the Swannanoa-Pigeon-Connestee series, originally defined for the Appalachian Summit of western north Carolina (Keel 1976), have also been found sparsely scattered throughout the upper South Carolina Piedmont including the Ninety Six National Historic Site study area (Rodeffer et al. 1979; Goodyear et al. 1979; Trinkley 1989). Nevertheless, due to the lack of research and development of post-Archaic cultural sequences in the intervening area where the Ninety Six National Historic Site resides, it becomes necessary at this point to extrapolate from the extralocal sequences of the three better known regions just mentioned with perhaps greater likelihood of similarities occurring with the upper Savannah River and upper Piedmont sequences given their closer proximities, and the recovery of Woodland pottery types within the Greenwood County area (Rodeffer et al. 1979) that appear to exhibit closer similarities to these two somewhat related culture areas.

Early Woodland (ca. 1000 -500 b.c.)

Various sources (e.g., Anderson et al. 1979; Wood et al. 1986; Hanson and DePratter 1985; Sassaman 1993; Steen and Braley 1994; Ledbetter 1995) identify Thom’s Creek, Refuge, and Deptford wares as forming a basically successional Woodland ceramic sequence for the Georgia-South Carolina Coastal Plain region as a whole with each pottery series slowly evolving into the other during a roughly 700 year time span (ca. 1000-300 b.c.). Currently recognized types included in the three major ceramic series include: Thom’s Creek Plain, Thom's Creek Punctate, Thom's Creek Simple Stamped, Thom's Creek Incised, Refuge Plain, Refuge Simple Stamped, Refuge Punctate, Refuge Dentate Stamped, Refuge Incised, Deptford Plain, Deptford Simple Stamped, Deptford Check Stamped, Deptford Linear Check Stamped, and Deptford Bold Check Stamped (Caldwell and Waring 1968; Waring and Holder 1968; Waring 1968). These types are apparently rare, however, for the middle to upper South Carolina Piedmont (Benson 1995:19) wherein the Ninety Six National Historic Site is situated, and it appears that fabric impressed and cordmarked sand-tempered wares similar to the Swannanoa series may be more characteristic of Early Woodland sites in the Ninety Six area. Nevertheless, a recounting of the Refuge ceramic sequence is provided below in the remote possibility that such wares are found within the vicinity of the park, since Thom’s Creek Punctate pottery has been reported by Rodeffer et al. (1979:332-333) for two sites in Greenwood County.

In the Savannah River valley, a Refuge I phase (1000-800 b.c.) and a Refuge II phase (800-500 b.c.) are presently recognized (Sassaman et al. 1990:13; Ledbetter 1995:96; Anderson [editor] 1996) for the lower portion of the drainage. Refuge I ceramic assemblages contain all of the recognized types in the Refuge series (punctated, dentate stamped, simple stamped, and plain varieties), while Refuge II assemblages contain only simple stamped and plain sherds.  Sand and small lumps of clay (grog) are used as tempering materials among the various types.

Refuge Simple Stamped are primarily distinguished from Deptford Simple Stamped on the basis of execution; the former is generally randomly and sloppily decorated with sharp and broad edged implements that produced V- and U-shaped impressions while the latter is neatly applied in parallel or crossed lines. Refuge pottery is also typically thicker and tempered with coarser sand/grit than Deptford pottery (Waring 1968:200).

According to Anderson and Joseph (1988:208-209), the Early Woodland period in the upper Savannah River drainage is primarily marked by the appearance of sand-tempered fabric marked ceramics which they viewed comparable to Dunlap Fabric Marked and as a fairly “unambiguous marker of an Early Woodland component” (Anderson and Joseph 1988:209) for the eastern Georgia/western South Carolina Piedmont. Early Woodland sites, however, are apparently rare in the mid to upper South Carolina Piedmont (cf. Benson 1995:20), making any generalizations regarding Early Woodland cultural patterns tenuous at best, although Rodeffer and his associates (Rodeffer et al. 1979:50-51, 332-333) variously report having found somewhere between 19 and 23 Early Woodland sites in Greenwood County based on the recovery of a total of about 40 sherds (plain, simple stamped, and fabric impressed) that they assigned to the Swannanoa series. An additional four dozen or so Greenwood County sites were also assigned to the Early Woodland period based on the recovery of Swannanoa Stemmed and Transylvania/Badin Triangular projectile points (Rodeffer et al. 1979:50-51). The Swannanoa series, as defined by Keel (1976:260-266) consists of vessels formed in the shape of large- to medium-sized conoidal jars and hemispherical bowls tempered with either coarse sand or crushed quartz with exterior surface treatments primarily consisting of cordmarking and fabric marking with some plain, simple stamping and check stamping also occurring infrequently toward the end of the phase.

Dating of the Swannanoa phase was originally thought to be sometime around 700-200 b.c. (Keel 1976:17) but more recently the beginning date has been pushed back to ca. 1000 b.c. based on radiocarbon dates obtained at the Phipps Bend site (Eastman 1994; Ward and Davis 1999:142). The earlier appearance of cordmarked and fabric marked wares during the Swannanoa phase in western North Carolina is in accordance with Anderson and Joseph’s (1988) hypothesis that these are the earliest decorative modes among Early Woodland pottery types (Dunlap Fabric Marked and Deptford Cord Marked) in the upper Savannah River drainage, and that the introduction of check stamping and simple stamping as decorative techniques occurred sometime just before the Middle Woodland period.

Rucker’s Bottom, the only extensively excavated site in the upper Savannah River drainage containing a sizeable Early Woodland component, has also produced numerous small-stemmed points similar to terminal Archaic/Early Woodland stemmed types (i.e., Otarre, Plott, Swannanoa, and Gypsy Stemmed types) found elsewhere in the Carolina Piedmont region. Early Woodland Dunlap Fabric Marked pottery was also found in association with a large quartz “Yadkin-like” triangular point at the Big Generostee Creek (38ABN126) site (Anderson and Joseph 1988:213). The presence of medium-large triangular points (Badin, Yadkin) points in the upper Piedmont probably occurs during the later portion of the Early Woodland period (Benson 1995:20), however, as these point types appear roughly comparable to the Transylvania and Garden Creek Triangular points associated with Keel’s (1976) original Swannanoa (ca. 600-200 b.c.) and Pigeon (ca. 200 b.c. -a.d. 200) phases, respectively, in western North Carolina (Keel 1976:17, 130, 224; Anderson and Joseph 1988:219). Surprisingly, there were few instances of sand-tempered cordmarked ceramics represented among the tested Savannah River sites that could be confidently assigned to the Early Woodland period, suggesting that this decorative technique may have been introduced into the region somewhat later than fabric marking.

Middle Woodland (ca. 500 b.c.-a.d. 600)

The initial Middle Woodland ceramic assemblages found in the upper Savannah River drainage appear to consist of combinations of sand and grit tempered Dunlap and Deptford series wares that eventually give way to the finer tempered and smoother finished Cartersville series sometime around 300-200 b.c. (Anderson and Joseph 1988:230). While the appearance of Deptford check stamped, linear check stamped and simple stamped pottery sometime around 600-500 b.c. (Anderson [editor] 1996) is generally viewed as signaling the arrival of Middle Woodland times in much of the Carolinas, these pottery types appear to have carried over into the Late Woodland and perhaps Mississippian times as well (Anderson 1985:52) making them somewhat less reliable for assigning temporal affiliations to sites based on their presence alone. Earlier (ca. 200 b.c.-a.d. 400) and later (a.d. 400-600) Cartersville ceramic assemblages are now recognized for the upper Savannah River region, the former characterized by plain, simple stamped, check stamped, and linear check stamped surface treatments, the latter by plain, simple stamped and brushed finishes (Anderson and Joseph 1988:230). According to Anderson and Joseph (1988), large triangular points with indented bases known as Yadkin Large Triangular (or more simply Yadkin) points are viewed as a good Middle Woodland indicator for the entire length of the period.

Sites with light Cartersville/Deptford components have been found at a few locations in the South Carolina Piedmont, including Abbeville and Anderson Counties (Anderson and Joseph 1988:227-230), Greenwood County (Rodeffer et al. 1979:331-333), and Laurens County (Wood and Gresham 1982), but by and large they have been found in mixed contexts with earlier and later materials, making interpretations difficult. This is the case with Greenwood County sites assigned to the Middle Woodland period by Rodeffer et al. (1987:51) where ceramics classified as Deptford Check Stamped were found on the surface at two sites that also contained ceramics assigned to the Connestee (plain and simple stamped) and Pigeon (check stamped) series.

The Pigeon phase (ca. 200 b.c.-a.d. 200) in western North Carolina is roughly contemporary with early Cartersville components in eastern Georgia. The Pigeon phase ceramic assemblage is characterized by Keel (1976) as dominated by Pigeon Check Stamped with minor amounts of Pigeon Simple Stamped, Pigeon Plain, Pigeon Complicated Stamped and Pigeon Brushed. It seems likely that Pigeon Brushed appears late in the phase given its limited numbers and occurrence only at Garden Creek Mound No. 2. Keel (1976:260) also points out the similarity in motifs that occur between Pigeon Complicated Stamped and Napier Stamped and curvilinear Swift Creek, both of which are generally considered late Woodland pottery types in northeastern Georgia (Anderson [editor] 1996:215).

The following Connestee phase (ca. a.d. 200-600) assemblage is characterized by Keel (1976) as being dominated by Connestee Brushed, Connestee Cordmarked, Connestee Simple Stamped, and Connestee Plain, with minor amounts of Connestee Check Stamped and Connestee Fabric Impressed, all of which were tempered with fine- to medium-sized sand and occasionally small amounts of crushed quartz. Decorated wares sometimes had plain surfaces on the necks of the vessels, which were generally in the form of conoidal jars, hemispherical bowls and flat-bottomed jars with tetrapodal supports (Keel 1976:247-254). A date range of a.d. 200-600 was originally given for the phase (Keel 1976:19), with the caveat that an hypothesized transitional phase presumably followed that eventually evolved into the Pisgah phase sometime around a.d. 1000. Since then, the proposed terminal date for Connestee has been pushed forward to ca. a.d. 800 (Ward and Davis 1999:146) and a tentative Late Connestee period has since been inserted into the chronological framework of western North Carolina to fill in the rest of the Woodland period between a.d. 800-1000 (Ward and Davis 1999:155, Figure 1.5).

Connestee series ceramics have been reported at a number of sites in Greenwood county as a result of Rodeffer and his associate’s (Rodeffer et al. 1979) survey efforts. They are by far the most numerous pottery series encountered during the survey, constituting a full 68.6% (190 of 277) of all ceramics collected during the project. These include plain, brushed, cordmarked, simple stamped, fabric impressed, and incised varieties. A small number of pottery sherds similar to sand-tempered Connestee Simple Stamped and Connestee Brushed have also been found in the extreme northern portion of the Richard B. Russell Reservoir project area (Anderson and Joseph 1988:227). These were found in association with grit-tempered Cartersville Bold Simple stamped and Cartersville Check Stamped pottery at the Big Generostee Creek (38-AN-126) site, and have been interpreted as belonging to the later portion of the Middle Woodland period, dating roughly a.d. 400 to 600 and perhaps later (Anderson and Joseph 1988:230, 246).

According to Chapman (2000), Pigeon (check stamped, simple stamped, and brushed types) and Cartersville (cordmarked, simple stamped, and check stamped types) are the primary Middle Woodland pottery series found in the lower Enoree River drainage of adjacent Newberry County, with Connestee wares also appearing in relatively few numbers during the last half (ca. a.d. 50-600) of the period. Chapman (2000:23) is of the opinion that this represents “the periphery of its [Connestee] influence” (Chapman 2000:23).

Connestee sites appear to be somewhat larger and more numerous in riverine floodplain and terrace settings than their earlier counterparts, which has been interpreted by some as indicative of increased sedentism (Purrington 1983:139), but use of upland sites also persists, indicating a continued reliance on the natural resources (e.g., nuts, deer, turkey) found in these woodland settings. The Connestee phase is also marked by the first appearance of earthen mounds in the Appalachian Summit, a development that is probably linked to Connestee participation in the Hopewell Interaction Sphere and the provisioning of mica from the Appalachian Summit region to Hopewellian cultures to the west (Chapman and Keel 1979).

Late Woodland (ca. A.D. 600 -1000)

Any attempts at construing Late Woodland lifeways in Greenwood County and the upper South Carolina Piedmont at the present time are hampered by a lack of well understood cultural analogs in the adjacent culture areas. The Late Woodland time period is generally viewed by archeologists as the period in which the economic and social underpinnings that later led to the development of Mississippian culture were established by the appearance of fairly permanent village sites and the widespread adoption of maize agriculture, although it appears that it remained a minor contribution to the overall Late Woodland diet. The degree to which this characterization applies to the upper South Carolina Piedmont remains very much in doubt, however, because well documented Late Woodland occupations have yet to be identified in the immediate or surrounding areas. This conundrum is probably at least partially due to the proposition that locally produced Late Woodland pottery types in the upper South Carolina Piedmont are so similar to Middle Woodland types that Late Woodland components at many sites have simply not been recognized. For example, fine sand-tempered, simple stamped wares (e.g., Connestee Simple Stamped, Santee Simple Stamped, Camden Simple Stamped) long considered Middle Woodland pottery types have recently been recognized as also being Late Woodland/Mississippian (ca. a.d. 500-1400) pottery forms for a large area extending from central Georgia to northern coastal North Carolina (Anderson [editor] 1996:20; Ward and Davis 1999:157-158). Similarly, projectile point types of the period consist primarily of medium to small triangular forms (Haywood Triangular, Pisgah Triangular) comparable to Hamilton Incurvate and Madison types (Keel 1976:132-133; Justice 1987:224-229) which also span the entire Late Woodland to Mississippian time frame. The paucity of well dated ceramic trade wares has also hindered the recognition of Late Woodland occupations in the region.

The readily identifiable grog-tempered pottery of the Hanover series is generally agreed to be Late Woodland in age, but its distribution appears largely confined to the Coastal Plain (Anderson 1975; Trinkley et al. 1996; Herbert and Mathis 1996). And similarly, late Swift Creek (a.d. 500-750) and Napier (ca. a.d. 650-850) ceramic assemblages, which are readily assignable to the Late Woodland period and have been recorded in the upper Savannah River drainage, are fairly uncommon and occur with even less frequency as one travels eastward from the main river valley (Anderson and Joseph 1988:246-247). For example, there were only two instances where Swift Creek Curvilinear Complicated Stamped ceramics were collected during the

Greenwood County survey conducted by Rodeffer and his associates (Rodeffer et al. 1979:331-333).With little in the way of clearly identifiable Late Woodland occupations in the Greenwood County area, it may be assumed that Late Woodland peoples lifestyles had changed little from the preceding Middle Woodland period other than the demise of the regional exchange networks that characterize Middle Woodland Hopewellian times. On the otherhand, the lack of a readily recognizable Late Woodland presence in the upper South Carolina Piedmont may also simply reflect a conscious decision on the part of Late Woodland peoples to live elsewhere. This possibility seems all the more likely when the settlement patterns that arose during the ensuing Mississippian period are also examined.

Mississippian Period (ca. a.d. 1000-1600)

During the first six centuries of the most recently concluded millenium, the upper South Carolina Piedmont was encompassed within a wide reaching cultural manifestation that has come to be referred to by archeologists as South Appalachian Mississippian (Ferguson 1971), which is a regional expression of the Mississippian cultural stage. The Mississippian stage is generally characterized as the time in Southeastern U.S. history when native cultures reached their greatest socio-economic complexity (Griffin 1967, 1985; Jennings 1974; Muller 1983; Peebles and Kus 1977; B. Smith 1978, 1986). This complexity is reflected in a hierarchy of site types ranging from single family habitations or "farmsteads" to multi-mound ceremonial centers, a stratified social/political organization that has been broadly compared to chiefdom level societies, specialization in the production of various traded commodities (shell, copper, salt, etc.), and a heavy reliance on maize (corn) horticulture for subsistence.

The adoption of an economic system with a major emphasis on horticulture for food production had great ramifications with respect to Mississippian settlement patterns. The majority of Mississippian villages were settled along the fertile river bottoms of major tributaries where light alluvial soils conducive to hoe tilling methods made horticulture most productive. Within these fertile valleys Mississippian peoples planted their gardens of maize, squash, sunflowers, and other domesticated plants. They also fished in the nearby river, lakes, and streams and made regular trips into the uplands to gather nuts and hunt deer, turkey, squirrel, and other small game.

The rise of Mississippian cultures was also intimately tied to the development of chiefdoms. Chiefdoms, with their highly structured social and economic relationships, permitted larger numbers of people to share the greater productive potential of maize agriculture while also disbursing the potential risks which a major crop failure would bring to any one portion of the larger society. The ability to redirect surpluses from one part of the chiefdom to another portion which had suffered lower productive success or crop loss was an economic advantage chiefdoms enjoyed over less regimented social organizations. The political and economic nature of chiefdoms, however, resulted in persistent competition as individuals vied for the few highest positions in the chiefdom in order to benefit from the greater affluence and prestige that were afforded to the elite. Continual attempts to expand the influence of the chiefdom and bring neighboring groups under economic and political subservience, rapid increases in population numbers, and a preference for limited floodplain areas for farming led to regular armed conflict, another major factor which also affected settlement placement and site plan.

Although the development of South Appalachian and other Mississippian cultures from their Late Woodland cultural forebearers clearly was a process that brought intertribal competition to the forefront, it was also a period of sharing and dissemination of new ideas and beliefs, new ways of cooperation, and new ways of coping with the uncertainties of everyday life. Archeologists, trying to understand this process have subdivided South Appalachian Mississippian history into three major substages that reflect the initial amalgamation of Mississippian cultures into simple chiefdoms (Early Mississippian), the rise of complex chiefdoms that exerted broad-reaching political influences (Middle Mississippian) and the full maturation of Mississippian lifestyles such as those encountered by the first European explorers (Late Mississippian). In the South Appalachian Mississippian cultural sphere, these three substages have been roughly equated with Etowah, Savannah, and Lamar cultures (Williams and Shapiro 1990).

The archeological vestiges of these three successive Mississippian substages or cultures are most recognizable today by the distinctively made ceramics that were with the passage of time adopted by the peoples living in northeastern Alabama, northern Florida, Georgia, eastern Tennessee, most of South Carolina and western North Carolina from approximately a.d. 1000-1600. Archeologists researching the cultural developments leading up to and culminating in this extensive adoption of South Appalachian Mississippian culture have once again focused their attentions to the north, south, east and west of the present study area. Toward the west, extensive investigations in the upper Savannah River valley had resulted in a well documented sequence of Mississippian cultures best known through the publishing efforts of David Anderson (Anderson and Joseph 1988; Anderson 1989, 1990b, 1994, 1996). Toward the north, the Mississippian cultural sequence of Pisgah and Qualla phases in the North Carolina Appalachian Summit is primarily based on the synthetic work of Roy Dickens (1976). To the east there is much less in the way of readily available information to draw upon, but cultural sequences and some patterns have been identified as a result of site inventories and limited testing largely associated with federal and state land management policies. The lower Broad River valley, for example, contains Mississippian ceramics that show strong affinities to the Pee Dee related culture area of the Wateree River valley to the east and to Pisgah peoples to the north (Teague 1979:63; DePratter 1989; DePratter and Judge 1990:56-58; Hudson et al. 1990; Steen and Braley 1994; Benson 1995:12). These are the better documented areas we have at our disposal to deduce the Mississippian culture history of the upper South Carolina Piedmont.

The investigation of Mississippian culture in the area around Ninety Six National Historic Site has been made somewhat difficult by the relative paucity of documented Mississippian sites in Greenwood County and the Saluda River drainage. For example, during the reconnaissance survey conducted on selected plowed and timbered lands in Greenwood County by Rodeffer and his associates in the 1970s (Rodeffer et al. 1979), only five (1.7%) of the 295 total precolumbian sites found contained ceramics (classified as Etowah, Pisgah, and Pee Dee types) that could be confidently associated with Mississippian occupations (Rodeffer et al. 1979:53). None of these were interpreted as being anything more than “light” or short term “base camps”, with the recovery of Late Woodland/Mississippian Triangular projectile points from 22 other sites possibly representing additional brief Mississippian hunting forays into the area.

The paucity of a demonstrable Mississippian presence in the Greenwood County area is probably a reflection of Mississippian settlement and hunting patterns which resulted in the establishment of relatively expansive, unoccupied borderlands between independent and at times hostile chiefdoms that were centered upon major river drainages to the east, west, and north. Anderson (1994:267) has postulated that western South Carolina in general and the middle to lower Saluda River drainage in particular was most likely part of a broad buffer zone and hunting territory separating the Mississippian polities of the upper Savannah River drainage laying to the west and northwest of the Ninety Six National Historic Site from the Mississippian polities located to the east along the Broad River with mound centers located at the McCollum (38CS2) and Blair Mound (38FA48) sites in Chester and Fairfield counties, respectively (Ryan 1971; Teague 1979).

The Mississippian mound centers located along the lower Broad River contain ceramics that show minor similarities with the Lamar (Irene) complexes of the Savannah River area but show greatest affinities to the Pee Dee and Pisgah culture areas to the east and north, respectively (Teague 1979:63; Benson 1995:12), and are believed to have been abandoned as political centers by sometime around a.d. 1400 (DePratter 1989; Hudson et al. 1990), thereby creating an even larger western buffer zone for the Mississippian chiefdoms occupying the Wateree/Catawba drainage during the remainder of the precolumbian and early contact era (i.e., a.d. 1400-1700). In addition, Anderson (1994:270) notes that during the late 1600s and early 1700s the middle to lower Saluda region was a well documented buffer zone and hunting ground separating the Underhill Cherokees living along the upper reaches of the Savannah River drainage from the Catawba peoples living along the upper Broad and Catawba rivers.

This buffer zone was also apparently respected by the earlier Mississippian peoples that occupied sites like Lindsey Mound along the upper Saluda River valley near the North Carolina/South Carolina border (Dickens 1976:17), where the ceramic assemblage has been tentatively assigned to the Pisgah series (Dickens 1976:92; Anderson 1994:162). Notably, however, only a single (incised) sherd recovered during the entire 1979 Greenwood County archeological survey was assigned to the Pisgah series (Rodeffer et al. 1979:331), suggesting that Pisgah occupation of the Saluda River drainage on an extended basis probably did not reach downstream much beyond the confluence of the North Saluda and South Saluda Rivers, as Dickens (1976:189) already surmised (Image 1). Similarly, Chapman (2000:26) reports that the lower Enoree River drainage represents “the southern periphery of Pisgah influence” in nearby Newberry County. Much the same can be said regarding the origin of the mere handful of sherds (eight in all) collected throughout Greenwood County by Rodeffer and his associates that were classified as Pee Dee types, and presumably represent minimal forays or interactions with Mississippian groups centered on the Broad and Wateree Rivers to the east (Teague 1979:63; DePratter 1987; DePratter and Judge 1990; Benson 1995:12).

In all likelihood then, the Ninety Six and Greenwood County area would have been part of a large buffer zone and hunting territory visited by Mississippian peoples only on a transient basis during the period a.d. 1000-1600. The Mississippian peoples visiting the Ninety Six area would probably have come only on an occasional basis, and most likely entered either from the uppermost reaches of the Saluda drainage to the north where the Pisgah phase (which is roughly separable into early and late subphases, ca. a.d. 1000-1250 and a.d. 1250-1450, respectively) is followed by a Qualla phase (Dickens 1976:14; Ward and Davis 1999:169), or from the nearby upper Savannah River drainage to the west where the Mississippian cultural sequence has been divided (Anderson 1994:159) into five distinguishable subperiods: Woodstock (ca. a.d. 900-1100), Jarrett phase (ca. a.d. 1100-1200), Beaverdam phase (ca. a.d. 1200-1300), Rembert phase (ca. a.d. 1300-1450) and Tugalo phase (ca. a.d. 1450-1600). This cultural sequence is believed (Anderson and Joseph 1988; Anderson 1994) to encompass the initial appearance of Mississippian influences into the area, the initial rise of simple chiefdoms and later development of complex chiefly societies, followed by their economic and political collapse and the abandonment of all but the upper sections of the Savannah River basin by around a.d. 1450. Limited to the upper Savannah River drainage, the Tugalo phase appears to represent the direct cultural antecedents of the Cherokee peoples who were found occupying the area at the time of the earliest European explorations into the region.

The appearance of Woodstock Complicated Stamped ceramics, which is currently viewed as the initial arrival of Mississippian traits in the Savannah River drainage of northwest Georgia and South Carolina (Anderson 1994:375), have been rarely encountered in the upper Savannah River area, suggesting that the first century of the second millenium a.d. may have been a time of protracted Mississippian cultural coalescence and/or perhaps lower population densities for the region. Each of the subsequent Mississippian phases are well documented, however, and are distinguished on the basis of changes in ceramic assemblages as well as shifts in settlement and mortuary patterns.

The Jarrett phase (ca. a.d. 1100-1200) is characterized by the appearance of Etowah Complicated Stamped, check stamped, and red filmed pottery (Anderson 1994:375). The complicated stamped designs during this phase consist primarily of nested diamond motifs with corncob impressions occurring in low numbers along the necks and upper shoulders of some vessels. The majority of sites dating to this period appear to be scattered homesteads, with perhaps the Clyde Gulley site representing a small village or large hamlet during this phase. Two single mound centers, Chauga and Tugalo, were also established near the headwaters of the Savannah River during this period, and the Rembert site may also have begun to exist during this phase.

The Beaverdam phase (ca. a.d. 1200-1300) sees a decline in the numbers of Etowah Complicated Stamped ceramics and the disappearance of red filmed pottery. Check stamping increases and Savannah Complicated Stamped appears, with concentric circles being the most common motif. There is an abrupt shift in settlement patterns with the establishment of new ceremonial sites, hamlets, and farmsteads within the settlement hierarchy. The Chauga and Tugalo sites were apparently abandoned as ceremonial centers, and ceremonial activities were established downstream at the Beaverdam Creek, Tate and Rembert mound sites. It is possible that by the end of the Beaverdam phase Rembert was already established as a multiple mound center and that the single mound Beaverdam Creek and Tate sites were the residences of chieftains who were subservient to a paramount chief living at Rembert. Maize agriculture was also well-established by this time, although its contribution to the overall diet is still open to question.

By the Rembert phase (ca. a.d. 1350-1450), the Rembert Mound group with its five platform mounds had become the premier ceremonial center for the entire upper Savannah River basin. Occupations at Beaverdam Creek and Tate had apparently ceased, suggesting local political power was concentrated in the hands of the Rembert elite, while the previously abandoned single mound center at Tugalo was reoccupied. Political struggles with outside polities may be evidenced by the erection of fortifications around entire sites such as Rucker’s Bottom and possibly Chauga and Tugalo during this time. Lamar Complicated Stamped pottery with both rectilinear and curvilinear designs (concentric circles, figure nines, filfot crosses, line blocks, and herringbones) dominate the ceramic assemblage while check stamping nearly disappears. Also, Lamar Bold Incised pottery characterized by designs involving two or three broad lines appears in low numbers for the first time during the Rembert phase.

During the ensuing Tugalo phase (ca. a.d. 1450-1600), the instabilities inherent within the socioeconomic structure of the Savannah River chiefdoms, made even more tenuous by an extended period of lower than normal rainfall within the region, coupled with competition from surrounding Mississippian polities resulted in the political collapse of the societies occupying the middle and lower Savannah River basin, which appears to have been largely unpopulated during this period. Only the upper reaches of the Savannah River exhibit evidence of having been occupied during this late precolumbian/protohistoric phase. The previously abandoned single mound center at Chauga was reoccupied, and Estatoe was also established as a mound center for the first time during this period with both sites presumably absorbing peoples fleeing the areas abandoned down river. Anderson (1994) believes the abandonment of all but the upper Savannah River drainage by Mississippian peoples represents the establishment of the region as a buffer between the competing paramount chiefdoms of Cofitachequi and Ocute, who occupied the Santee/Wateree and Oconee River drainages respectively, at the time of first European contact.

Once again, changes in the ceramic assemblage are also evident within this final precolumbian phase. Lamar Complicated Stamped and Lamar Incised pottery retain their popularity during the Tugalo phase (ca. a.d. 1450-1600), but the stamping on the former is generally executed less carefully and the designs are more complicated while the designs on the latter ware are typically composed of a greater number of narrower lines than the preceding phase. Red filming appears once again as a minority ware (Anderson 1994:376).

Early Contact Period (ca. a.d. 1540-1700)

At the time of the De Soto entrada into South Carolina in the spring of 1540, the rival provinces of Cofitachequi and Ocute were separated by an extensive buffer zone or "vacant quarter" that was described by the Spanish explorers that accompanied De Soto as the "desert of Ocute" (Hudson et al. 1984:72). The Hudson et al. (1984) reconstructed route for Hernando De Soto's expedition places the chiefdom of Ocute above the Georgina fall line on the Oconee River and Hymahi (Aymay, Guiomae), the southernmost town encountered by De Soto subject to Cofitachequi in the vicinity of present day Wateree, S.C., near the confluence of the Congaree and Wateree Rivers (Hudson et al. 1984:72; DePratter 1989:134, 148). De Soto’s route through the desert of Ocute had apparently passed through the headwater areas of the South and North Forks of the Edisto River (Image 2), approximately 40 miles south of the Ninety Six area (Hudson et al. 1984:72; DePratter 1989:137).

Although Cofitachequi and Ocute were powerful tribes at the time of the De Soto entrada, their political prominence and cultural existence were doomed along with those of their neighboring brethren with the arrival of the first Europeans. At the time of first European contact, South Carolina was inhabited by a number of Indian tribes that shared a Late Mississippian (Lamar) way of life, but were distinctive in terms of cultural and linguistic traits. Three major linguistic families were represented in 16th century South Carolina: Siouan, Muskhogean, and Iroquoian. The Piedmont and northern two-thirds of the Coastal Plain of South Carolina were occupied primarily by Siouan linguistic groups (Image 3) that included the Catawba, Iswa, Shakori, Wateree, Santee, Congaree, Pee Dee, Waccamaw and Winyaw (Swanton 1946, 1952), although if Swanton (1946:46), Milling (1969:66), and others are correct in their linguistic assessments, the Cofitachequi were apparently Muskhogean speakers. Muskhogean related peoples living in South Carolina during the 16th century consisted primarily of the Cusabo who occupied the Coastal Plain between Charleston Harbor and the Savannah River and were closely related to the Guale of coastal Georgia (Swanton 1952:94; Bushnell 1994:60). At the time of European contact, the Appalachian Summit or Blue Ridge Province of North and South Carolina was part of the territory inhabited by the Cherokee, a large Iroquoian-speaking group with principal settlements mainly distributed along the upper Savannah, Hiwassee, and Little Tennessee River drainages (Schroedl 2000; Ward and Davis 1999:266). Their somewhat distant relationship to other members of the Iroquoian language family and a Cherokee legend of migration from the northeast (Swanton 1952:221) has led some scholars to propose that the ancestors of the Cherokee moved to the Southern Appalachians from the Iroquoian heartland many centuries before early Spanish explorers entered the region and briefly encountered Cherokee peoples for the first time during the 16th and 17th centuries. The scant information available from these earliest encounters and the vagaries of the limited archeological evidence have left the prior history of the Cherokee people very much open to debate, and it is not until the English arrived on the continent in the mid-18th century, that an extensive record of Cherokee culture becomes available.

A Brief History of the Cherokee, 1674-1842

One of the earliest English accounts that unambiguously mention the Cherokee occurs in Henry Woodward’s description of his visit among the Westo (Chichimeco) in 1674 (Crane 1929:16; Swanton 1946:111). The “Chorakae” peoples Woodward referred to in his 1674 narrative were said to inhabit the headwaters region of the Savannah River and to be the enemies of the Westo who then occupied the middle Savannah drainage. The Cherokee peoples that were encountered by the English as they first began to settle and explore the Carolinas were found distributed in five geographically distinct areas, the largest geographic group being the Lower Towns settlements located along the upper drainages of the Chattahoochee and Savannah River in northwestern South Carolina and northeastern Georgia (Schroedl 2000). The inhabitants in this area spoke a distinct Cherokee dialect known as Elati (Mooney 1900), and lived in a dozen or so politically independent towns that include the archeologically investigated sites of Chattooga, Estatoe, Tugalo, Chauga, and Keowee. Contacts between the Cherokee and the earliest English colonists in coastal South Carolina were limited at first due to the intervening presence of the frequently warring Westo who had come to occupy the middle Savannah River area and counted the Cherokee among their many enemies. After the defeat of the Westo by the South Carolinians in 1681, English contacts with the Cherokee and other western tribes became a regular occurrence as the English pursued their policy of establishing trade relations with the interior tribes.

Trade formed the primary basis for Cherokee-British relations during these early years with British traders frequently taking up residence in the Cherokee towns where they provided their hosts with guns, axes, hoes, knives, blankets, and other utilitarian items in exchange for deerskins and, more importantly, Indian slaves. While they benefited materially from their trading relationships with the British, the Cherokee also suffered greatly as a result of increased intertribal warfare directly attributable to the slave trade. In the century following the establishment of Charleston, S.C. in 1670, the Cherokee were involved in numerous conflicts with the Guale, Westo, Shawnee, Catawba, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Congaree, Creek, and Tuscarora, often with the encouragement of the British as a means of providing captives for the slave market (Crane 1929:24, 40, 109-120, 138-139; Swanton 1946:111-112; Swanton 1952:221-222). The casualties of intertribal warfare paled in comparison, however, to the losses suffered from deadly epidemics caused by the introduction of European diseases for which the Cherokee had little immunity. In 1738, for example, a smallpox epidemic devastated the Cherokee, reducing their population of some 20,000 people by nearly half. As a result, many of the Lower towns, particularly those in northwest South Carolina (e.g., Chattooga) were completely abandoned (Schroedl 2000:214).

Cherokee relations with the British were not always on an entirely friendly basis either. Charges of thievery and unfair trading practices including the unlawful taking of slaves were frequently raised by the Cherokee before Carolina’s colonial officials with calls for retribution that often went ignored. As a result, some 70 Cherokee are reported (Milling 1969:270; Swanton 1946:111) to have initially participated in the Indian uprising known as the Yamassee War (1715-1716), that primarily involved the Yamassee, Creek, Congaree, Wateree, Waxaw and other Siouan speakers who had had enough of the abuses they had suffered at the hands of callous English traders, particularly the enslaving of women and children as collateral for unpaid debts (Milling 1969). During the Yamassee War, Creek emissaries tried to persuade the Cherokee to join them against the British, but the Lower Towns led by Conjuror and the Overhill Towns led by Caesar of Echota, promised to remain allies with the English and joined them in putting down the rebellious tribes (Crane 1929:179-182). Following the Yamassee War, the Cherokee maintained a fairly amicable relationship with the British until the latter end of the French and Indian War (1754-1763), when a number of British affronts (Swanton 1946: 112, 1952:222; Schroedl 2000:217-218) against the Cherokee precipitated the relatively brief Cherokee War (1760-1761), during which the Cherokee enjoyed initial successes such as the capture of Fort Loudon, but were later compelled to make peace after the English and their Indian allies laid waste to most of the Lower Towns in South Carolina and Georgia as well as the Middle and Outer Town Cherokee settlements of the upper Tennessee River (Swanton 1946:112; Schroedl 2000:218).

At the outbreak of the American Revolution, the Cherokee again remained loyal to the British and suffered the consequences of numerous American military raids into Cherokee territory. In 1776, General Griffith Rutherford and Colonel William Moore led the North Carolina militia in attacks against the Middle, Valley, and Outer Towns while South Carolina forces led by Colonel Andrew Williamson attacked the Lower Towns (Schroedl 2000:221-222). Finally, in November of 1776, a Virginia force led by Colonel William Christian burned five more Overhill Towns, while sparing Chota and several others (Schroedl 2000:222). Despite the establishment of a truce the following year, sporadic actions between the Cherokee and colonists occurred for the duration of the war, including an expedition led by Colonels John Sevier and Arthur Campbell against the Overhill Towns in 1780 in which ten towns including Chota were destroyed (Schroedl 2000:222). The ravages of the Revolutionary War eventually forced the Cherokee to flee the Lower Middle, Out and Valley Towns of North Carolina, South Carolina and eastern Georgia with many resettling within the Coosa River drainage in northwest Georgia (Smith 1979; Smith 1992:38); most of the Lower towns of east Georgia and South Carolina were never reoccupied. Even after armed conflict between the American colonists and Britain had ceased with the victory at Yorktown in 1781, the Cherokee continued hostilities with the fledgling nation. Peaceful relations were eventually restored following the Tellico conference held in 1794, but in the process the Cherokee had ceded nearly 50,000 square miles of land, lost virtually all their material possessions, and had diminished in population as a result of starvation, exposure, and disease.

In the ensuing years some Cherokee tried to maintain their traditional ways of life but many chose instead to adopt Euroamerican ways and agrarian lifestyles with the encouragement of the new U.S. government, including the adoption of a form of government modeled on that of the United States. The Cherokee also later aided American interests by serving as allies during the Creek War of 1813-1814, particularly at the decisive Battle at Horseshoe Bend in which 800 Redstick Creeks perished at the hands of Lower Creek, Cherokee, and American troops led by Andrew Jackson (de Grummond and Hamlin 2000). But continued encroachment by white settlers displaced many from their claimed lands until the signing of the treaty of New Echota in 1835, when the Cherokee sold all their remaining territory and conceded to American demands that they move west of the Mississippi River. Their forced migration to the “Indian Territories” of Oklahoma in the winter of 1838-39 was a journey of extreme hardship that resulted in the death of nearly one in four during the mass migration that has come to be known as the Trail of Tears (Milling 1969:332). At the time of their forced exodus to Oklahoma, several hundred Cherokee chose instead to flee to the mountains of western North Carolina where they survived as refugees until the Qualla Reservation was established for their use in 1842.

A Brief History of the Catawba

The Catawba were one of the Siouan-speaking tribes that occupied the upper Piedmont area during the time of the early Spanish expeditions into South Carolina during the mid 16^th century. They were apparently closely related to the Issa (Ysa, Iswa) that were encountered during Pardo’s expedition into the South Carolina interior in 1566-67. When John Lederer entered the North Carolina interior from Virginia in 1670, he too met the Catawba, referring to them as Ushery (Lederer 1672; Alvord and Bidgood 1912). What little is known regarding the Catawba way of life shortly after the arrival of the English to the Carolinas is derived largely from the writings of John Lawson (1709), who explored the Piedmont territory and visited the Catawba in 1701. When Lawson encountered the Catawba (“Kadapau”) at the beginning of the 18^th century, they were described as a distinct group, living less than a day’s travel from the Iswa (“Esaws”) (Lawson 1709:43) shown on Lawson’s map of the Carolinas as being located at the headwaters of the “West Branch” of the “Clarendon River” (i.e., the Catawba River); but as native populations in the Carolinas rapidly declined as a result of war and epidemic disease, the Catawba later merged with the Iswa and with the remnants of many other Siouan-speaking groups in the region. The Catawba were quick to make friends with the English, and remained faithful allies during most of the 18^th century, except for a brief period in 1715 in which they joined the Yamassee in their fight against the Carolinians. Their relationships with other neighboring tribes were not as friendly, however, as they alternately waged wars against the Shawnee, Delaware, Yuchi, Iroquois, Mobile, and Tuscarora Indians before they turned to join the Yamassee during their uprising in opposition to the slave-raiding of the Carolinians in 1715.

The Yamassee, Catawba, and their other native allies (Congaree, Santee, Sugeree, Wateree, Waxhaw) enjoyed some early successes, capturing several British forts and taking the lives of an estimated 200-400 colonists (Swanton 1952:115; Steen and Braley 1994:26), but the Carolinians eventually prevailed, exacting a terrible revenge of death and enslavement that virtually eliminated many native groups. The Catawba had sued for peace earlier than the other participating tribes (Swanton 1952:91) and therefore survived to absorb many of the remaining refugees, including the Iswa, Congaree, Santee and Wateree (Swanton 1952:93, 98, 101). Maintaining peaceful relations with the Carolinians after the Yamassee War, the Catawba nonetheless continued to suffer the attacks of their archenemies, the Shawnee and the Iroquois, despite attempts by the British to intervene and stop the fighting. Whittled down by warfare and decimated by disease epidemics in 1738 and 1759, they were able to muster only 60 warriors by the early 1760s (Swanton 1952:91-92). After they lent the English their assistance in fighting the Cherokee War (1760-1761), the Catawba were rewarded with the establishment of a small reservation along the upper Catawba River near the South Carolina border.

Almost immediately, the Catawba reservation suffered from the encroachment of the Carolina colonists, and despite assurances from the colonial government that the trespassers would be evicted, nothing was ever done. The lack of fidelity on the part of the English may have been a key reason the Catawba sided with the Patriots during the American Revolution, serving as scouts during the conflict. When the British army invaded South Carolina in 1780, the Catawba withdrew northward into Virginia and did not return until the Battle of Guilford Courthouse (March 15, 1781).

After the Revolutionary War, the South Carolina government still refused to deal with the problem of white encroachment on Catawba lands, and by 1826 almost all the reservation had been sold or leased to non-Indians (Swanton 1952:91). Finally, in 1840, the state of South Carolina agreed to purchase the Catawba’s lands and arrange for a new home for them in North Carolina. But North Carolina refused to set aside any property for such a purpose, and the Catawba were forced to return to South Carolina where a new reservation of 800 acres was eventually set aside for them, and where the main body of Catawba have remained ever since.

EUROPEAN COLONIZATION OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND THE HISTORY OF NINETY SIX

 Prior to the settlement of the English colony at Charles Town (Charleston, S.C.) in 1670, the South Carolina coast had been claimed and defended by the Spanish against rival European powers for over one and a quarter centuries. During that time, they attempted to bring the lands and the native peoples who already occupied the country the Spaniards called “La Florida” under their political and economic control.

The earliest documented contact between the Spanish and the Indians of South Carolina apparently occurred in 1521 when two Spanish ships sailing along the Georgia/South Carolina coast stopped at the mouth of a major river, brought on board some 70 natives and carried them off to Santa Domingo. Among the 70 was a member of the Shakori tribe known as Francisco of Chicora who became a servant of the man who had initiated the 1521 Spanish expedition that led to his capture, Lucas Vasquez de Ayllón. During his stay on Santa Domingo, Francisco of Chicora meet the historian Peter Martyr de Anghierra, who obtained from him an account of the Siouan peoples who apparently inhabited portions of the South Carolina coast at this time. Some 130 year later, when the English were exploring North Carolina in 1650, they found the “Shockoories” had relocated to an area between the Meherrin and Nottoway rivers (Swanton 1946:183). As happened with so many Native American tribes, dwindling numbers due to disease and military conflicts prompted subsequent migrations and eventually led to their amalgamation with the Catawba in the early 18th century.

The first attempt by the Spanish to settle in South Carolina began in 1525 when two ships under the command of Pedro de Quexos traveled along the Georgia/South Carolina coast to reconnoiter for favorable locations to establish a new colony, picking up one or two Indians from each province along the way to be trained as interpreters (Swanton 1946:36-37). The following summer Lucas Vasquez de Ayllón set off with 600 settlers in three large ships to the mouth of a river they dubbed the Jordan. They soon became dissatisfied with the location and relocated to another river which they called the Gualdape some 40 or 45 leagues south of the Jordan. The noted ethnohistorian, John Swanton (1946:37), of the opinion that Gualdape was part of the province of Guale, believed the Gualdape River was the Savannah River and that the Jordan was probably the Santee River (A conclusion that was also reached by DePratter [1989:136]). At Gualdape the Spanish settled again but briefly, abandoning the colony a few month later that winter as many of the colonists including its leader, Ayllón, died of disease.

Spanish Defense Against the French and English, 1560-1670

Spanish claim to South Carolina was threatened briefly by the French with the establishment of Charlesfort at the southern end of Paris Island in 1562 (DePratter et al. 1996) under the leadership of Jean Ribault. Learning of the French attempts to settle on their claimed lands, King Philip II of Spain ordered Captain Manrique de Rojas to find and destroy Charlesfort in 1564, unaware that the small detachment of men Ribault had left behind to guard the fort had already abandoned the small outpost and returned to France (DePratter et al. 1996). De Rojas leveled and burned what little remained standing of the abandoned French outpost, and returned to Cuba unaware that another expedition led by René Goulaine de Laudonničre was already enroute to the St. Johns River to establish another French colony, Fort Caroline (Brewer 2000). Fort Caroline soon fell on hard times, however, as food supplies ran low and Ribault failed to appear as scheduled that spring with additional supplies and men.

Following the renewed colonization efforts initiated by Laudonničre, King Phillip II ordered Captain Pedro Menéndez de Avilés to find the colony and destroy it. Assembling a force of over 1000 men and ten ships, Menéndez immediately set forth to drive the French out of Florida. In the meantime, Jean Ribault had arrived with five ships containing much needed supplies and reinforcements to the now beleaguered French colony. Arriving at the mouth of the St. Johns River within days of Ribault, Menéndez drove off four of the ships anchored offshore still waiting to offload their cargoes. An attempt to land ashore by Menéndez was thwarted by French cannon, so he sailed south approximately 36 miles to the next available inlet suitable for harboring his fleet where he found a village headed by the Cacique Seloy. There Menéndez founded St. Augustine on September 8, 1565.

Determined to prevent the Spanish from establishing a foothold in the area, Ribault decided to attack the Spanish with approximately 600 of his best men, using the ships just arrived from France—and not yet unloaded—leaving a nominal force of just over 200 behind to defend Fort Caroline. When Ribault and his fleet arrived off the bar at St. Augustine, his immediate plan to attack the Spanish encampment was thwarted by a low tide, which prevented his ships from entering the harbor. While he waited for high tide, a hurricane blew in from the north, scattering his ships southward and wrecking them along the Florida coast.

On the morning of September 20, 1565, taking advantage of Ribault's misfortune at the hands of the storm, Menéndez and some 400 Spaniards marched overland to attack Fort Caroline, routing the garrison and capturing the fort. Having eliminated the French, Menéndez returned to St. Augustine to strengthen its defenses. The following spring Menéndez sailed to the former site of Charlesfort on Parris Island which he renamed Santa Elena and established as the new capital of La Florida. Later that summer, Captain Juan Pardo arrived at Santa Elena with 250 men and was promptly sent inland to search for an overland route to Mexico and make contact with the natives to obtain food stuffs to supplement those on hand at Santa Elena (DePratter 1989:135).

That same year, Menéndez built Fort San Pedro on Cumberland Island after having negotiated a settlement in a dispute between the Guale of coastal Georgia and the Cusabo who were situated along the coast north of the Savannah River (Smith and Gottlob 1978). The name Guale was a blanket-term applied by the Spaniards to linguistically related Muskhogean-speaking peoples they found inhabiting the Atlantic coast from Georgia to South Carolina. Spanish missionization efforts by the Jesuits were begun among the Guale in 1570, but were deserted after only two years and were not re-established until the Franciscans arrived in 1584 (Smith and Gottlob 1978). The relations that were to follow between the Guale and Spaniards were somewhat tumultuous, to say the least, as the Spanish attempted to compel the Guale to abandon their native ways and become loyal subjects of the Spanish crown and church. Periodic Indian revolts, intertribal warfare, frequent abandonment, consolidation, and relocation of missions, devastating plagues, and eventual cultural extinction were the ultimate results of the Spanish colonial policy of bringing civilization to the Guale people (Swanton 1946:193; Worth 1995:13). It was a process that was to be hastened by the British resolve to strengthen their own claims in the New World and to do everything possible to subvert the attempts of the Spanish of doing likewise. South Carolina and Georgia would soon become disputed territory, with the English making further and further inroads into previously Spanish-claimed lands. The first of these inroads occurred in 1586 when Sir Francis Drake captured and burned St. Augustine. After this, the Spanish thought it prudent to consolidate their forces and abandoned Santa Elena to withdraw to more secure locations to the south. Although the Spanish had been compelled to remove their main forces southward, they continued to view South Carolina as part of their territory and attempted to defend it as their own as best they could.

Toward this end, Captain Francisco Fernandez de Ecija was dispatched from St. Augustine in 1605 and again in 1609 to search for an English colony that was said to be located somewhere along the coast of the Carolinas (Hann 1988), but failed in both instances to find any evidence of an English presence. Similar searches were conducted some years later under the command of Pedro de Torres, who led a small force of Spaniards and Indians in search of alleged European interlopers but failed on successive attempts in 1627 and 1628 to find any evidence of foreign intruders. Two decades earlier, of course, the English had already established a permanent foothold in the colony of Virginia with the establishment of Jamestown in 1607. After a shaky start in which the initial colonists suffered severe starvation and nearly abandoned the colony, Jamestown and Virginia began to experience an economic boom, in large part due to successes in the growing and marketing of tobacco. English settlers soon began to emigrate to Virginia in greater and greater numbers. And as the English population grew, the inhabitants of the tidewater area of southeastern Virginia began to seek out new lands, moving into the Albemarle area of northeast North Carolina by around 1650.

At first, many of the Indians of Virginia and Carolina viewed the English settlers as a welcome means of support against the Spaniards and their Guale and Timucua allies. The English too saw advantages both militarily and in the highly profitable fur and slave trades of arming their new Indian partners with musket and shot. This was a practice that was generally avoided by the Spanish and thereby placed their Indian allies at a disadvantage to their British supplied counterparts. Among these were the greatly feared Rechahecrians. Known to the Spanish as the Chichimeco and to the later English settlers of the Carolinas as the Westo (Worth 1995:17), the Rechahecrians/Chichimeco were regularly obtaining guns and ammunition from English traders in Virginia by the late 1650s. Armed and encouraged to raid their neighbors to obtain captives for the Virginia slave market, the Chichimeco had apparently occupied the middle Savannah River area in 1659 and began attacking the Spanish missions of coastal Georgia in 1661. Their first such target was Santo Domingo de Talaxe (Talaje), a Guale village near the mouth of the Altimaha River, where an estimated 500 to 2000 Chichimeco in the company of a few English traders seized a number of the village’s inhabitants, sending the rest fleeing to the safety of Sapalo Island (Worth 1995:15-16). After the Chichimeco had withdrawn inland, the survivors of Talaxe established a new mission called Santo Domingo de Asajo at the northern end of St. Simons Island, which already was home to the Mocama mission village of San Buenaventura de Guadalquini. Slave raids by the Chichimeco were not confined to the Guale missions, however, and attacks were frequently aimed at other native groups occupying Georgia and South Carolina. For example, when John Lederer entered the North Carolina interior from Virginia in 1670, he found that the Catawba were already among those experiencing the hostility of the Westo (Lederer 1672; Alvord and Bidgood 1912; Swanton 1922:296). And when the itinerant trader, Dr. Henry Woodward made first contact with the Chichimeco/Westo at their palisaded village ‘Hickauhauga’ midway along banks of the Savannah River four year later (Crane 1929:16), he found that they counted the Yuchi, the Lower Creeks, and the Cherokee living at the headwaters of the Savannah River among their many enemies. The depredations of the Chichimeco on these and other Native Americans inhabiting Carolina and Georgia would contribute substantially to the rise of an amalgamation of recently fragmented tribes that came to be known collectively as the Yamassee.

The Yamassee were a Muskhogean-speaking peoples who probably lived in the “Province of Altamaha” that was encountered by the members of the De Soto entrada as they passed through northeast Georgia in 1540 (Swanton 1952:115). They remained relatively unnoticed by the Spanish and English occupying the South Carolina and Georgia coast until 1663 when some Spanish friars mentioned that the “Yamasis” had settled within the province of Escamaçu immediately to the north of Guale to escape the aggression of the Chichimeco (Worth 1995:19-20). With continuing Chichimeco hostilities, the Yamassee relocated once more to the south and settled along side the remnants of the Spanish coastal missions where the Spanish welcomed their arrival as a means of bolstering the rapidly dwindling numbers of Guale and Mocama subjects upon which the Spaniards relied so heavily for labor and provisions. Unfortunately for the Spanish and their allies, the added protection which the influx of Yamassee afforded against British-incited Chichimeco aggression would quickly vanish with the founding of the English colony of Carolina in 1670.

Seven years earlier, in 1663, King Charles II granted a charter for a new colony south of Virginia to eight English noblemenľLord John Berkeley; Sir William Berkeley; Sir George Carteret; Sir John Colleton; Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper; Lord William Craven; Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon; and George Monck, Duke of Albemarleľwho had helped him to gain the throne of England. The eight “Lords Proprietors” were confident they could lure immigrants to settle their new colony not only from England but from previously established colonies in the New World, particularly Barbados where plantation owners sought to escape the now overcrowded island. It was the Barbadians, in fact, who sent Captain William Hilton to explore the Carolina coast in 1663 in preparation for such a move. Based on the glowing report that Hilton provided following his return (Hilton 1664), Barbadian settlers attempted to found a settlement at Cape Fear but were eventually forced to abandon the project just a few years later. During that time, Colonel Robert Sanford embarked southward from the short-lived Cape Fear settlement to explore the Carolina coast further. Like Hilton three years before him, Sanford described the lands of South Carolina in glowing terms upon his return (Salley 1911; Crane 1929:5; Wright 1971:50).

The English Colonize South Carolina, 1670-1700

So it was with great expectation that three English shipsľthe Albemarle, the Port Royal, and the Carolinaľset sail from England in 1669 to found a new settlement along the southern coast of South Carolina. Assailed by storms and stopping in Barbados to take on additional colonists and replace battered ships, the immigrants’ vessels eventually arrived and dropped anchor off the coast of South Carolina on March 15, 1670. Bypassing the Port Royal Sound area where they had originally intended to establish their colony, their initial settlement was established instead at Albemarle Point on the western side of the Ashley River. Ever fearful of attack, the colonists immediately fortified their new settlement (Chevis 1897; Sirmans 1966; South 1969, 1989); a precaution that later proved quite prudent as three Spanish ships and 14 pirogues of Indians under the command of Juan Menéndez Marquéz sailed to attack the colony just a few months later in August 1670, but were forced to withdraw because of bad weather (Crane 1929:10; Wright 1971:53). This would not be the last attempt by the Spanish to forcibly evict the English from South Carolina (Wright 1971).

Although the first few years in Charles Town were arduous for the early colony’s inhabitants, the community quickly prospered and grew as a important seaport. The nearby forests yielded rich timber and naval stores such as pitch and tar for the shipping industry. Wealthy colonists, many of them Barbadians, employed African and Indian slaves on their extensive plantations to grow indigo, cattle, tobacco and rice for export. Those involved in the lucrative fur and slave trades prospered. This general prosperity did not extend to the coffers of the Lord Proprietors, however, who profited little from the Carolinas, in large part due to their own poor management, indifference, and recurring disputes between the colonists and the proprietors’ appointed governors (Ferris 1968:122).

As the English in Carolina grew in prosperity, Spanish fortunes and those of their Indian allies rapidly declined. With supplies of guns and ammunition now much closer at hand, slave raids by the Chichimeco continued unabated as did the gradual retreat of Spanish missions to the south. By 1675, the province of Mocama was settled mainly by non-christian Yamassee while the christianized population of the Guale and Mocama had been reduced to a total of only 326 individuals (Worth 1995:28). In that same year two Yamassee townsľSan Simón and Ocotonicoľwere established on St. Simon’s Island between the missions of San Buenaventura de Guadalquini and Santo Domingo de Asajo. Sixty-one years later in 1736 the old abandoned fields of San Simón would be chosen by Georgia’s founding governor, James Edward Oglethorpe, as the spot to build the military post, Fort Frederica, to protect his new colony from Spanish attack; but it was an earlier attack in 1680 by England’s Indian allies that ultimately led to San Simón being vacant when the English arrived on St. Simons Island. It was in late April of that year that an English-led party of some 300 Indians composed of Chichimeco, Uchise, and Chiluque attacked the Spanish missions once again, preying first upon the small Yamassee (“Colones”) town of San Simón before attacking the mission at Santa Catalina de Guale located on St. Catherines Island. Although only a few Yamassee and Guale were killed in the 1680 attack, it was enough to convince many of the former inhabitants to move elsewhere yet again. Only a few of the Yamassee could be persuaded to return to their villages and fields at San Simón, and the village of Santa Catalina de Guale, which had been burned to the ground, was completely abandoned (Thomas 1988:15; Worth 1995:32). A census taken by the Spaniards the following year showed that the 40 Yamassee that had occupied San Simón in 1675 was now reduced to a mere 17 individuals and that Guale and Mocama had been effectively reduced to five mission towns with a few outlying settlements (Worth 1995:34). Had it not been for a recent souring of relationships between the British and the Chichimeco, the Spanish missions would probably have suffered more at the hands of their recent assailants. As it was, the Spanish missions gained a short reprieve as the Carolinians become fed up with the Chichimeco/Westo for their repeated attacks on other Indians that had allied themselves to the British, particularly the Cusabo, and decided their elimination was the best solution to the problem. Joined by a band of Shawnee also known as the Savannah Indians, the Carolinians and their Shawnee allies succeeded in driving the Westo from the middle Savannah River region, with the Westo survivors seeking refuge among the Yuchi further up the river (Swanton 1952:99, 103-104).

With the conclusion of the Westo War in 1681, the path was now open for the English to extend their influence westward by establishing trading relations with the Cherokee and the Creeks, thereby adding to the rancor of the Spanish who wished to keep the British out (Hann 1988:188-189). Large numbers of the Lower Creeks (Apalachicola) living along the Chattahoochee River began to relocate to the Fall Line region near the Ocmulgee and Oconee Rivers to take advantage of closer trade opportunities with the Charles Town colonists, and by the early 1690s many had settled near what is now Macon, Georgia and along the lower Savannah River (Worth 2000:279). The Charles Town traders welcomed the arrival of the Creek, who, according to one official report consumed a “great quantity of English Goods” (Colonial Office Papers 5:1264, cited in Crane 1929:37).

In the year prior to the conclusion of the Westo War, the prospering English community at Albemarle Point (Old Charles Town), now boasting a population of some 1200 people, moved across the river to the more defensible neck of land between the Ashley and Cooper rivers, where the new capitol of Charles Town had been laid out following a square grid. Persecution in Europe and promises of religious freedom in Carolina also led to the influx of additional settlers into South Carolina. Among these were French Huguenots who began arriving in Charles Town in 1680. In 1683, a vanguard of 30 Scottish Presbyterians led by Henry Erskine founded Stewarts Town near Port Royal, South Carolina, and prepared for the coming of another nearly 150 Scots who would arrive the following year (Wright 1971:57). In the eyes of the Spanish, the establishment of Stuart’s Town clearly violated their territorial claims as established by the Treaty of Madrid signed with England in 1670.

But this affront paled in comparison with an attack that was carried out in early spring of the same year by a fleet of English and French pirates led by Monsieur de Grammont. Denied his original goal of plundering St. Augustine in April of 1683, Grammont and his pirate fleet turned northward to pillage the missions along Georgia’s coastal island (Worth 1995:36). Faced with the threat of future buccaneer raids, nearly all the Yamassee abandoned the Spanish mission towns they had settled less than two decades before, cutting the Indian populations of Guale and Mocama in half. Among the few mission towns that remained occupied in Georgia following the Grammont raid were the Yamassee, Guale and Mocama villages of San Simón, Santo Domingo de Asajo and San Buenaventura de Guadalquini on St. Simons Island, the Guale mission of San Joseph de Sapala on Sapelo Island, and the Guale mission of San Phelipe on the Isle de San Pedro (Cumberland Island). Interestingly, a map prepared by Alonso Solana in documenting the state of the mission system shortly after the Grammont raid shows a “Pueblo de Ynfieles” on Hilton Head Island, north of the Savannah River. It has been pointed out that this “Town of Pagans” was probably the new residence of the Yamassee, after having fled northward from the Spanish missions hoping to establish peaceful relations with the English (Worth 1995:37). The Spanish mission population that remained following the 1683 attack was now spread too thin to defend against the possibility of future sea rover raids, so another consolidation and relocation of missions toward St. Augustine was ordered once more. Within the next two years, during which additional pirate attacks befell the Spanish missions including those on St. Simons Island (Worth 1995:40-42), all the coastal islands in Georgia were abandoned in favor of missions clustered on Amelia Island and near the mouth of the St. Johns River.

Meanwhile, the Scots led by Lord Cardross (Henry Erskine) had settled Stuart’s Town on Santa Elena Island near the mouth of the Edisto River where they quickly made alliances with the Yamassee who had recently settled on St. Helena Island and Hilton Head Island under the leadership of Chief Altamaha (Crane 1929:25). Eager to gain a share of the lucrative Indian slave trade, Lord Cardross began to arm the Yamassee and encouraged them to make war as a means of taking captives (Crane 1929:28-29). Provided with 30 shotguns and cutlasses, approximately 50 Yamassee set out in February of 1685 on a slave-raid across Georgia and northern Florida laying waste to the mission at Santa Catalina de Afuyca, killing some 50 Timucuans and taking a score of prisoners back to Carolina for sale as slaves (Crane 1929:31; Worth 1995:45). The Yamassee also began to filter southward occupying the islands that had been recently abandoned by the Spanish including Sapelo and St. Catherines Island. The Spanish Governor in St. Augustine could tolerate the intercessions of the English and their new Yamassee allies no longer. Consequently, in August of 1686, the Spanish and their Indian allies set sail in three small ships to attack Stuart’s Town. Finding the settlement poorly defended, the Spanish burned the town, then pressed northward after the fleeing English colonists, sacking outlying English plantations along the way. The Spanish invasion was soon thwarted, however, when the arrival of a hurricane and the loss of their flagship and another vessel forced them to abandon their invasion of south Carolina (Crane 1929:31; Worth 1995:46).

Reports of the Spanish attack on Stuart’s Town soon reached Charleston where the Carolina colonists immediately prepared to retaliate with an attack on St. Augustine. The foray was canceled, however, when the newly arrived Governor Colleton, forbade the counterattack in the belief that a more peaceful coexistence between the Spanish and English colonists would better benefit the Carolina colony. In the decade that followed, a period of latent hostility developed between the two rival nations as they temporarily pursued the mutual goal of thwarting King Louis XIV’s expansionist goals for France. Frictions still persisted, however, between the English and Spanish colonists. African slaves that had been escaping from Carolina since the mid-1680s were promised sanctuary in Spanish Florida if they agreed to convert to Catholicism (Deagan and MacMahon 1995), while the English and their Indian allies continued to capture Spanish Indians for sale as slaves in the Carolinas and abroad. Nonetheless, hostilities remained relatively subdued until the death of Charles II of Spain in 1700 threw Europe into political turmoil and the major powers confronted one another in the second of a series of lengthy wars that would be fought simultaneously in the American colonies and in Europe over a period of some seventy-odd years beginning in 1689 (Table 3). In the Southeast, this period of successive wars was fought with native tribes at the forefront of the conflict. In fact, in many cases, Indian parties formed the majority of the participants in the conflicts that were fought between the hostile nations.

This and other transgressions against the Indians, sparked the Yamassee War which ultimately had such disastrous consequences for those who chose to bear arms against the English colonists. Before they were crushed, the Yamassee and their other Indian allies (Creeks, etc.) killed hundreds of Carolinians before the English militia and their Indian allies (Cherokee, Cusabo, etc.) crushed the insurrection by massacring and capturing thousands of Yamassee, Congaree, Santee, Sewee, Wateree, Apalachee and others (Swanton 1952:91-104). The vanquished who were not killed or captured and sold into slavery either surrendered and pledged future loyalty to the English or sought protection by fleeing to western Georgia and Alabama and to what little remained of Spanish controlled Florida. The Yamassee were among those who chose the last option, and some 500 are said to have settled near St. Augustine in 1716 (Bushnell 1994:195).

The Yamassee War and the routing of the Yamassee, Apalachee, Congaree, and other native groups that had previously occupied eastern Georgia and South Carolina prior to 1716 now left the English colony’s Indian trade disrupted and their southwestern frontier deserted with no Indian allies to act as a buffer between them and their not so distant European adversaries, the French in Alabama and the Spanish in Florida. In the geopolitical vacuum that was thus created, the confederation of native groups that made up the Upper and Lower Creek towns that occupied the Alabama and Chattahoochee River drainages now found themselves being courted on all sides by the English, French, and Spanish as the European powers attempted to bring the various remaining Indian tribes in the region under their sphere of influence. English attempts to draw the dispelled Indian groups, including Creek and Yamassee, back toward South Carolina following the Yamassee war were largely unsuccessful, although a small band of Chickasaws did relocate near Savannah Town in 1723. At the same time, the English went about extending and securing their boundaries as best they could by constructing a number of outposts or small forts including, among others, Fort Moore in 1717 at Savannah Town on the bluff overlooking the Savannah River (Crane 1929:187-188) and Fort Congaree in 1718 at the confluence of Congaree Creek and the Congaree Riverľwhere the trading path to the Cherokee via Ninety Six diverged from the path leading to the Catawba (Crane 1929:188; Steen and Braley 1994:27).

The Yamassee War had another unforeseen consequence for the Lord Proprietors of South Carolina: widespread dissention among the colonists against proprietory rule. During the Indian uprising of 1715-1716 and also as a result of continuing postwar raids by the Yamassee and hostile Creeks, many South Carolinians viewed the Lord Proprietors as unresponsive to the dangers faced by the colonists directly at the hands of their Indian attackers and indirectly by the French, who were commonly perceived as the instigators of the Indian insurrection. This feeling was amplified among the colonists when the French began to make inroads on their western frontier with the establishment of Fort Toulouse in central Alabama in 1717. Lack of decisive action on the part of the Lord Proprietors to counter the perceived “encroachments” of the French came to a head during the War of the Quadruple Alliance (1718-1720). Again, political developments in Europe led to conflict in the New World; this time the quadruple alliance of Austria, England, France, and Holland opposed the aspirations of King Philip V of Spain in Italy. In the short-term conflict during which France found itself at war with Spain, the French attempted to extend their influence from Mobile eastward by taking Pensacola. The Spanish garrison at Pensacola surrendered to the French on May 15, 1719, and were put aboard two vessels bound for Cuba. They were met on the way by a Spanish fleet enroute to attack Charles Town, but learning of the recent capture of Pensacola by the French, changed course to recapture Pensacola instead, thereby saving the English colony from a seaward assault. Although the Spanish attack on Charles Town never materialized, news of Spanish plans to attack Charles Town reached the Carolinians, who brought the matter to the proprietary government. When their requests for better defenses were largely ignored (Crane 1929:217), a bloodless insurrection ensued and anti-proprietary leaders named James Moore as governor of South Carolina in the name of the King. After the colonists’ list of grievances were presented to the government in London, the Lord Proprietors were unable to overcome the political opposition that was brought against them. On August 11, 1720, the government of South Carolina was provisionally placed in the hands of the Crown (Crane 1929:220). And, although they continued to hold title to their Carolina estates for another nine years, the Lord Proprietors no longer held any effective power in the administration of the colony. In 1729, when seven of the eight proprietors with interests in the colony were finally bought out by the crown, South Carolina was formally established as a Royal Colony (Crane 1929:290).

While the Carolinians worked toward strengthening their colony’s military preparedness following the Yamassee War, the Spanish did likewise. In their recruitment of refugee Indian groups, the Spanish were successful in getting some of the displaced Apalachee to relocate near the presidio of San Marcos, established at present day St. Marks, Florida in 1718 to help counter French ambitions in western Florida (Crane 1929:258; Hann 1988:313). The Spanish attempts to lure other native groups, particularly the Lower Creeks (called the “Apalachicola” by the Spaniards), to also resettle in Florida were much less successful, however, as the Lower and the Upper Creeks saw greater advantages in taking a relatively neutral position between the three rival European colonies in order to reap the economic benefits of lavish gifts and offers of favorable trading terms by the competing English, French and Spanish envoys. With their former English trade links in disarray, the “Grand Chief” of the Alabama (one of the four principal divisions of the Upper Creeks, the others being the Abihka, the Tallapoosa and the Okfuskee) invited the French colonists at Mobile, which had been founded as a means of checking British influence among the western Indian tribes at the onset of Queen Anne’s War, to establish a trading post (Fort Toulouse) at the confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa Rivers. This they did under the command of lieutenant La Tour on July of 1717 (Crane 1929:256). Only a month later, however, English emissaries arrived in the region and began winning over the friendship of the neighboring Abikha and Tallapoosa, in large part due to the failure of the French to present adequate gifts (Crane 1929:257-258). Meanwhile, the Spanish had impressed a congregation of Apalachee and Lower Creek headmen, particularly Seepeycoffee, the son of the Coweta chief, Brims, at a meeting held at St. Augustine (Crane 1929:258). They returned to their villages with a dozen Spanish soldiers to pick a site for establishing a Spanish post among the Lower Creeks, only to find that “Emperor” Brims and others of the Lower Creek towns had come to friendly terms with the recently arrived English traders, and were unwilling to commit to a strictly Spanish alliance despite heated debate and fractional dissidence among those Lower Creek members who favored committing their allegiance to the Spanish (Crane 1929:258).

Although they were referred to as the “Creek Indians” by the English, the use of this singular term greatly glossed over what was actually an amalgam of fairly autonomous Muskogean speaking peoples who politically and ethnically distinguished themselves from one another on the basis of the talwa (“town”) they belonged to (Paredes and Plante 1975; Waselkov and Smith 2000; Worth 2000). As the crises that affected the Creek Indians grew during the late 17th and early 18th century, the loosely aligned towns sometimes acted together in dealing with the competing European powers, but at other times they conducted their affairs quite independent of one another. In their various dealings with the Europeans, the Creek seem to have made little secret of the fact that obtaining European trade goods and ammunition were among their primary purposes in establishing political alliances (Hann 1988:312; Bushnell 1994), and in this regard the English traders soon proved most able to provide the requisite supplies. English relations with the Creeks were complicated, however, by the continued state of hostilities that existed between the Creeks and the Cherokee following the Yamassee War.

The Cherokees had fought on the side of the British against the Creeks during the Yamassee War, and the Creeks and the Cherokees remained bitter foes toward one another even after both groups has established relatively peaceful relations with the British. Although some English colonists welcomed the rivalry that existed between the Creek and Cherokee as a means of preventing their uniting together to form another Indian uprising against the colonists, ultimately, the English viewed the Creek and Cherokee rivalry as a threat to English interests and tried to establish peace between them, but were unable to get representatives of the Upper and Lower Creeks to smoke the peace pipe with the Cherokee until January 1727 (Crane 1929:269-270). Some factions of the Upper and Lower Creeks remained at odds with the English, however, particularly those who were being courted by the French operating out of Mobile and Fort Toulouse.

During the time the English colonists were trying to end the hostilities between the Cherokee and the Creek, English slave traders were pursuing friendly relations among the Chickasaw and Choctaw, who were also hostile toward one another. English overtures among the Chickasaw were more successful, which led to Chickasaw attacks on the Yazoo, Koroa, Choctaw, and other French allies living along the lower Mississippi (Swanton 1946:117). In return, the French were able to induce their Choctaw allies to wreak revenge on the Chickasaw. In a brutal attack that was launched in early 1723, the Choctaw destroyed the largest Chickasaw town and reportedly killed some 400 Chickasaws (Crane 1929:273). Fleeing the onslaught of their Choctaw attackers, small groups of Chickasaw refugees found asylum among the Creek and Cherokee. One small body of Chickasaw migrated to the banks of the Savannah River near Fort Moore where they subsequently assisted the South Carolinians in their clashes with the Yamassee (Crane 1929:190; Milling 1969:188). The western Chickasaw towns soon made peace with the French, however, and stayed in northern Mississippi, where they remained an important objective of South Carolina’s trade entrepreneurs despite the great distance and attempts by the French to prevent English influences.

England’s worries regarding European competition in the Southeast during the early 18th century had become greatly focused on France’s continuous efforts to extend its influence eastward from the Mississippi valley and Mobile, but the continuing threat posed by the Yamassee in Florida also required the attentions of the English colonists. The military outposts that had been constructed along South Carolina’s southern border following the Yamassee War had not been enough to allay the Yamassee raids on English plantations. The English responded by encouraging their Indian allies to strike back at Yamassee towns in Florida (Swanton 1946:210; Bushnell 1994:196; Hann 1988:292). In 1728, the Carolinians decided to bring the conflict directly to the doorsteps of St. Augustine as punishment for sheltering marauding Yamassee. On March 9th of that year, an army of 100 South Carolinians and 100 Indians led by Colonel John Palmer attacked the Yamassee town of Nombre de Dios within view of the Spanish capital. The firing of cannon from Castillo de San Marcos helped persuade the attackers from attempting to take the Spanish town itself, but the Spaniards did little more than watch from the safety of the Castillo de San Marcos as the attacking force burned and looted the Yamassee town. Although Palmer’s three day siege had resulted in the death of only 30 Yamassee and taking of 15 prisoners (Crane 1929:250), it greatly reduced Spanish prestige in the eyes of the interior tribes, particularly among the Lower Creek who now received English overtures with greater favor.

At the dawn of the third decade of the 1700s, the English colonists of South Carolina were enjoying improved relations with the majority of their Indian neighbors, and English trade was once again burgeoning across the frontier. The Cherokee, who had been the most steadfast of South Carolina’s Indian allies, were now among their most important trading partners, and the founding of Ninety Six would be a consequence of that trade.

The Founding of Ninety Six, 1730-1760

The Cherokee Path, the most direct route between Charleston and the Cherokee towns (Image 4), had become a major thoroughfare for trappers and traders traveling between the coast and the frontier. The first documented use of the Cherokee Path by the British was recorded by Captain George Chicken, who led a militia detachment to the coast via the trail in 1716. At a point on the Cherokee Path that was said to be 96 miles from the Cherokee town of Keowee, Capt. Chicken and his unit blazed a new trail southwestward to the Savannah River. Ninety Six arose at the junction of these two trails.

The people who first settled in the vicinity of Ninety Six in the 1730s initially had no formal claims to the land. Thomas Brown, a trader who had resided previously at the Congarees, was the first to seek formal title to a tract of land, 250 acres, at Ninety Six. However, his 1736 claim had not been settled by the time of his death in 1737 (Cann 1974:2).

Ten years after Thomas Brown submitted his claim at Ninety Six, agents made a request to the colonial assembly to encourage British subjects to settle near Ninety Six by offering all new immigrants an exemption from all provincial taxes, except those exacted on slaves. At Governor James Glen’s recommendation, the assembly voted to suspend the specified taxes to all northern frontier residents for a period of 15 years.

To preempt any negative reactions that the Cherokee might have to an influx of new settlers into the high country, Governor Glen met with 61 Cherokee headmen at Ninety Six on June 1, 1746, to reaffirm peaceful relations. A few months later, in February of 1747, a transfer of the lands in the Long Canes Creek and Little River drainages was negotiated with the Cherokee in exchange for ammunition valued at ₤975.

With the promise of peace, there came an influx of land speculators to the Ninety Six area. Foremost among them was John Hamilton who in 1749 acquired title to 200,000 acres just south of the Ninety Six area, and commissioned a survey in 1751 in order to subdivide and sell it. The northern line of the survey, commonly known as Hamilton’s Great Survey Line (or the 1751 grant line) which ran in a northeast to southwest direction, is still a visible landmark (National Park Service 1979:9).

Among the first to arrive were Dr. John Murray from Charleston, John Turk from Virginia, James Francis from Saludy Old Town, Andrew Williamson from Scotland, and John Lewis Gervais, a German immigrant. By the summer of 1751, Robert Gouedy had purchased 250 acres at Ninety Six just south of the Great Survey Line and had constructed a trading post along the Cherokee Path (also referred to as Charleston Road) that passed through his property. Gouedy had previously been a trader at Great Tellico, a village of the Overhill Cherokees from whom Gouedy had obtained an Indian wife who later bore him three daughters. When he settled at Ninety Six, Gouedy soon married a white woman, Mary, who also bore him two children, James and Sarah. His trading post prospered, and at Gouedy’s death in 1775, his land holdings had exceeded 1500 acres, his “Ninety Six Plantation” had 34 black slaves, and the trading post had become the center of activity for a large section of the high country. Serving as both commercial center and bank for the backcountry area, 400 settlers and traders had open accounts at Gouedy’s store when he died in 1775 (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1777:21).

The influx of settlers into the South Carolina high country caused the relations between the settlers and the Cherokees to deteriorate, finally breaking down in the spring of 1751 when a theft of 331 deerskins from a Cherokee hunting camp by white raiders went unpunished by the magistrate at Ninety Six (Cann 1974:7). By summer, retaliatory Indian raids became a constant threat, so two militia units were dispatched to patrol the high country. And, at the request of the local populace, the militia built a small military outpost on Gouedy’s property.

Following the deaths of several white settlers along the frontier, peace was restored for a brief period in 1753 when the British agreed to pay for the stolen deerskins and to help protect the Cherokee from their Indian enemies by building Fort Prince George at Keowee. Ninety Six then became a supply station and rest stop for those traveling to the Keowee fort. Construction of another fort, Fort Loudoun, among the Overhill Cherokee in eastern Tennessee was subsequently begun in April of 1757 following negotiations two years earlier in which the Cherokee promised assistance to the British in fighting the French and their Indian allies in their most recently begun military campaign for North American territoriesľthe French and Indian War (1754-1763).

The previous war, the War of Austrian Succession (known as King George’s War in the American colonies) had begun in 1740 and ended in 1748 with the signing of the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, which restored to France all the possessions it had lost in North America. The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle proved, however, to be little more than an uneasy truce between the vying powers with isolated skirmishes that quickly escalated into full conflict when the French built a series of forts in western Pennsylvania then seized the Forks of the Ohio in 1754. At first the British suffered several military setbacks against the French, but by 1758 the tide had turned and the British enjoyed victory after victory. British military success and the promise to aid in the war against the French, however, did not prevent some Cherokee from accepting overtures from their supposed enemies and switching alliances to attack British settlers in the Carolinas and Georgia in 1759.

To counter the threat of additional Cherokee attacks, William Henry Lyttelton, who had succeeded Glen as Governor of South Carolina in 1757, promptly proceeded with reinforcements of over 1300 men to Fort Prince George. Stopping at Ninety Six along the way, it was decided that a stockade fort and magazine should be built to protect the local citizenry. To expedite the construction, Gouedy’s barn was chosen to function as the fort’s magazine. A stockade measuring ninety feet square was then constructed around the barn with sheds added to one side of it to shelter the garrison troops. The stockade, consisting of upright logs set firmly into an earthen embankment with a facing ditch, was completed on November 27, 1759, having been constructed in less than a week. It included two bastions at diagonally opposite corners, a banquette (firing step), and a gate. This outpost, dubbed Fort Ninety Six, was the scene of several conflicts between the British and Cherokee during what is aptly viewed as a war within the French and Indian War, the Cherokee War (1760-1762).

The Cherokee War, 1760-1762

By the end of January 1760, the threat of Indian attack had prompted many settlers and their families to gather at Fort Ninety Six for safety. On February 2, a patrol from the fort took two Cherokee warriors prisoner, and the following day approximately 40 Cherokees attacked the fort, ultimately suffering 2 casualties and burning all the buildings on the Gouedy plantation except the successfully defended fort before withdrawing. The fort was besieged again briefly one month later when about 250 Cherokee attacked the fort at Gouedy’s on March 3. Under near-constant gunfire for roughly 36 hours, the garrison inside the fort suffered only two wounded, while the Cherokee reportedly suffered six dead. Before they withdrew, the Cherokee destroyed as much as they could within two miles of Ninety Six, setting fire to buildings, ruining grain supplies, and killing livestock (Cann 1974:11, 1996:5).

Asking for assistance in the war against the Cherokee, the provincial government’s requests were answered with the arrival of over 1300 British regulars under the command of Colonel Archibald Montgomery in Charleston on April 5, 1760. Proceeding to Fort Prince George where he intended to launch his military campaign against the Overhill Cherokee, Montgomery and his regulars rested at Fort Ninety Six for four days in late May before completing the journey to Fort Prince George, leaving 50 men behind at Fort Ninety Six to protect his supply route. Montgomery’s dreams of a quick and decisive military campaign were short lived, however, as the Cherokee avoided any confrontations until June 24th, when they ambushed Montgomery and his men while enroute to attack Echoe. Seventeen British were killed and another 66 were wounded in the fracas, while the Cherokee reportedly lost 50 men (Cann 1974:12). Stinging over the loss of his men, and having destroyed the Cherokee towns of Echoe and Estatoe but without exacting any severe blows to the Cherokee, Montgomery considered the Indian campaign concluded and returned to New York.

Montgomery’s failure to engage the Cherokee further soon led to the fall of Fort Loudoun, which surrendered its forces on August 8, 1760, after a siege of several months reduced the garrison to near starvation. Allowed to withdraw from the fort under the terms of the surrender, the retreating British garrison was attacked less than 15 miles from the fort. Twenty-seven men and three women were killed (Ferris 1968:379), and Captain John Stuart and 26 men were captured and marched off to the Cherokee towns where some were tortured and killed while others were later ransomed to South Carolina and Virginia.

Montgomery’s failure to subdue the Cherokee necessitated a second British campaign against the Cherokee in 1761, this time led by Lt. Colonel James Grant. While Grant drilled and prepared his forces for the impending campaign at Charleston, Major William Moultrie and 220 soldiers were sent to Fort Ninety Six to establish an advance supply base for the army. Moultrie’s first order of business was to erect a new fort near old Fort Ninety Six for the use of Grant’s army. Rodeffer (1985:54-55) has suggested that the site of this new stockade, named Fort Middleton (Greene 1979:38), may have been at the juncture of the Keowee/Whitehall, Island Ford, and Charleston Roads, which was later chosen as the place to build Ninety Six Village. Moultrie then made some major structural modifications to the original 1759 fort, including enlarging the stockade by tearing down one side and extending it outward by 30 feet (to accommodate at least two new storehouses for provisions for Grant’s army).

Grant and his troops arrived at Ninety Six in mid-May and made final preparations for his campaign against the Cherokee. History repeated itself with only one minor engagement occurring early in the campaign near Cowhowee, when the Cherokee ambushed the British and inflicted a loss of 19 dead and 52 wounded upon Grant’s army before fleeing the scene of the battle. For the remainder of the campaign, Grant met virtually no opposition as he marched his troops from one abandoned village to the next, burning the houses and fields as they went. Deprived of their homes and crops, the Cherokee soon capitulated and sued for peace. The Cherokee were required to return all prisoners and property seized during the war, to allow the British to build forts on their territory, and were prohibited from journeying below Keowee without permission.

The victorious Carolinians were also able to force additional land concessions from the defeated Cherokee, who surrendered to the English all lands south of a straight line drawn between the Reedy and Savannah Rivers, a line which today serves as the boundary between nearby Abbeville and Anderson Counties (The Historic Group 1981:72). Now open to white settlement, the South Carolina frontier was flooded by immigrants, mostly of Scotch-Irish and German descent, who traveled overland along the Great Philadelphia Wagon Road from Pennsylvania and North Carolina as well as by sea through Charleston and thence inland by road.

Although the end of the Cherokee War and the subsequent land concessions made South Carolina’s high country safer for white settlement, there were still social and political problems facing those who settled the Carolina Piedmont. With no constabulary, local residents who were easy prey for outlaws, resorted to vigilante groups to mete out frontier justice until the South Carolina General Assembly finally provided the backcountry with law enforcement authority in 1769. This took the physical form of courthouses and jails to be built in each of seven judicial districts. The law authorizing these structures in the Ninety Six District specified that the buildings be made of wood (Cann 1974:18). The structures were finished in 1772 (Cann 1974:19) on two of several lots that had been set aside in 1769 by John Savage for the purpose of establishing a town to be named Ninety Six along the Charleston Road just north of the Great Survey Line that separated his 400 acres from Gouedy’s plantation (South 1971:53).

The remoteness and relatively low economic status of the majority of high country settlers also left most of the settlers in the Ninety Six area in the early 1770s feeling disenfranchised from the system of colonial government, whose control rested primarily in the hands of the wealthier low land bureaucrats. Unaffected by many of the economic and political concerns that confronted the low country inhabitants, such as the recent taxes levied on luxury goods (e.g., Townshend Duty Act of 1767 and Tea Act of 1773), the high country was far less receptive to the calls for independence from British rule that were now being circulated in Charleston and the colonies to the north. The dumping of tea into the harbor at Boston by the Sons of Liberty in defiance of the Tea Act, and Britain’s reprisals against the Bostonians as punishment, prompted the meeting of the First Continental Congress to solidify colonial opposition against Parliament’s actions, and direct the formation of a provincial congress in each of the colonies. When news of the skirmishes at Concord and Lexington reached South Carolina in June of 1775, the members of the South Carolina provincial congress met to form a provisional separatist government and began recruiting South Carolinians to the patriotic cause.

The Battle of Williamson’s Fort

William Henry Drayton and the Reverend William Tennent were among those sent to the high country to enlist support against the Crown. Traveling the backcountry in the summer of 1775, they were met with strong opposition from the high country Loyalists. When their reports of Loyalist opposition reached the provisional government, they granted Drayton full authority to take the necessary measures for “eradicating the opposition” (Cann 1974:31). By early September, Drayton had followed the council’s orders by setting up headquarters at Ninety Six and assembled a militia of 225 patriots. Learning that opposing forces were gathering against him under the leadership of staunch Loyalist, Colonel Fletchall, commander of the Upper Saluda militia, Drayton made plans to attack the Loyalist militia before they could do the same to him.  The threat of civil war loomed until Fletchall and Drayton met on September 16, 1775, and reached a temporary peace that many Loyalists objected to as an act of betrayal to the Crown.

Aware that if war with Britain was to occur, an alliance or at least neutrality with the Cherokee would be key to Patriot success, Drayton now traveled to the Congarees to meet with representatives of the tribe to garner their support. To help secure Cherokee friendship, the provincial government agreed to provide the Cherokee with 1000 pounds of lead and an equal amount of powder for their winter hunt. When word of the munitions shipment was leaked along with the rumor that the supplies were intended for a Loyalist massacre, the Loyalists seized them in transport a few miles south of Ninety Six. The wagon driver transporting the shipment was released and proceeded directly to Ninety Six where he reported the seizure to Major James Mayson (Cann 1974:37). Mayson then sent word to Major Andrew Williamson, who commanded a body of Patriot militia camped on Long Cane Creek. Vowing to recover the stolen ammunition and punish the takers, Williamson began organizing his militia for punitive action.

Meanwhile, the Loyalists, nearly 1900 men strong and deciding to take advantage of their recent acquisition of ample ammunition, struck out to attack Ninety Six under the command of Captain Patrick Cunningham. When Major Williamson learned of the impending assault, he ordered the hasty construction of a rude fort approximately 250 yards west of the Ninety Six jail that incorporated a barn and some outbuildings located on Colonel John Savage’s plantation. The Loyalists arrived before the makeshift fort could be completed and surrounded the badly outnumbered Patriots who consisted of 562 officers and men (Cann 1974:37).

The Loyalists demanded the Patriots surrender, but Williamson refused. But apparently neither side was keen on beginning hostilities, and half a day passed before shooting broke out when the Loyalists seized two of Williamson’s men after they wandered from the fort, presumably to get a drink from the nearby stream, Spring Branch. The exchange in fire had little effect on both sides, but the Patriots were cut off from access to water in the fort. To solve this problem, a well was dug inside the fort, reaching water at a depth of 40 feet. Two days later, hostilities were suspended after it was agreed the Patriots would be allowed to go free if they dismantled the fort, filled in the well, and handed over the swivel guns in their possession to the Loyalists. The Loyalists also agreed to return the swivel guns to the Patriot forces in three days time. Thus ended the first Revolutionary War engagement south of New England. Each side had suffered only one death and several wounded, but the skirmish galvanized Patriotic fervor in Charleston, and in less than a month an army of 4000 men was raised to crush the Loyalists in the backcountry. Fighting in unusually cold weather and heavy snow, the “Snow Campaign” was a resounding triumph for the Patriot forces led by Colonel Richard Richardson. Following several successful skirmishes in which Richardson’s troops defeated opposing Loyalist militia and took many of their leaders prisoner, Patriot control of the high country seemed assured. In truth, war in the backcountry had just begun.

War in the Backcountry, 1776-1781

The overwhelming defeat of the Loyalists forces by Richardson and his Patriot troops during the Snow Campaign proved to be yet another in a spate of bad news to the Cherokee, who were growing more and more displeased with the disturbing affects of the backcountry war, particularly the disruption of the English Indian trade. Some of the fleeing Loyalists sought refuge among England’s old allies, the Cherokee, inciting them to take up arms against the King’s rebellious subjects. The older Cherokee headmen were willing to avoid confrontation with the colonists, but the younger leaders, especially Dragging Canoe of Big Island Town, were motivated to action by a visiting delegation of Iroquois and Shawnee who encouraged the massacre of the white settlers. When England’s prime minister, Lord Dartmouth, pronounced that England’s Indian allies should be enlisted in putting down the insurrection, arms and ammunition were provided the Cherokee for that purpose by the King’s Superintendent of Indian Affairs, John Stuart (Cann 1974:45). In the summer of 1776, Dragging Canoe and his Overhill warriors launched attacks against North Carolina’s and Virginia’s western frontiers. Encouraged by the Overhill successes, the Lower Town Cherokee attacked Georgia and South Carolina, with South Carolina receiving the worst of the punishment.

The colonists immediately responded by setting their militias in motion. Colonel Andrew Williamson summoned the Ninety Six militia, and eventually collected 1,860 troops in a 17 day march to destroy the Lower Cherokee villages while General Griffith Rutherford and Colonel William Moore led the North Carolina militia in the destruction of the Middle, Valley, and Outer Towns. Finally, in November of 1776, a Virginia force led by Colonel William Christian burned several of the Overhill Towns. The Patriot’s campaigns against the Cherokees in the summer and fall of 1776 had resulted in the destruction and abandonment of many of their towns, and forced the remaining Cherokee to sue for peace the following year. Although the truce in 1777 effectively ended any major threats of Cherokee aggression in the backcountry, sporadic raids by the Cherokee occurred for the duration of the war. Loyalists living with the Cherokee were frequently involved in the guerilla warfare that eventually resulted in another retaliatory expedition led by Colonels John Sevier and Arthur Campbell against the Overhill Towns in 1780. With the Cherokee and the Loyalist forces in South Carolina effectively repressed, the Patriots in South Carolina were largely spared the hardships that were being endured by their compatriots in the north where the brunt of the war was waged from 1776 to 1778.

Frustrated by their inability to deliver a crushing blow to rebel forces in the north, the British decided to evacuate Philadelphia in June, 1778, in order to concentrate their efforts in a southern campaign that would serve the dual purpose of dividing the American forces and reviving Loyalist support in South Carolina and Georgia. In November 1778, a British naval expedition captured Savannah, and by January 1779, British forces had taken Augusta. As predicted, British successes in Georgia rejuvenated Royalist sentiments in the high country, and hundreds of Loyalists rushed to join the British forces in taking back control of South Carolina. The fall of Charleston on May 12, 1780, crushed the patriot resistance and placed South Carolina back in the hands of the British. The British were now free to press the war into the South Carolina backcountry and northward into North Carolina. Most of the few remaining patriots that had taken refuge in the South Carolina backcountry viewed further resistance as futile and surrendered under the condition that they would be paroled if they agreed to lay down their arms and disband. When the British took control of Ninety Six in June 1780, the war in the South Carolina backcountry was once again temporarily ended.

To repel any serious Patriot attacks in the south, the British established a string of forts from Augusta, Georgia to Camden, North Carolina. Because of its strategic importance as a base for raising provisions from the surrounding countryside, its proximity to the Cherokee Nation and the strong political allegiance of the local inhabitants, Ninety Six was chosen as a principal center for recruiting southern Loyalist regiments to help fight the Kings war and the construction of a major fort to guard the frontier.

The construction of defensive works at Ninety Six were undertaken under the direction of Lieutenant-Colonel John Harris Cruger beginning in August of 1780. Later in December the same year, Lt. Henry Haldane, Aide de Camp to General Cormwallis, inspected the fortifications erected by Cruger and suggested several additions including an earthen fort in the shape of an eight-pointed star (Cann 1974:73-74). The defense works ultimately included a stockade with ditch around the village, two redoubts, a blockhouse, the star-shaped fort protected by a dry ditch and abatis, a hornwork (Holmes Fort) commanding the ravine west of the village, and a caponier that connected the hornwork to the town defenses. While he conducted his campaign in the South, Lord Cornwallis wrote repeatedly to his subordinate officers of the importance of holding Ninety Six.

Meanwhile, Cornwallis pressed his attacks northward into North Carolina, eventually sending orders to Major Patrick Ferguson and his Loyalist militia at Ninety Six to join Cornwallis and his forces at Charlotte. While enroute to join Cornwallis, Ferguson was attacked by Patriot forces at King’s Mountain near the North Carolina border on October 7, 1780. In the brief but decisive battle, some 400 Loyalists were killed or wounded and 687 were captured. The loss caused Cornwallis to fall back to Winnsboro, fearing the Patriots would invade South Carolina following their victory at King’s Mountain. Cornwallis was relieved when the Americans turned instead and moved toward Salem.

Following the British successes in Georgia and the Carolinas in the summer of 1780, the American Southern Army was in need of a new commander. General Nathanael Greene was given the assignment and assumed command of the Patriot forces at Charlotte in December. The Southern American Army was in disarray and ill-equipped for a major confrontation with the British. To make the best of a poor situation, Greene decided to split his forces sending General Daniel Morgan with 1040 men west of the Broad River while he remained at Cheraw. After enjoying successes at Fairforest and Fort Williams, Morgan and his troops gained a major victory against the British at Cowpens on January 17, 1781, killing or wounding 310 of the enemy and taking 500 prisoners (Cann 1974:68). Cornwallis then began pursuing the Patriot forces but was unable to engage the Americans until Greene chose to fight at Guilford Courthouse on March 15. The British drove the Americans from the field but endured slightly greater losses; the Patriots suffered 78 killed and 183 wounded while the British had 93 killed and 439 wounded.

His supplies exhausted, Cornwallis was unable to pursue the retreating American forces following the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, and was forced instead to withdraw to Wilmington, Virginia to obtain provisions. With the way now open to South Carolina, Greene decided to begin a campaign of capturing the string of forts established by the British the year before. Succeeding at Fort Watson, Orangeburg, Fort Motte, and Fort Granby, Greene then set his sights on the strategic post at Ninety Six.

The Siege of Ninety Six

After May 15, 1781, the only British outposts that remained in the high country were Augusta and Ninety Six. General Greene decided to attack both simultaneously and dispatched Colonels Henry Lee and Andrew Pickens to attack Augusta while he marched to Ninety Six. The patriot army, led by General Greene, and accompanied by military engineer Count Thaddeus Kosciusko arrived at Ninety Six on May 22, 1781, encamping in four areas around the fort. At first, Greene was daunted by the strong fortifications that lay before him at Ninety Six, but set aside his doubts and immediately began the siege.

With only 974 men at his disposal, Greene followed the advice of his military engineer, Colonel Thaddeus Kosciuszko, and concentrated his attack on the Star Fort (Image 5), the strongest point of the fortifications (Greene 1979:126-127). Initially, siege trenches to attack the fort were imprudently begun a mere 70 yards from the stronghold, but a barrage of cannon and musket fire followed by a Loyalist bayonet charge forced the Americans to abandon their trenches and begin again further back at a distance of some 200 yards. In support of the siege operations, Kosciuszko, directed the construction of two earthen cannon batteries approximately 350 yards north of the Star Redoubt “on the other side of a broad ravine” (Greene 1979:129). Slowed by the nearly rockhard soil, the first section or parallel of the siege trench was completed on May 27, and the second parallel on May 30. With only 70 yards to go to reach the Star Fort parapet, the construction of a third parallel was made more difficult by constant gunfire from the Star Fort. This impediment was soon silenced by the placing of snipers atop a log tower built near the third parallel. From their high vantage point, the American snipers pinned down the British defenders inside the Star Fort, immediately shooting anyone who attempted to raise their head above the parapet wall. With this advantage, Greene formally demanded the British surrender on June 3, but the commander of the fort, Lieutenant-Colonel John Cruger, having suffered few casualties was not disposed to accept.

To counter the vantage point provided by the tower, Cruger’s men added three feet to the Star Fort parapet using sandbags, leaving openings at intervals as portals for musket fire. Despite these measures, the sniper fire from the tower still made it perilous to man the cannon from the Star Fort, so they were dismounted and used only at night. Meanwhile, the Patriot forces continued to extend the siege trenches toward the Star Fort.

On June 8, Colonel Henry Lee arrived at Ninety Six from Augusta, having successfully taken the Georgia outpost. He almost immediately set his men to digging siege trenches approaching Holmes Fort, the redoubt protecting Spring Branch and the stockaded village’s western approach. Meanwhile, beginning from the third parallel, Kosciusko undertook the construction of a tunnel that was to extend under the parapet of the Star Redoubt with the intention of blasting a large breach in the earthwork using several barrels of powder placed in the tunnel under the parapet.

While the Patriots patiently tunneled and dug closer to their respective objectives, the British responded by sending out sorties at night to destroy segments of the siegeworks and attack the guard parties located near the trenches. Despite these minor setbacks, the trenches were advanced to within a few feet of the Star Fort by June 12th, and Lee had succeeded in moving his cannon into a commanding position of Spring Branch from which the British got their water. With access cut off to their only water source, the British defenders attempted to dig a well within the Star Fort, but failed to reach water.

While Greene waited patiently for the siege trenches and the tunnel to reach their objectives, news of the siege of Ninety Six had reached Charleston, and on June 7th a British force of over 2000 left Charleston to relieve the beleaguered fort. Patriot spies in Charleston sent word of the British relief column to General Greene, who realized that if Ninety Six was not taken before the relief column arrived, he would have to retreat without achieving the military victory that was so close to being within his grasp. Thus, on June 18, even though the tunnel was incomplete, Greene ordered a simultaneous attack on the Star Fort and Holmes Fort. In the brief but bloody battle, the British repulsed the frontal assault that was launched from the siege trenches facing the Star Fort. Henry Lee and his men, on the otherhand, had succeeded in taking Holmes Fort. Because of the large amount of casualties suffered in the assault on the Star Fort and news that the British relief force was but two or three day’s march from Ninety Six, Greene decided to end the siege and to prepare for withdrawal toward the northeast. A temporary truce was arranged for the exchange of prisoner’s and burial of the dead. During the 28 day siege, the British had losses of 27 killed and 58 wounded (Cann 1974:85); the Continental Army under Greene’s command suffered 58 dead, 70 wounded and 20 missing (Greene 1979:167). These figures do not include, however, the casualties that were suffered by the Patriot militia. In his memoirs, Henry Lee (1822:256) reports that total American losses amounted to 185 killed and wounded, which, if accurate, would indicate a total of 51 casualities were suffered by the Patriot militia.

After Greene’s retreat, the British reasoned that keeping the isolated outpost garrisoned would be too difficult, and decided instead to evacuate Ninety Six. The fortifications were dismantled and the town was destroyed. The British then withdrew from the backcountry, back to Charleston where they remained an isolated enclave for the remainder of the war. Although Greene’s siege of Ninety Six had failed, his summer 1781 campaign through the south had forced the British to abandon plans of controlling the Carolina backcountry, and prompted Cornwallis’ decision to invade Virginia instead, where he and his army were later captured at Yorktown. Nathanael Greene’s southern campaign was vital in turning the Revolutionary War in America’s favor, and proved to be a key to the British capitulation at Yorktown on October 19, 1781.

Cambridge

With Ninety Six destroyed, those returning to resettle the area following the Revolutionary War, decided to reestablish the former community in a different location. In August 1783, the new town was laid out near the former location of Holmes Fort on 180 acres that had been among the 400 acres confiscated by the South Carolina General Assembly from Loyalist James Holmes (Caldwell 1974:1). The land was vested to seven trustees who were responsible for laying out the town and establishing a public school.

Those who had held lots in Ninety Six prior to the war were given the opportunity to exchange their lots for ones in the new town, which was renamed Cambridge in 1787 (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b:4). The Cambridge town plat consisted of two rows of five squares bisected by a north-south oriented thoroughfare named Guerard Street. Each of the town’s ten squares were subdivided into eight rectangular lots measuring 208 ft by 104 ft that faced streets 50 feet wide running perpendicular to Guerard Street. Five town lots were reserved for community buildings including the Ninety Six Judicial District courthouse, church, meeting house, market, and jail (Watson 1970:25). In 1785, the College Act was passed, which brought the construction of a small college at Cambridge.

In addition to the College of Cambridge, brick courthouse and jail, the town had at least three taverns, a blacksmith, a shoemaker, a tailor, more than a dozen shops, numerous doctors and lawyers, and a post office. At its height, the population of Cambridge was about 300 residents. But prosperity at Cambridge would soon prove to be quickly fleeting.

Cambridge’s downfall began less than a decade after its founding, when the size of the Ninety Six Judicial District was reduced in 1791 and abolished altogether in 1800 (Baker 1972:42; Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:12; Greene 1979:180). After the loss of the six county judicial district seat, merchants began to leave as well. By 1803, low attendance forced the trustees of the College of Cambridge to dispose of all properties belonging to the institution. Conditions in Cambridge deteriorated further when influenza (called “the great plague” by inhabitants of the area) ravaged the town in 1815. The decline of Cambridge continued over the next two decades as Greenwood and Hamburg lured residents away. By 1835, the Presbyterian church established in 1784 had only one surviving member, who sold the property and building. The slow death of the town included the termination of stagecoach service in 1845, the razing of the courthouse in 1856, and the closing of the post office in 1860. Those few who remained as residents of Cambridge following the 1850s dwindled in number as one-by-one they died off, and their children moved away in search of jobs and new places to make a living. Most notable among these was the new community of Ninety Six founded two miles to the north of Cambridge, where the establishment of the Greenwood and Columbia railroad line in 1852 (Watson 1970:31) and more traveled highways brought more contact with the outside world and the greater opportunities afforded by an ever increasing industrial national economy.

REFERENCES

Alvord, Clarence W., and Lee Bidgood.
1912 First Explorations of the Trans-Allegheny Region by the Virginians, 1650-1674. Arthur H. Clark Co., Cleveland.

Anderson, David G.
1975 Inferences from Distributional Studies of Prehistoric Artifacts in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Bulletin 18:180-194.

1985 Middle Woodland Societies on the Lower South Atlantic Slope: A View from Georgia and South Carolina. Early Georgia 13 (1-2):29-66.

1989 The Mississippian in South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology: Papers in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 101-132. Anthroplogical Studies No. 9, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

1990a The Paleoindian Colonization of Eastern North America: A View From the Southeastern United States. In Research in Economic Anthropology, ed. by Kenneth B. Tankersley and Barry L Isaac. Supplement 5, pp. 163-216, JAI Press, Inc., Connecticut.

1990b Stability and Change in Chiefdom-Level Societies: An Examination of Mississippian Political Evolution on the South Atlantic Slope. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South., edited by Mark Williams and Gary Shapiro, pp. 187-213. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

1994 The Savannah River Chiefdoms: Political Change in the Late Prehistoric Southeast. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

1996 Models of Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement in the Lower Southeast. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 29-57. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Anderson, David G. (editor)
1996 Indian Pottery of the Carolinas: Observations from the March 1995 Ceramic Workshop at Hobcaw Barony. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists, Columbia.

Anderson, David G., and Glen T. Hanson
1988 Early Archaic Settlement in the Southeastern United States: A Case Study from the Savannah River Valley. American Antiquity 53(2): 262-286.

Anderson, David G., and J. W. Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History Along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. National Park Service, Interagency Archeological Services, Atlanta.

Anderson, David G., S. T. Lee, and A. R. Parler
1979 Cal Smoak: Archaeological Investigations along the Edisto River in the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Occasional Papers 1. Archaeological Society of South Carolina, Columbia.

Anderson, David G., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Research in the South Carolina Area. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 222-237. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Anderson, Elaine
1984 Who's Who in the Pleistocene: A Mammalian Bestiary. In Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution, edited by Paul S. Martin and Richard G. Klein, pp. 40-89. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Aubry, Michele C., Dana C. Linck, Mark J. Lynott, Robert R. Mierendorf, and Kenneth M. Schoenberg
1992 National Park Service's Systemwide ArcheologicalInventory Program. National Park Service, Anthropology Division, Washington, D.C.

Baker, Steven G.
1972a A House on Cambridge Hill (38-GN-2); An Excavation Report. Research Manuscript Series #27, Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

1972b Colono-Indian Pottery from Cambridge, South Carolina with Comments on the Historic Catawba Pottery Trade. The Notebook 4(1):3-30. Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Benson, Donna L.
1983 A Taxonomy for Square Cut Nails. The Conference on Historic Site Archaeology Papers 15:123-152.

Benson, Robert W.
1995 Survey of Selected Timber Stands in Enoree Ranger District Sumter National Forest Laurens and Newberry Counties South Carolina. Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests Cultural Resource Management Report #95-12. Southeastern Archeological Services, Athens, Georgia.

Blanton, Dennis B., and Kenneth E. Sassaman
1989 Pattern and Process in the Middle Archaic Period of South Carolina. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology: Papers in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 53-72. Anthroplogical Studies No. 9, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Braun, Emma L.
1950 The Deciduous Forests of Eastern North America. Hafner Publishing Co., New York.

Brewer, David
2000 Fort Caroline National Memorial Archeological Survey and Testing 1996 and 1997 Field Seasons. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

Bushnell, Amy T.
1994 Situado and Sabana: Spain's Support System for the Presidio and Mission Provinces of Florida. Anthropological Papers No. 74, American Museum of natural History, New York.

Cable, John S., and James L. Michie
1977 Subsurface Tests of 38-GR-30 and 38-GR-66, Two Sites on the Reedy River, Greenville County, South Carolina. Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Research Manuscript Series 120.

Caldwell, Joseph R.
1958 Trend and Tradition in the Prehistory of the Eastern United States. Memoir 88, American Anthropological Association, Menasha, Wisconsin

Caldwell, Joseph R., and Antonio J. Waring, Jr.
1968 Some Chatham County Pottery Types and Their Sequence. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by Stephen J. Williams, pp. 110-133. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 58, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Caldwell, DeLane M.
1974 Cambridge, South Carolina, 1783 - 1850. Manuscript on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

Cann, Marvin L.
1974 Ninety Six¾A History of the Backcountry 1700-1781. Department of History, Lander College, Greenwood, South Carolina.

1996 Ninety Six, A Historical Guide: Old Ninety Six in the South Carolina Backcountry 1700-1781. Sleepy Creek Publishing, Troy, South Carolina.

Cann, Marvin L., Michael J. Rodeffer and Louise M. Watson
1974 Master Plan of Development. Ninety Six National Historic Site, South Carolina.

Chapman, Ashley A., II
2000 An Archaeological Survey of Selected Timber Compartments in the Sumter National Forest, South Carolina. Technical Report 700, New South Associates, Stone Mountain, Georgia.

Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge-and-Valley Province In Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward, pp. 137-153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Chapman, Jefferson, and Bennie C. Keel
1979 Candy Creek-Connestee Components in Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina and Their Relationship with Adena-Hopewell. In Hopewell Archaeology: The Chillicothe Conference., edited by David S. Brose and N'omi Greber, pp 157-161. Kent State University Press, Kent.

Chapman, Jefferson, and Andrea B. Shea
1981 The Archaeobotanical Record: Early Archaic Period to Contact in the Lower Little Tennessee River Valley. Tennessee Anthropologist 6:61-84.

Chevis, Langdon
1897 The Shaftsbury Papers and Other Records Relating to Carolina and the First Settlement on Ashley River Prior to the Year 1676. Collection of the South Carolina Historical Society, Charleston.

Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Vol. 54, part 5, Philadelphia.

Cook, James
1773 A Map Of The Province Of South Carolina With All The River, Creeks, Bays, Inletts, Islands, Inland Navigation, Soundings, Time Of High Water On The Sea Coast, Roads, Marshes, Ferrys, Bridges, Swamps, Parishes, Churches, Towns, Townships; County Parish District And Province Lines. Map Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

Cornelison, John
1996 Trip Report for Archeological Testing at Ninety Six National Historic Site (NISI) Prior to the Construction of a Septic Tank and Two Drainage Lines, September 7, 1995, SEAC Acc. 1192. Trip report on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

Craddock, G.R., and C.M. Ellebe
1966 General Soil Map of Greenwood County. Extension Service, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina.

Crane, Vernon W.
1929 The Southern Frontier 1670-1732. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Crites, Gary D.
1991 Investigations into Early Plant Domestication and Food Production in Middle Tennessee: A Status Report. Tennessee Anthropologist 16:69-87.

Davis, R. P. Stephen, Jr. (editor)
1990 The Travels of James Needham and Gabriel Arthur Through Virginia, North Carolina, and Beyond, 1673-1674. Southern Indian Studies 39:31-55.

Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 40,000 Yr. B.P. to the Present. In Geobotany II, edited by Robert C. Romans, pp. 123-166. Plenum Press, New York.

DePratter, Chester B.
1989 Cofitachequi: Ethnohistorical and Archaeological Evidence. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology: Papers in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 133-156. Anthroplogical Studies No. 9, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

DePratter, Chester B., and Christopher Judge
1990 Wateree River. In Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South., edited by Mark Williams and Gary Shairo, pp. 56-58. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

DePratter, Chester B., Stanley South, and James Legg
1996 The Discovery of Charlesfort. Transactions of the Huguenot Society of South Carolina 101:39-48.

Deagan, Kathleen, and Darcie MacMahon
1995 Fort Mose: Colonial America's Black Fortress of Freedom. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Dickens, Roy S.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Eastman, Jane M.
1994 The North Carolina Radiocarbon Date Study. Southern Indian Studies 43.

Ehrenhard, Ellen B.
1978 The Utilization of Inorganic Phosphate Analysis for the location of General Nathanael Greene's Revolutionary War Camp. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

1979a Cambridge 38-GN-2 Ninety Six National Historic Site, South Carolina, Waterline Investigation. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

1979b Cultural Resource Inventory Ninety Six National Historic Site. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

Ehrenhard Ellen B., and W. H. Wills
1980 Ninety Six National Historic Site South Carolina. In Cultural Resources Remote Sensing, edited by Thomas R. Lyons and Frances Joan Mathien, pp. 229-291. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

Elliot, Daniel T.
1987 Archaeological Testing on 38FA188, Fairfield County, South Carolina. Prepared for Law Environmental, Inc. by Garrow and Associates, Inc., Atlanta.

Fenneman, Nevin M.
1930 Physical Divisions of the United States. 1:7,000,000 scale map, U.S. Geological Survey.

1938 Physiography of the Eastern United States. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Ferris, Robert G. (editor)
1968 Explorers and Settlers: Historical Places Commemorating the Early Exploration and Settlement of the United States. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Fontana, Bernard L., and J. Cameron Greenleaf
1962 Johnny Ward's Ranch: A Study in Historic Archaeology. The Kiva 28:1-115.

Fowler, Melvin L.
1959 Modock Rockshelter: An Early Archaic Site in Southern Illinois. American Antiquity 24:257-270.

Ferguson, Leland G.
1971 South Appalachian Mississippian. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Goodyear, Albert C., III
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 47:382-395.

Goodyear, Albert C., III, J.H. House, and N.W. Ackerly
1979 Laurens-Anderson: An Archaeological Study of the Inter-Riverine Piedmont. Anthropological Studies 4. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Goodyear, Albert C., III, James L. Michie, and Tommy Charles
1989 The Earliest South Carolinians. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology: Papers in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 19-52. Anthroplogical Studies No. 9, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Greene, Jerome
1979 Historic Resource Study and Historic Structure Report Ninety Six: A Historical Narrative. National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colorado.

Gremillion, Kristen J.
1993 Plant Husbandry at the Archaic/Woodland Transition: Evidence from Cold Oak Shelter, Kentucky. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 18(2):161-189.

Griffin, James B.
1967 Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary. Science 156: 175-191.

1985 Changing Concepts of the Prehistoric Mississippian Cultures of the Eastern United States. In Alabama and the Borderlands; From Prehistory to Statehood, edited by R. Reid Badger and Lawrence A. Clayton, pp. 40-63, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

de Grummond, Elizabeth, and Christine Hamlin
2000 Horseshoe Bend National Military Park Archeological Overview and Assessment. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

Hanson, Glenn T., and Chester B. DePratter
1985 The Early and Middle Woodland Period in the Savannah River Valley. Paper presented at the 42nd Southeaster Archaeological Conference, Birmingham.

Hanson, Glenn T., R. Most, and David G. Anderson
1978 The Preliminary Archaeological Inventory of the Savannah River Plant, Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina. Research Manuscript Series 134. Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Hann, John
1988 Apalachee: The Land Between the Rivers. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Herbert, Joseph M. and Mark A. Mathis
1996 An Appraisal and Re-Evaluation of the Prehistoric Pottery Sequence of Southern Coastal North Carolina. In Indian Pottery of the Carolinas: Observations from the March 1995 Ceramic Workshop at Hobcaw Barony, edited by David G. Anderson, pp. 136-189. Council of South Carolina Professional Archaeologists, Columbia.

Hilton, William
1664 A True Relation Of A Voyage Upon Discovery Of Part Of The Coast Of Florida. Reproduced by the South Carolina Historical Society, Collections 5:18-28.

Historic Group, The
1981 Historical Investigations of the Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. Russell Papers 1, National Park Service, Interagency Archeological Services, Atlanta.

Holschlag, Stephanie L. and Michael J. Rodeffer
1976a Ninety Six: Siegeworks Opposite Star Redoubt. National Park Service, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, Washington, D. C.,

1976b Ninety Six: The Stockade Fort on the Right. 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, 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, University of South Carolina. Research Manuscript Series 104.

Hudson, Charles M., John E. Worth, and Chester B. DePratter
1990 Refinements in Hernando DeSoto's Route Through Georgia and South Carolina. In Columbian Consequences, vol. 2, Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands East, edited by David H. Thomas, pp. 107-119. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Hudson, Charles M., Marvin T. Smith and Chester B. DePratter.
1984 The Hernando De Soto Expedition: From Apalachee to Chiaha. Southeastern Archaeology 3:65-77.

Jameson, John H., Jr.
1990 Trip Report on "Observations and recommendations resulting from a recent field trip to the Ninety Six National Historic Site". National Park Service, IAS Division, Atlanta.

Jefferies, Richard W.
1990 Chapter 4: Archaic Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions, edited by David Pollack, pp. 143-246. State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 1, Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

Jennings, Jesse D.
1974 Prehistory of North America. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Johnson, William
1822 Sketches of the Life and Correspondence of Nathanael Greene, Major General of the Armies of the United States, in the War of the Revolution. A. E. Miller, Charleston.

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, Florida.

Justice, Noel D.
1987 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Midcontinental and Eastern United States. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Keel, Bennie C.
1976 Cherokee Archaeology: A Study of the Appalachian Summit. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Keel, Bennie C., John E. Cornelison, Jr., and David Brewer
1996 Regional Archeological Survey Plan for the Southeast Region of the National Park Service. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

Kurten, Bjorn and Elaine Anderson
1980 Pleistocene Mammals of North America. Columbia University Press, New York.

Lawson, John
1709 A New Voyage to Carolina. London. Reproduced by Readex Microprint, 1966.

Ledbetter, R. Jerald
1995 Archeological Investigations at Mill Branch Sites 9WR4 and 9WR11, Warren County, Georgia. Technical Reports 3, Interagency Archeological Services Division, National Park Service, Atlanta.

Lederer, John
1672 The Discoveries of John Lederer, in Three Several Marches from Virginia, to the West of Carolina, and Other Parts of the Continent. Translated from Latin by Sir William Talbot, London. Reprinted in Alvord and Bidgood, First Explorations, pp. 135-171.

Lee, Henry
1822 Memoirs of the War in the Southern Department of the United States. Peter Force, Washington, D.C.

Lesh, F.R., B.H. Henderson, A.H. Hasty, W.J. Latimer, and S.R. Bacon
1929 Soil Survey of Greenwood County, South Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture, Series 1929, No. 26, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Meltzer, David J., and Bruce D. Smith
1986 Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern North America. In Foraging, Collecting and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern Woodlands, edited by Sarah Neusius, pp. 1-30. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Michie, James L.
1996 The Taylor Site: An Early Occupation in Central South Carolina. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 238-269. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Miller, George L.
1991a Classification and Economic Scaling of 19th Century Ceramics. In Approaches to Material Culture Research for Historical Archaeologists , compiled by George L. Miller, Olive R. Jones, Lester A. Ross, and Teresita Majewski, pp. 37-58. Printed for The Society for Historical Archaeology by Braun-Brumfield, Ann Arbor.

1991b A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25:1-25.

Milling, Chapman J.
1969 Red Carolinians. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia

Mooney, James
1900 Myths of the Cherokee. Nineteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, D.C.

Muller, Jon
1983 The Southeast. In Ancient North Americans, edited by Jesse D. Jennings, pp. 373-419. W. H. Freeman and Co., New York.

National Park Service (NPS)
1975 Area Study of Old Ninety Six and Star Fort, South Carolina: Alternatives for Management and Use. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

1979 Assessment of Alternatives, General Management Plan, Ninety Six National Historic Site, South Carolina. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

1980 General Management Plan, Ninety Six National Historic Site, South Carolina. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

1990 Catalog Manual for Archeological Objects. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

1993 Resource Management Plan, Ninety Six National Historic Site. Ninety Six National Historic Site, National Park Service, South Carolina.

1995 National Park Service's Archeological Sites Management Information System (ASMIS) Database Definition. Anthropology Division, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

1996 Revisions of the National Park Service's Thematic Framework. Manuscript on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

1997 Cultural Resources Management Guidelines (NPS-28). National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

2000 National Park Service Strategic Plan FY2001 - 2005. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Novick, Lee
1980 Prehistoric Lithic Material Sources and Types in South Carolina: A Preliminary Statement. In The First Ten Years of South Carolina Antiquities, edited by Wayne Neighbors, pp. 422-437. Archeological Society of South Carolina, Columbia.

O'Steen, Lisa D.
1983 Early Archaic Settlement Patterns on the Wallace Reservoir: An Inner Piedmont Perspective. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Georgia, Athens.

Overstreet, William C., and Henry Bell III
1965 The Crystalline Rocks of South Carolina. Geological Survey Bulletin 1183.

Paglione, Teresa L.
1983 Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Visitor Center and Facilities at Ninety Six National Historic Site, South Carolina. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

Paredes, Anthony J., and Kenneth J. Plante
1975 Economics, Politics, and the Subjugation of the Creek Indians. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

Peebles, Christopher, and Susan Kus
1977 Some Archaeological Correlates of Ranked Societies. American Antiquity 42(3):421-48.

Prentice, Guy
1990 Mammoth Cave National Park ArcheologicalInventory Project Interim Report - 1989 Investigations. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

1992 Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area Archeological Resource Survey 1990 and 1991 Field Seasons. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

1993 Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area Archeological Resource Survey 1992 Field Season. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

1994 A Settlement Pattern Analysis of Prehistoric Sites in Mammoth Cave National Park, Kentucky. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, Gainesville.

1996 Standard Field Procedures Manual for the Southeast Archeological Center's Regionwide Archeological Survey Program. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

Price, T. Jeffrey.
1992a A Cultural Resources Survey of Selected Timber Stands and Road Right of Way in Enoree and Long Cane Divisions of Sumter National Forest, South Carolina. Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests Cultural Resource Management Report 92-09, Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., Athens.

1992b Piedmont South Carolina: A Cultural Resources Survey of Selected Timber Stands in Sumter National Forest, South Carolina. Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests Cultural Resource Management Report 92-04, Southeastern Archeological Services, Inc., Athens.

Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of the Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina's Western Mountain Region. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83-160. North Carolina Department of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Rodeffer, Michael J.
1985 Ninety Six National Historic Site: Archaeological Testing of Selected Magnetic and Airphoto Anomalies. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

Rodeffer, Michael J., Stephanie H. Holschlag, and Mary K. Davis Cann
1979 Greenwood County: An Archaeological Reconnaissance. Lander College, Greenwood, South Carolina.

Rodeffer, Stephanie H., and Michael J. Rodeffer
1974 Cultural Resources of the Ninety Six District. Manuscript on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

Ryan, Thomas M.
1971 Test Excavations at the McCollum Site. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina. The Notebook 3(5):104-110.

Salley, Alexander S., Jr. (editor)
1911 Robert Sanford's Relation, 1666. In Narratives of Early Carolina, 1650-1708, edited by Alexander S. Salley, Jr., pp. 1-18. New York.

Sassaman, Kenneth E.
1985 A Preliminary Typological Assessment of MALA Hafted Bifaces from the Pen Point Site, Barnwell County, South Carolina. South Carolina Antiquities 17.

1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

1996 Early Archaic Settlement in the South Carolina Coastal Plain. In The Paleoindian and Early Archaic Southeast, edited by David G. Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, pp. 58-83. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., and David G. Anderson
1995 Middle and Late Archaic Archaeological Records of South Carolina: A Synthesis for Research and Resource Management. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 6, Occassional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Sassaman, Kenneth E., Mark J. Brooks, Glen T. Hanson, and David G. Anderson
1990 Native American Prehistory of the Middle Savannah River Valley: A Synthesis of Archaeological Investigations on the Savannah River Site, Aiken and Barnwell Counties, South Carolina. Savannah River Archaeological Research Papers 1, Occassional Papers of the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Sadie, Stanley (editor)
2001 The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. Second Edition, Volume 10. Macmillan Publishers Limited, New York.

Schroedl, Gerald F.
2000 Cherokee Ethnohistory and Archaeology from 1540 to 1838. In Indians of the Greater Southeast, Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 204-241. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Scurry, James D.
1982 Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Restroom and Septic Facilities at the Ninety·Six National Historic Site Near Ninety· Six, South Carolina. Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina.

Sirmans, Eugene M.
1966 Colonial South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Sivilich, Daniel M.
1996 Analyzing Musket Balls to Interpret a Revolutionary War Site. Historical Archaeology 30(2): 101-109.

Smith, Betty A.
1979 Distribution of Eighteenth Century Cherokee Settlements. In The Cherokee Indian Nation: A Troubled History, edited by Duane H. King, pp. 46-60. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Smith, Bruce
1986 The Archaeology of the Southeastern United States: From Dalton to deSoto, 10,500-500 B.P. In Advances in World Archaeology, Vol. 5, edited by Fred Wendorf and A. Close, pp. 1-92. Academic Press, Inc.

1989 Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246:1566-1571.

Smith, Bruce D. (editor)
1978 Mississippian Settlement Patterns. Academic Press, New York.

Smith, Hale G., and Mark Gottlob
1978 Spanish-Indian Relationships: Synoptic History and Archeological Evidence, 1500-1763. In Tacachale: Essays on the Indians of Florida and Southern Georgia During the Historic Period, edited by Jerald T. Milanich and Samuel Proctor, pp. 1-18. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Smith, Marvin T.
1992 Historic Period Indian Archaeology of Northern Georgia. Georgia Archaeological Research Design Paper No. 7, Laboratory of Archaeology Series Report No. 30, University of Georgia, Athens.

South Carolina Department of Agriculture (S.C.D.A.)
1963 Handbook of South Carolina. South Carolina Department of Agriculture, Columbia, South Carolina.

South, Stanley
1969 Exploratory Archaeology at the Site of 1670-1680 Charles Towne on Albemarle Point in South Carolina. Research Manuscript Series 1, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

1970 Exploratory Archeology at Ninety Six (38GN1-38GN5). Research Manuscript Series 6, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

1971 Historical Perspective at Ninety Six With a Summary of Exploratory Excavation at Holmes Fort and the Town Blockhouse. Research Manuscript Series 9, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, 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. Research Manuscript Series 18, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

1977 Method and Theory in Historical Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

1978 Evolution and Horizon as Revealed in Ceramic Analysis in Historical Archaeology. In Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions, edited by Robert L. Schuyler, pp. 68-82. Baywood Publishing Company, Farmingdale, New York.

1989 From Archaeology to Interpretation at Charles Town. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology: Papers in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 157-168. Anthroplogical Studies No. 9, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Steen, Carl, and Chad Braley
1994 A Cultural Resources Survey of Selected (FY92) Timber Harvesting Areas on Fort Jackson, Richland County, South Carolina. Gulf Engineers and Consultants, Inc., Baton Rouge and Southeastern Archeological Services, Athens, GA. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District, and the Directorate of Engineering and Housing, Fort Jackson, S.C.

Stephenson, Robert L.
1971 Introduction. In Historical Perspective at Ninety Six With a Summary of Exploratory Excavation at Holmes Fort and the Town Blockhouse, by Stanley South, pp. 1-7. Research Manuscript Series 9, Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Steuben, Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin, Baron von
1779 Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States. Reprinted by J. Jelcher Press in 1804.

Struever, Stuart and Kent D. Vickery
1973 The beginnings of cultivation in the Midwest-riverine area of the United States. American Anthropologist 75:1197-1220.

Sturdevant, Jay T.
2002 Trip Report: Archeological monitoring of stabilization of Thaddeus Kosciuszko's tunnel at Ninety Six National Historic Site, Greenwood County, South Carolina, October 22 - November 1, 2001. SEAC Acc. 1692. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

Swanton, John R.
1922 Early History of the Creek Indians and Their Neighbors. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 73, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1939 Final Report of the United States De Soto Expedition Commission. Seventy-sixth Congress, 1st Session, House Document 71, Washington, D.C.

1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 137, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

1952 The Indian Tribes of North America. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 145, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Tankersley, Kenneth B.
1990 Chapter 3: Paleoindian Period. In The Archaeology of Kentucky: Past Accomplishments and Future Directions, edited by David Pollack, pp. 73-142. State Historic Preservation Comprehensive Plan Report No. 1, Kentucky Heritage Council, Frankfort.

Teague, George A.
1979 An Assessment of the Archeological Resources in the Parr Project Area, South Carolina. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina.

Thomas, David Hurst
1988 St. Catherines: An Island in Time. Georgia Humanities Council, Atlanta.

Trinkley, Michael B.
1989 An Archaeological Overview of the South Carolina Woodland Period: It's the Same Old Riddle. In Studies in South Carolina Archaeology: Papers in Honor of Robert L. Stephenson, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 73-90. Anthroplogical Studies No. 9, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Trinkley, Michael B., William B. Barr, and Debi Hacker
1996 An Archaeological Survey of the 230 HA Camp MacKall Drop Zone 70 HA Manchester Road Tract Fort Bragg, Scotland and Cumberland Counties, North Carolina. Chicora Research Contribution 187, Chicora Foundation, Columbia, South Carolina.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.)
1973 Santee River Basin Water and Land Resources, North Carolina/South Carolina.

Walker, John W.
1971 Excavation of the Arkansas Post Branch of the Bank of the State of Arkansas. Southeast Archeological Center, National Park Service, Tallahassee.

Ward, H. Trawick, and R. P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
1999 Time Before History: The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Waring, Antonio J., Jr.
1968 The Refuge Site, Jasper County, South Carolina. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by Stephen J. Williams, pp. 198-208. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 58, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Waring, Antonio J., Jr., and Preston Holder
1968 The Deptford Ceramic Complex. In The Waring Papers: The Collected Works of Antonio J. Waring, Jr., edited by Stephen J. Williams, pp. 135-151. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 58, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Waselkov, Gregory A., and Marvin T. Smith
2000 Upper Creek Archaeology. In Indians of the Greater Southeast, Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 242-264. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Watson, Patty Jo, and Kenneth C. Carstens
1982 Archaeological Survey and Testing in Mammoth Cave National Park, Ky. Manuscript on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

Watson, Margaret J.
1970 Greenwood County Sketches: Old Roads and Early Families. Attic Press, Greenwood, South Carolina.

Watson, Margaret J., and Louise M. Watson
1972 Tombstone Inscriptions from Family Graveyards in Greenwood County, S.C. Drinkard Printing Company, Greenwood, South Carolina.

Watts, W. A.
1983 Vegetational History of the Eastern United States 25,000 to 10,000 Years Ago. In Late Quaternary Environments of the United States. Vol. I: The Late Pleistocene, edited by S.C. Porter, pp. 294-310. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Wetmore, R. Y., and Albert C. Goodyear
1986 Archaeological Investigations at Nipper Creek (38RD18): An Archaic Fall-Line Site. Research Manuscript Series No. 201, South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Weymouth, John W.
1981 Analysis of Magnetic Surveying Data from Archeological Sites at Ninety Six National Historic Site, South Carolina. National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Whitehead, Donald R.
1973 Late Wisconsin Vegetational Changtes in Unglaciated Eastern North America. Quaternary Research 3:621-631.

Wild, Kenneth S.
1991 Trip Report on Investigations at Ninety Six for the Installation of a Gas Line 11/12 · 12/15. Accession #974. Trip Report on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

Williams, Mark, and Gary Shapiro (editors)
1990 Lamar Archaeology: Mississippian Chiefdoms in the Deep South. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

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, pp 56-70. 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. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee, Florida.

Wood, W. Dean, Dan T. Elliot, Teresa P. Rudolph, and Dennis B. Blanton
1986 Prehistory in the Richard B. Russell Reservoir: The Archaic and Woodland Periods of the Upper Savannah River. National Park Service, Archaeological Services Branch, Russell Papers, Atlanta.

Wood, W. Dean, and T. H. Gresham
1982 Excavations at 38LU107 in the Rabon Creek Watershed, Laurens County, South Carolina. South Carolina Antiquities 14:31-64.

Worth, John E.
1995 The Struggle for the Georgia Coast: An 18th-Century Spanish Retrospective on Guale and Mocama. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History No. 75, University of Georgia Press, Athens.

2000 The Lower Creeks: Origins and Early History. In Indians of the Greater Southeast, Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory, edited by Bonnie G. McEwan, pp. 265-298. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Wright, J. Leitch, Jr.
1971 Anglo-Spanish Rivalry in North America. University of Georgia Press, Athens.