SEAC: Featured Project
  • 3D Rendering of Shiloh Mound

    Southeast Archeological Center

    Cultural Resources National Park Service

SEAC: Archeology at Ninety Six

[adapted from "A Research Design for Archeological Investigations at Ninety Six National Historic Site," SEAC 1996, by Guy Prentice]

William Edwards' Investigations - 1961
Stanley South's Investigations - 1970
Stanley South's Investigations - 1971
Holschlag and Rodeffer Investigations - 1973 to 1975
Holschlag and Rodeffer Investigations - 1975 to 1976
Ellen Ehrenhard's Investigations - 1977
W.H. Wills' Remote Sensing Assessment - 1978
John Weymouth's Investigations - 1978
Ellen Ehrenhard's Investigations - 1978
Ellen Ehrenhard's Investigations - 1979
James Scurry's Investigations -1982
Paglione and Ehrenhard Investigations - 1983
Rodeffer Investigations - 1985
SEAC Investigations 1991 to 1996
References Cited


Many of the architectural details known about Ninety Six National Historic Site have been revealed through historical archeology. Historical archeology is the study of the material remains of past societies that also left behind some other form of historical evidence. Historical archeology differs from prehistoric or "pre-Columbian" archeology in that it uses historical documents and often adds important new information allowing for more accurate and complete historical accounts.

The first archeological work at what would later become Ninety Six National Historic Site began in 1961. At that time, William Edwards explored the area around the Star Fort and the Ninety Six Village Jail. Extensive work was subsequently carried out by Stanley South, Michael J. Rodeffer and Stephanie Holschlag (Rodeffer), and Ellen Ehrenhard. The last of this extensive research was completed in 1985. Since then, the only archeological investigations that have been completed have been small Section 106 compliance projects.

William Edwards' Investigations - 1961

Archeological research at what would eventually become Ninety Six National Historic Site was begun in 1961 by the Department of Archeology, University of South Carolina. William Edwards, the principal investigator, worked sporadically with varying crews on a five year testing program that focused on the Star Redoubt, the offensive patriot siegeworks, and the Ninety Six Village (South 1971:2). Eight trenches of varying lengths were excavated in and around the Star Fort and two long trenches were excavated at the site of the jail and the courthouse. The Star Fort Commission had a surveyor prepare a field map of these features, showing the excavated trenches (South 1971:3).

Seven years later, the surveyor's map could not be found by Stephanie Holschlag, Michael J. Rodeffer, and Marvin Cann, who included information about Edwards' jail trench in their 1978 jail excavation report. They state that "although his [Edwards'] field notes and maps have not been located, Edwards' work [in the jail area] generally can be reconstructed using the artifact catalogue" (Holschlag, Rodeffer, and Cann 1978:29).

Stanley South's Investigations - 1970

Stanley South began his investigations at Ninety Six in 1970 with a four week exploratory program (May 4-May 28). During these four weeks, one week was spent on each of the following: attempting to locate and follow the fortification ditches and palisade ditches around the Ninety Six Village; surveying the position of the Star Fort and its related features, including Kosciusko's tunnel; exploring the area thought to be Gouedy's trading post and the site of Fort Ninety Six during the French and Indian War period; and locating the site of Holmes Fort through fortification or palisade ditches. A great deal of the work was accomplished by "slot trenching," the purpose being simply to locate the architectural features and accurately plot them on a map.

South's exploratory work revealed the general locations of the targeted sites: Gouedy's Trading Post Site of 1751 and its successor, Fort Ninety Six (1759-61) (38GN1); Holmes Fort Site of 1780 (38GN2); Kosciuszco's tunnel, Ninety Six Village; and the Stockade Fort (around Ninety Six Village) of 1780. The Star Redoubt (which has been visible since its construction) was only surveyed and Williamson's Fort, which underlies Holmes Fort were not singled out for investigation during this project (South 1970).

Fort Ninety Six and Gouedy's Trading Post (site #38-GN-1)

South chose the Gouedy Trading Post area for examination because of the presence of a large rectangular depression (former cellar) lined with stones around the edge close to where he placed his Reference Point (RP) 2. Four slot trenches were excavated in this area by South, and three palisade ditches associated with Fort Ninety Six were located. One 80 foot long E-W palisade ditch was intruded on by another and therefore later ditch. South hypothesized that the former was a palisade ditch for the 1759 Fort Ninety Six and that the intrusive ditch may represent Moultrie's 1761 fort or his documented enlargement of the existing Fort Ninety Six. A small earth-filled cellar seems to be temporally related to this later trench. A third palisade ditch with two slight angles was followed by South for 60 feet, and it is proposed to be either the 1761 stockade or Moultrie's addition. All three palisade ditches seem to correspond with a high knoll north of the open, stone-lined cellar. This would imply that this high ground was the area on which the three forts were positioned and that the open cellar may be associated with Gouedy's house. South suggested that further investigation of the open cellar may give insight into whether or not this was part of Gouedy's original house (burned by the Cherokees in 1760), his second house, or something else. The lack of any creamware in the second, earth- filled cellar led South to believe that it was filled in before the 1770s, clearly representing the French and Indian War Period. In addition, an unidentified Archaic projectile point and an unidentified triangular projectile point were recovered from the trenches.

Holmes Fort (38-GN-2)

Historical documentation stated that this 1780 fort was located on the hill above Ninety Six Village, was stockaded, had a formal fortification ditch and parapet protecting two blockhouses inside, and would have evidence of Harry Lee's parallel approach trenches present. South cut a series of 11 slot trenches in an area thought to be good for locating the fort ditches, but found only plow scars. He then cut a slot trench north of this original area, and found a large ditch varying from seven to eleven feet in width. One angle was found and South projected the fort location from this. He also believed that a depression in the face of the hillside below this apparent fort location appeared to be the remains of the Caponier (communications trench) that connected Holmes Fort with the town of Ninety Six (South 1970:11). A surface collection was also made. Ceramic age ranges were in the 1780s to 1850s with only a few pieces extending as late as the 1850s. None of the early ceramics, such as white salt-glazed stoneware and delft, that were seen at Gouedy's Trading Post and the Fort Ninety Six were present at Holmes Fort, which indicated to South that this site was not occupied at the earlier period (South 1970:14). A 1773 Spanish coin minted in Mexico and a pipe bowl fragment similar to those made by Gottfried Aust, the Moravian potter in North Carolina from 1755 to 1788, were recovered. In addition, several Savannah River (Late Archaic) projectile point fragments were recovered from the area (South 1970:16).

The Star Fort (38-GN-3)

This feature, an eight-point star parapet with a dry ditch around it, is still very visible at the site. Another outstanding feature is the crater inside the east point of the star that marks the 40 feet deep hole where a fruitless attempt was made to dig a well during the 1781 siege. South carried out no excavation here during this initial study, but did map the position of various features in the area. In addition, a measurement of Kosciusko's Mine was undertaken. This tunnel (which ranges from three to four feet in height) was found to extend east and south for a total of over 125 feet from what was then a still obvious opening (South 1970:17-19).

Ninety Six Village (38-GN-4)

A map that was compiled in 1909 from earlier maps of the site dating back to 1822 shows that the town of Ninety Six had thirteen structures besides the jail and courthouse. South used this map to direct the excavation of five long trenches near the Charleston Road. South believed that he may have cut across the cellar of the courthouse in Trench GN4-3, but dry weather prevented confirmation of this interpretation. Trench GN4-5 crossed Edward's Trench "I" and a possible cellar hole, but this area was also not examined. Two additional trenches (GN4-6 and 4-7) were excavated, with GN4-7 revealing a garbage dump containing materials that South used to date the accumulation to the 1780s and 1790s. These dates were based upon the absence of rich cream-colored English creamware (typical of the 1770s) and the presence of a relatively large amount of very pale creamware. Additional materials (slag, tool blade fragments) gave indications of a blacksmith operation nearby (South 1970:23). South was surprised at and puzzled by the paucity of material recovered from the town (South 1970:26).

Stockade Fort at Ninety Six Village (38-GN-5)

Historical documentary evidence shows that Ninety Six Village was surrounded by a stockade, ditch, and embankment and flanked by blockhouses. South indicates that an embankment is visible on each side of the county access road leading to the Star Fort. A test unit (GN5-5) approximately 10 feet by 15 feet was excavated in an attempt to reveal other features, such as a palisade ditch, but none were located. South of the town, eight slot trenches (GN5-7 to GN5-14) were cut and GN4-2 and 4-4 were extended in an attempt to locate the palisade. A ditch was located in trenches 5-8 through 5-12, but was absent from 13 and 14, presumably as a result of heavy erosion in this higher spot caused by later agricultural activity (South 1970:30). A series of trenches was excavated to the south of the Star Fort (on the south side of the County Access Road) to locate the ditch and follow it in plan. "This ditch measured three and one-half feet deep, and three to five feet wide at the top, with a bottom width of two feet" (South 1970:30). This ditch was exposed for one hundred yards where it intersected with a larger ditch at a right angle (seen in GN5-28). South interpreted this intersection as the northeast corner of the town (South 1970:30). The larger ditch was postulated to be the Caponier Ditch or Defensive Parapet Ditch from the town to the Star Fort. Trenches GN5-32 and 5-33 were the only trenches used to expose the northern palisade. The western palisade was not examined on this project. Because only plan and profile cuts were made, no artifacts were recovered (South 1970:32-33).

South resumed excavation later that same year with an eight week project that extended from October 5-November 25. In this project, Holmes Fort (38GN2), the Ninety Six Jail and Redoubt (38GN4), and the blockhouse and ditches around Ninety Six (38GN5) were focused on. South's (1971) subsequent report emphasizes the historical perspective derived from contemporary documents and stresses the corroboration of these documents with evidence from the ground. South also lists excerpts from documentary sources that contain clues to features that may be traced archeologically. Only a small part of this report deals with the excavations.

Holmes Fort (38-GN-2)

One goal for this second round of investigations was to delineate the walls of Holmes Fort and to excavate its ditches. Fifty-four exploratory trenches were excavated, leading South to a surprising revelation. The fort was not shaped as historical documents had indicated. Instead, it was designed like a British hornwork, which, as South notes, looks "like that of a large mitten" (South 1971:86). The main ditch was formed by two bastions, resulting in overall dimensions of 100 by 200 feet. Detailed interpretation of the ditches was possible, but the proposed positions of the two blockhouses were based entirely on historic maps. In addition, a ditch was found to the north of the small bastion on the west ditch of the fort. It extends to the west from the fort ditch. The function of this ditch was not determined. Finally, the location of the covered way ditch from Holmes Fort was hypothesized but not discovered. All artifacts recovered from this area were from the plow zone, and show a general occupational period from the 1780's to the mid- nineteenth century. More work in this area in the future was planned.

The Palisade and Ditches around Ninety Six Village (38-GN-5)

South excavated about 100 exploratory trenches in this area, exposing many features. From these, South interpreted Cruger's original town palisade as encompassing an area 220 by 400 feet. The north blockhouse was located in the northwestern corner of the palisade, and there was a bastion on the northeast corner. A small ditch to the south of the entrance is thought to be a Ninety Six town structure. Most slot trenches in this area were concentrated on the north wall, with only two excavated on the east wall. A palisade wall was predicted on the south side. To the north and west, a ditch was located inside the palisade, but on the east side an interior ditch was lacking. This ditch may have been dug outside the palisade. The dirt would then have been thrown up against the stockade to give added protection. This possibility could result in a profile similar to one drawn by Major Patrick Ferguson in February 1780 of works that had been built by the British (South 1971:93- 94). However, South's work was not concentrated on this east side.

The Blockhouse Site at the Northwest Corner of the Town of Ninety Six (38- GN-5)

A cellar located in the northwest corner of the enclosure permitted South's inference of a north blockhouse that measured 15 by 30 feet (if the foundation wall were placed inside the cellar) or 25 by 35 feet (if the cellar were totally enclosed inside a structure whose footing was wider than the cellar). A disturbance that reached to over three feet in depth was found along the east side of the cellar. The nature of this disturbance was not discovered (South 1971:95-100).

The Jail Redoubt (38-GN-5)

This fortification ditch ranges from four to ten feet wide and forms a pointed bastion (80 feet across) that surrounds the jail site. No work was done where the Redoubt turns toward the south (near South's Reference Point 11). A west palisade, extending south between South's RP37 and RP11 from the redoubt was located and presumed to be the west palisade for the Royal Provincial encampment area (South 1971:101).

Stanley South's Investigations - 1971

In 1971, South again resumed excavations at Holmes Fort, Williamson's Fort, and Cambridge Village. These excavations were carried out from June 7 to June 30. During this phase, the outline and features of Holmes Fort of 1780, the west bastion of the British fortifications around the town of Ninety Six, and any information about Williamson's Fort of 1775 and the town of Cambridge (built on the site of Williamson's and Holmes forts after 1783) were to be examined (South 1972) .

Features were revealed in a three step process: 1) removing the eight to ten inch plow zone with a ten foot mechanically driven blade; 2) "dressing" the area with a small motorized grader; and 3) "schnitting" (shovel shaving) the exposed surface (South 1972:10-11). When features were exposed, the intensity of the mid-summer sun quickly baked the red clay, creating cracks and obscuring the differentiating of soil colors and organic stains of the archeological features. In order to have time to effectively record and map the features, South arranged to have the Greenwood County Fire Department spray hundreds of gallons of water over the exposed areas each day until the recording and mapping had been accomplished.

Williamson's Fort and Holmes Fort (38-GN-2)

When this area was stripped in 1971, the area was found to be more complicated than expected. The hornwork intruded on a palisade trench in several places. The presence of this palisade, the Williamson's Fort Complex, was a surprise to South. The documents only mentioned flimsy construction of fence rails and cowhides built in three days in November of 1775 (South 1971). The only archeological feature that was expected was the remains of a forty feet deep well that was dug inside the stockade during its use. This new evidence showed that this structure was not flimsy at all, but that these fence rails were set vertically in traditional stockade manner.

Williamson's Fort of 1775 (38-GN-2)

The trenches exposed in this area were found to enclose an area 85 by 150 feet. These trenches were found to end at three places with each of these places containing "footing holes" (post holes) for three structures. The south structure had seven footing holes that formed a rectangle 15 by 30 feet, the west structure was represented by six footings forming a square 19 by 21 feet, and the north structure had four footing holes and measured 21 by 32 feet. When matched with a 1821 map that portrayed Williamson's Fort of 1775, these three structures matched those structures identified as John Savage's barns shown on the map. A fourth building was also shown on the map, but South didn't investigate this; he simply extrapolated its location. A bastion was found just west of the south barn location. Most of the fort had been intruded upon by Holmes Fort. Very little excavation was done in the ditches (which were found to be one foot wide and two feet deep). Near the center of the area of Williamson's Fort, a rectangular pit was found measuring 3.8 by 8 feet, and 2 feet deep; thought to be a possible burial, there was no evidence of a body. A few feet to the north of the south barn, a larger shallow feature containing a two by six feet burial pit was found. This pit contained human remains, a large pocket knife (at the hip), large brass coat buttons (near the center of the body), pewter buttons (near the rib cage), and brass wire eyes (near the ankles) (South 1972:30). It is possible that these are the remains of James Birmingham who was the sole fatality in the brief conflict at the fort between Loyalists and Patriots in 1775.

Holmes Fort of 1780-1781 (38-GN-2)

Primary archeological features of Holmes Fort were defined as: 1) a fortification ditch from eight to ten feet wide at the subsoil level and from three to four feet in depth with a burned firing step trench paralleling the large ditch; 2) a 100 foot long south curtain that includes a small bastion with the area inside the fort being roughly 80 by 200 feet; 3) a heavily burned firing step trench containing burned posts that range from three to five inches across; and 4) a posthole (within the small bastian) for a swivel gun on the west end of the south barn (South 1972:33). This fort was found to intrude on Williamson's Fort, with John Savage's north and south barns being integrated in both constructions.

A shallow ditch 8 feet wide and 35 feet long, accompanied by a burned firing wall trench (found inside the works at the east end of the south barn) was interpreted as "a ditch for a parapet protecting the blockhouse against attack from the covered way" (South 1972:36). The function of a small angular section of trench with posts similar to those in the firing step ditch that is visible along the edge of the south barn just west of the firing wall trench is unknown (South 1972:38). A few musket balls and fragments of a swivel gun were the only military artifacts recovered. The covered way that is shown on the 1822 map of the area was not found, but was postulated to be at the east end of the site between the fortification ditches where South did not explore (South 1972:44).

"Light Horse Harry" Lee's Approach Trench (38-GN-2)

This feature was found to "begin 110 feet west of the north bastion of Holmes Fort and extend with slight angle toward the north a distance of 160 feet to end at the bank of the old roadbed to Ninety Six" (South 1972:42). The trench measured 2.3 feet wide and 3.0 feet deep below the subsoil level, "making the original approach trench about four feet deep" (South 1972:42). Because of the mention of "triangular fire" in Mackenzie's 1787 account of the battle of Ninety Six, South concluded that it was "likely that there were approach trenches on the south as well as northeast of Holmes Fort" that had not yet been discovered (South 1972:42).

The Town of Cambridge (38-GN-2)

The remains of Cambridge can be seen archeologically in the form of many square and round postholes spaced six to eight feet apart. These are aligned in rows, possibly representing fence posts on lot lines. Ten rows run east- west and vary from three to fifty feet apart. Three north-south rows were 200 to 250 feet long, with two spaced three to five feet apart. Six cellar holes were located but only one was excavated (see comment on Steven Baker, immediately below). The town intrudes on Williamson's Fort and Holmes Fort (as seen in postholes and a privy) (South 1972:44-45). During South's 1971 Holmes Fort project, the brick lined cellar of a house believed to have been constructed around 1785 was excavated under the direct supervision of Steven G. Baker (Baker 1972). The house was moved or torn down in the late eighteenth or very early nineteenth century, and the cellar hole was subsequently used as a refuse dump until sometime prior to 1820. Detailed information on construction phases were gleaned from the excavation results. A large and varied assemblage of late 18th and early 19th century creamware and pearlware ceramics were recovered as well.

Holschlag and Rodeffer Investigations - 1973 to 1975

In 1973, Stephanie Holschlag and Michael Rodeffer began an extensive series of excavations at Ninety Six. In 1973, 1974 and 1975, they were principal investigators in the excavation of Holmes Fort and the Caponier for the Star Fort Historical Commission (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976a). This excavation resulted in the construction of a model of Holmes Fort. During these same years, work was also carried out at the siegeworks opposite the Star Redoubt (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b). In addition, Holschlag and Rodeffer were joined by Marvin L. Cann for excavation of the Ninety Six Jail (Holschlag et al. 1978).

Holmes Fort (38-GN-2) and the Caponier

Holschlag and Rodeffer's 1973 investigations of Holmes Fort (and its attendant caponier) covered a total of about 3550 square feet and were reported as follows: ...the plowzone over the eastern one-fifth of the fortification was removed by a road grader and the surface cleaned by shovel shaving. A grid system of 15 foot squares was superimposed over this area with the 0N/0E designation on South's reference point #3. These grid squares were numbered as Units 250-270 beginning with the southeast corner and moving from east to west. Only surface collections were made in the grid, and all features exposed were mapped. In addition, three long road grader cuts and six exploratory trenches were excavated in the meadow directly east of and below the fortification to expose the caponier linking the redoubt with the town. These cuts were one feet deep on the west edge. A single erosional feature with a maximum width and depth of 1.8 feet and 1.2 feet, respectively, was encountered (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976a:19).

Various ceramics, ammunition, buckle fragments, and glass were recovered, but none were associated with features. In addition, several chipped stone artifacts, including bifacially and unifacially retouched flakes, a broken quartzite biface, and gunflints, were recovered (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976a:28).

The 1974 excavations were designed to test or excavate all features located the preceding year. Eleven features were designated (Units 271-281) and excavated (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976a:23). Eleven test trenches were excavated using a backhoe in the meadow east of the redoubt to locate the caponier ("covered way"/trench) connecting the fort to Ninety Six Village. A short segment of what was thought to be the caponier was uncovered in an excavation trench on the east side of the redoubt and was further inspected by ten excavation trenches to the east.

In 1975, stabilization work was conducted on the fortification. During this time, the surface of South's (1972) "shallow ditch" 6-8 feet wide and 35 feet long was uncovered with a tractor blade. This feature was designated 135- 138 by Holschlag and Rodeffer. South's "ditch" was found to have an irregular base, a plank lined floor, and no artifacts associating it with the fortification. Holschlag and Rodeffer thought that a defensive ditch feature would be deeper and more regular (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976a:96).

The Siegeworks at Star Fort (38-GN-3-SW)

Siegework investigations at the Star Redoubt were carried out over all three field seasons (1973-1975). Holschlag and Rodeffer summarized the results of all three phases at the siegeworks in their 1976 report (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b).

During the first season (July 2 to August 24, 1973), 75 exploratory trenches (Units 1-73) were excavated to define the mine entrance and to investigate the relationship of the mine to other features. Trench locations were mapped from South's Reference Point #15.

The second phase (June 18 to July 5, 1974) was conducted to demarcate the siegework system. Fifteen new trenches were opened (Units 73-97) and 18 of the 1973 units were extended. This work was used to form "the basis for inferences on the articulation of the siegework system, the function of specific features, and the location of additional anticipated components" (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b:29-30).

Additional work was conducted from January 14 to June 14, 1975. During this effort, a reference grid oriented on magnetic north was established with 0N/0W 250 feet east and 50 feet south of South's Reference Point #15. The plowzone of most of the siege trenches was removed by backhoe and the dirt piled in the probable location of the original parapet. Cross sections of the trenches not exposed at the intersection of the county access road were excavated. The seventeen features examined included the first parallel, second parallel, third parallel, the first approach, the second approach, nine approach legs, the left final approach, the right final approach, and the mine (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b:31-65). A detached sap, an access trench, a rifle battery, and possible artillery batteries were also located in the excavation, but were not identified as offensive features. Fifty-five artifacts were recovered from the seventeen offensive siegeworks. Musket balls and shot were the only artifacts recovered from the trench fill of all the offensive features except the third parallel. The third parallel contained glass, a bayonet, two barrel hoop fragments, blue shell-edged pearlware sherds, a gray quartzite flake, brick, a hand-forged nail fragment, and a possible piece of brass web gear (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b:67).

The Star Fort and the Circular Redoubt (38-GN-3)

The goal of work in this area was to "clarify the relationship of the north and south features to the Star Redoubt and the village, and to determine the position of the abattis" (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b:84). During the project (April 15-June 15, 1975), thirteen slot trenches were excavated. A feature revealed by five slot trenches located between the Star Redoubt entrance and the county access road was interpreted as the caponier connecting the town with the Star Redoubt. This interpretation was made in spite of the fact that the feature size was much less than the expected size of a caponier. Six slot trenches to the north revealed a feature with no artifacts, that "may have served as a lane for early visitation of the Redoubt" (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b:86).

The search for the abattis (three slot trenches on the northwest flank of the redoubt, 30-35 yards from the Star ditch) were unfruitful. However, it was not a total loss, as further exploration of a feature with a backhoe revealed what was interpreted as "a circular fortification that preceded the Star Redoubt, referred to as the Circular Redoubt. These excavations showed that the Star Redoubt and siegeworks varied in magnitude from specifications in the 18th century military manuals, but the basic placement and configurations conform to specifications. The Circular Redoubt measured approximately 97 feet in diameter and averaged 9.8 feet wide on the west and 8.7 feet wide on the east. A 20 feet wide opening oriented 45 degrees east of north was located on the southwest side. The Circular Redoubt's antecedence to Star Fort was established by the latter's intrusion onto this circular feature. Lack of documentation and artifacts (only a single grapeshot was recovered) limits the interpretation of the history and use of the circular fort (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b:90).

The Dozier Cemetery (38-GN-3-DZ)

A survey of a large patch of periwinkles (Vinca minor), almost always present in family cemeteries in this section of South Carolina (Watson and Watson 1972:2), revealed an earthwork 75 feet square located 200 feet to the northwest of the Star Redoubt. Continued excavation in 1975 revealed two burials inside the earthwork. Documentary research showed this to be the family burial ground of Abram Giles Dozier which dates no earlier than the beginning of the nineteenth century (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1976b:104). Thus, it is not historically associated with Ninety Six Village or the 1781 assault.

Holschlag and Rodeffer Investigations - 1975 to 1976

In 1975 and 1976, Rodeffer and Holschlag carried out a three phase excavation in the southwest quadrant of the 1769-1781 Ninety Six Village (38-GN-4). Only the village center was explored, as the remainder of the town (consisting of farmsteads in a 10 to 15 mile radius from the village center) was unavailable for excavation at the time of the project (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:1).

During phase one (October 28, 1974 to October 31, 1975), eleven slot trenches were excavated in the presumed location of the jail. South's RP #12 was established as 0N/0W and a permanent bench mark was established approximately 100 feet north of this reference point. A rectangular feature measuring 48.5 feet long (E-W) and 38.5 feet wide (N-S) was revealed. Removal of the plowzone and the relatively sterile layer of fill overlying brick rubble proved arduous and was suspended on January 31, 1975. The goal of phase two (June 16 to September 5, 1975) was to excavate Feature 18 (brick rubble) "to determine whether this was the remains of the Ninety Six jail constructed from 1769-1772" (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:45). A cellar, brick rubble, a charred floor, foundations of two chimneys, and the presence of defenses indicated that this could have been the jail. However, the absence of jail related material (such as bars, grates, etc.) makes the researchers call this interpretation into question. Marvin Cann joined Holschlag and Rodeffer in this project to provide an historian's view when considering specific research problems (Holschlag et al. 1978). From June 22 to September 3, 1976, Holschlag and Rodeffer carried out the third phase, which was to test the specific hypotheses of space utilization at Ninety Six, e.g. separate test implications for residential units, residence/business units, business units, and public building units (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:28-38). To accomplish this, a large part of the southwest corner of the village was exposed, revealing eighty-five features. Feature functions were interpreted according to material correlates expected of an activity or construction. In this way, several function areas were interpreted.

Ninety Six Village Defense Line (38-GN-5)

The interpreted elements of the defense line included the fortification ditch, stockade, possible banquettes, a parapet, and personnel trenches. In addition, four small rectangular features (not interpreted) and a possible earlier fortification feature (possibly built around 1776 to protect Ninety Six from Indians) were identified (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:81-87). Ninety Six Village Jail Fortifications (38-GN-5)

The deductions made about the jail fortifications were not as complete as those concerning the town fortifications. A ditch surrounding the area and a possible palisade line with related banquettes were inferred (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:89-90).

Ninety Six Village Residential Unit (38-GN-5)

Excavations revealed data from which only tenuous conclusions could be made. These include: 1) lots "may have enclosed ¼ acre, 100 square feet" (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:92); 2) structures, trash pits, a possible well, and privies were present; 3) these structures are located in the area that was historically identified as the courthouse location, but the material associated with the structures seems to more closely resemble that of a house unit than a courthouse. However, the researchers emphasize that not enough exploration was carried out to reach definitive results (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:90-92).

Ninety Six Village Blacksmith Shop (38-GN-5)

This area was first defined by South (1972) and tested during this project. In both projects, the presence of clinkers is the only evidence of historic use of this area (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:99).

There were many other whole and partial features uncovered in this area during the excavation, that could not be attributed to a particular function. The only information that could be derived from these features was size and configuration; time and context could not be determined from the initial exposure that was carried out. Thus these features were simply located and described (Holschlag and Rodeffer 1977:100).

Ellen Ehrenhard's Investigations - 1977

Ellen Ehrenhard of the Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC), National Park Service, conducted a brief survey in an attempt to locate the area of Greene's 1781 patriot encampment during July and August 1977. The camp was believed to be located to the north of the Star Redoubt, directly behind the siegeworks. The research design incorporated analysis of aerial photographs, pedestrian reconnaissance, and auguring. Black and white aerial photographs were analyzed for vegetal anomalies that could be the result of cultural activity. All anomalies, surveyed by walking reconnaissance, were found to be the result of erosion, sharecroppers homesites, or past cultivation of the field. The cultural material that was collected was assigned to "temporary NPS site numbers" that included:

NPS-96-1 (Spring Site)
NPS-96-2 (East knoll of Tolbert field)
NPS-96-3 (West knoll of Tolbert field)
NPS-96-4 (Ridge NW of Island Ford Road)
NPS-96-5 (Camp Creek Branch on M-45)

When the pedestrian and auger survey failed to yield any 18th century military artifacts, a soil chemistry investigation was executed in the hope that high phosphate levels would be indicative of past site occupation. Ehrenhard (1978) explains that a base grid was created by establishing a permanent datum at Tolbert Field and staking out a modified grid system in 100 foot increments. From there

A north-south baseline intersected the datum (designated 00) on a NE- SW angle in order to take advantage of the cleared portion of the field. The E-W axis was established at a 90? angle from the N-S line...A second datum was located on the earthworks of the north salient of the Star Redoubt. This was tied into the 00 marker established by Rodeffer in 1975 and over Datum (00) in Tolbert Field... The angles formed by the parallels and approaches were taken with a transit set up over DP1. These angles were then averaged to obtain the median line which was 0? 20' east of north. A meridian line was established at this angle from DP1 out to 2590' [actually 2490'], staked at 100' intervals... An intersecting E-W line was established at 2000N. This line was at an angle of 116? 40' east of north. A modified grid system was laid out with N-S and E-W intersecting lines established by triangulation. A tie line was established from the meridian line at 2590N to the grid in Tolbert Field. This line was designated M-45 (Ehrenhard 1978:17-18).

Phosphate samples were taken at 50 foot intervals (10 foot intervals on the baseline) with a 1 inch bit auger to a depth of about 18 inches. A 4 inch bit was used at first, but it was thought that a one inch bit would be less destructive to possible features and may be better able to penetrate the soil. Samples were subjected to three Hach Chemical Company tests: the wide range pH test, soil extraction, and orthophosphate. Two test units (Pits B and C) were later excavated to evaluate unusually high phosphate test values recorded at two auger locations. A third unit (Pit A) was randomly located within grid square 100SW, 100NW (Ehrenhard 1978:25) and excavated prior to phosphate testing as a control. Test Pit B was a 10 by 5 foot unit excavated in the area of two high (225 ppm P) phosphorous readings that occurred at 70NE 0 and 75NE 0. A charcoal concentration was visible in all three (6 inch arbitrary) levels. A 5 foot by 3 foot trench was staked to the north of Test Pit B at 75NE 0, 75NE 3 SE, 80 NE 0, 3 SE. The charcoal concentration was present in this trench until the bottom of Level 2. A Big Sandy type projectile point (misidentified as a Decatur point in Ehrenhard's report) was found at the interface of the charcoal concentration and sterile soil. This was interpreted as an erosional feature in which brush was piled and burned.

Test Pit C was excavated because the "Phosphorus value" was the only "high value recorded for samples taken along the meridian line system" (Ehrenhard 1978:25). This unit was a 6' by 6' square that intersected an "erosional mound" (Ehrenhard 1978:31). A single chert primary decortification flake (incorrectly reported as 11 limestone flakes [Ehrenhard 1978:40]) was found at the base of Level 1, but no other culturally associated material was recovered. Ehrenhard concluded that the high reading in this area was the result of animal activity or that this was the remains of an old field.

Summarizing the Results of Ehrenhard's 1977 Investigations

On the basis of the prehistoric and historic artifacts recovered during the pedestrian and auger survey, Ehrenhard assigned five "temporary" field numbers. NPS 96-1, Spring site, artifacts consisted of two pieces of shoe leather, one blue transfer printed pearlware sherd, one gaudy-Dutch pearlware sherd, five pieces of green transfer printed stoneware from a chamber pot. NPS 96-2, Tolbert Field East Knoll, artifacts consisted of a cast iron pot leg, an amber glass bead, two brown saltglazed pottery sherds, one gray saltglazed pottery sherd, one ironstone sherd, two pieces of quartzite debitage, one chert flake, one limestone flake, one quartzite scraper, and a possible sandstone abrader. The artifact assemblage from NPS 96-3, Tolbert Field West Knoll, consisted of a 25 cal. lead bullet, a piece of quartz debitage, a quartzite Morrow Mountain II type point and a quartzite Ledbetter Stemmed point (incorrectly classified as Morrow Mt. I). NPS 96-4, Island Ford Road, artifacts consisted of six rhyolite flakes, one quartzite flake, a rhyolite biface, a rhyolite unifacial scraper, and a quartzite Guilford point. The artifacts from NPS 96-5 consisted entirely of historic artifacts: one piece of lavendar glass, one ceramic button, one alkaline glazed sherd, and three ironstone sherds.

The artifacts recovered from the test units (A-C) were not assigned temporary field numbers in Ehrenhard's (1978) subsequent report. Lack of site assignment of Pit B artifacts may be presumed to be because of the erosional nature of the deposits (Ehrenhard 1978:31). It appears likely that these were eroded and redeposited downslope from NPS 96-2/3. The artifacts recovered from Pit B consisted of one ceramic insulator, seven clear glass fragments, one ironstone sherd, and one Big Sandy point (incorrectly identified as a Decatur point). A similar questionable origin (Ehrenhard 1978:34) for Pit C's single cortical chert flake may also have been the reason for Ehrenhard's not assigning the artifact to a particular site. Pit A produced no artifacts.

As a result of these investigations and the lack of 18th century military artifact, Ehrenhard concluded Based on these data our results are inconclusive. There are however, close correlations between the camp location as defined by the aerial photography, the hypothetical model of the camp and the higher phosphate values (Ehrenhard (1978:34). The tenuous results ultimately led to the camp location hypothesis as being regarded by Ehrenhard (1978) as only a possibility, however. Until additional work is conducted, the location of Greene's 1781 encampment(s) remains unknown.

Wills' Remote Sensing Assessment - 1978

Early the following year, W.H. Wills (1978) completed a remote sensing assessment that formulated research questions providing a new perspective on the possible location of Greene's encampment. He drew upon historic sources to generate a model of the hypothetical location of camp elements for Greene's encampment (May 22 to June 18, 1781) with which to guide a remote sensing study. He then identified "target locations" that would have a greater probability of containing a military encampment. These target areas included: 1) a relatively flat, open, and large area that is easily defensible; 2) out of artillery range yet close enough to allow easy movement of troops and supplies; 3) close to a roadway that would increase efficiency of the flow of information and supplies; and 4) close to necessary resources (i.e. water and wood). Black and white aerial photographs were taken in January 1978, as were false-color infrared film. Eighteen features were identified but only five of these were identified by Wills as needing further attention.

Weymouth's Investigations - 1978

John W. Weymouth (Nebraska Center for Archaeophysical Research, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln) conducted a study of a four hectare magnetometer survey conducted by the Midwest Archeological Center from March 23 to May 12, 1978. Although the results of Weymouth's study were not published until three years later (Weymouth 1981), the findings were promptly made known to Ellen Ehrenhard and were included in her Cultural Resource Inventory (Ehrenhard 1979b).

Weymouth's magnetometer survey area included Gouedy's Trading Post and Fort Ninety Six (38-GN-1), Ninety Six Village (38-GN-4) in four sections, Cambridge Village Complex, including Holmes Redoubt (38-GN-2), and an aboriginal site (38-GN-26) (Weymouth 1981). The survey of these seven different regions resulted in a large number of magnetic anomalies, some of which correlated with known locations of subsurface features previously tested by South and Rodeffer (Ehrenhard 1979b:46-48). Anomalies in other areas of the park were not investigated through subsurface testing.

Ellen Ehrenhard's Investigations - 1978

Ellen Ehrenhard returned to the park in August of 1978, to conduct additional investigations as part of the park planning and development process. During this second visit (August 16 to September 14), areas being considered for planning and development or future site management needs were surveyed by systematic subsurface inspection. A baseline and transects were established, with five liter soil samples taken at 100 foot intervals along the transects. No artifacts were collected during this process, but these samples were examined for the "presence or absence of artifacts, soil, color, composition, and any unusual properties which would indicate cultural activity [and results of this examination] were recorded" (Ehrenhard 1979b:51). Approximately 1000 samples were taken in this manner. The remainder of the property was not subsurface tested, but examined by pedestrian survey. As Ehrenhard (1979b:51) explained, "Soil samples were not taken systematically in these areas, however, an attempt was still made to examine the subsurface at regular intervals."

Three sites located during her 1977 Greene's Camp survey were revisited by Ehrenhard in 1978. These were referred to by the "temporary" field designations NPS-96-1, 96-4, and 96-5, and were briefly described in Ehrenhard's (1979b) cultural resource inventory as follows:


Late historic artifacts were scattered about on the surface of an extinct spring just south of Camp Creek. Upon revisiting the site during the present survey it became obvious that this locale was merely a surface artifact scatter or dumping location associated with NPS-96-5, a house site, also located during the 1977 survey (Ehrenhard 1979b:52)


This site is a prehistoric site generally located along the north side of the Island Ford Road just as the roadbed turns in an easterly direction....the majority of artifacts being located in ruts of a logging cut and roadbed. One point was located in a test excavation unit and a large blade was uncovered by the auger on a transect. Artifacts collected include argillite primary and secondary flakes, argillite uniface scraper, argillite bifacial knife, and a quartzite Guilford projectile point (Ehrenhard 1979b:52).

This site was located during the 1977 field season and revisited during the 1978 season ... A total of 15 lithic artifacts have been observed here for both seasons, including projectile points of Archaic (MMI, II, Guilford) and possibly Woodland periods (Jacks Reef) (See Table 5). The site is fairly eroded from past timbering and agricultural practices (Ehrenhard 1979b:68).


This historic house site was still standing in 1949 although there are presently no standing structural remains. The Ninety Six U.S.G.S. quadrangle map indicates a structure in approximately the same location as the surface debris noted during the 1977 survey. This site is on property purchased by the National Park Service from Mr. Joseph L. Tolbert and is assumed to be the home of a tenant farmer who share-cropped the Tolbert property until recent years (Ehrenhard 1979b:52).

The possible Jacks Reef (Corner Notched) projectile point collected from NPS 96-4 in 1978 mentioned in Ehrenhard's 1979 account cited above has been reanalyzed for the purpose of preparing for the forthcoming fieldwork, and its identification has been changed to that of a Big Sandy as a result. The erroneous identification of another Big Sandy point collected from NPS 96-4 in 1977 has already been noted in the earlier section dealing with Ehrenhard's 1977 investigations.

Two prehistoric sites, the Williams (38GN21) site and 38GN59, located during Rodeffer's unpublished 1977 Greenwood County Survey were also included in Ehrenhard's park site inventory with the following descriptions: 38GN-21

This site was first recorded by Michael Rodeffer on a survey for Greenwood County. Portions of this site were resurveyed during the 1977 field season. It is also a lithic site containing two artifacts, one of which is a projectile point. The Decatur projectile point affiliates the cultural activity with the Archaic period (Ehrenhard 1979b:69).


This site was first recorded by Rodeffer on the Greenwood County Archeological survey. It was resurveyed during the 1978 field season and is considered a lithic site. It is a promontory site located near the confluence of Spring Branch and Ninety Six Creek. Rodeffer reported finding 10 cryptocrystalline flakes. Our [1978] survey observed one quartz bifacial knife of the Guilford type and has been tentatively affiliated with the Archaic period. The site is on Chewacla Loam at an elevation of 420 ft. It is located on the south side of a bench overlooking the floodplain (Ehrenhard 1979b:69).

Ehrenhard's (1979b:69) stated collection of a "Decatur" point from 38-GN- 21 in 1977 is somewhat problematic to evaluate. The only record of a Decatur point (actually an Early Archaic Big Sandy point) from Ehrenhard's earlier 1977 investigations was the one collected from Test Pit B. Pit B was located approximately 600m north of 38-GN-21, and there is no apparent reason to connect the two.

In addition to the five revisited prehistoric sites in the park, Ehrenhard reported the discovery of five new sites as a result of the 1978 survey. Three are prehistoric sites; two are historic. They were described by Ehrenhard as follows:


This small site was previously unidentified. It is located within the planted pine forest 975 ft south of, and 50 ft east of RP3. No artifacts or features were initially observed on the surface. The specified soil sample revealed Caroline slate flakes-subsequent to the discovery of the first flake four additional five-liter samples were taken along a 10 ft radius from the initial sample. A total of five Carolina Slate and quartzite flakes were recovered. No artifacts were observed which could proved a date for the site. The site boundaries and depth are not known (Ehrenhard 1979b:53).


A small late historic to modern homesite was located 654 ft west of BM 484 431 and 500 ft north of RP21 in the open field east of the larger lake (Ehrenhard 1979b:53).


This prehistoric site is situated on a bluff above Ninety Six Creek, 250 ft southwest of 38-GN-27 the unidentified cemetery. Large quantities of quartzite are visible in the bridle trail which bisects the two [sic] sites. The surface was slightly disturbed by several shallow potholes of varying dimensions. Numerous lithic artifacts were noted in this disturbance. Ceramic sherds were present but in fewer number, at least as far as we were able to observe. The site appears relatively small, approximately 200 ft east-west by 40 ft north-south. It is anticipated that the dimensions will change with additional investigation (Ehrenhard 1979b:53).

A total of 17 artifacts were collected from this site. This site has been slightly disturbed and all artifacts observed were seen in the disturbed areas. This site falls into the category of a less intensive habitation site as based on characteristics given by House and Ballenger (p: 83)....The single projectile point recovered from this site corresponds to Type 1 (Morrow Mt. I) and is culturally affiliated with the Middle Archaic. The evidence of pottery indicates occupation during the Woodland period also (Ehrenhard 1979b:69-70).


This site located on the eastern bank of the 27-acre lake is entirely prehistoric although it was indicated as being a possible foundation on the photogrammetric map. No indications of such a subsurface feature were encountered however, numerous lithic artifacts were observed. The majority of these were located in the ruts of a dirt trail. Soil samples were taken along the prescribed transects but no subsurface remains were encountered. Undoubtedly years of cultivation and erosion have destroyed most of the site (Ehrenhard 1979b:54).


This site is documented on the 1949 U.S.G.S. quadrangle of Ninety Six. It is located on the south side of the cinder road and east of South Carolina 248. Numerous artifacts were noted on the surface and several were observed in soil samples taken along transects. The tentative date assigned is late 19th-20th century (Ehrenhard 1979b:54). Of all the prehistoric sites known to occur in the park, Ehrenhard only considered NPS-96-9 eligible for nomination to the National Register on the basis of its relatively undisturbed contexts and the presence of temporally diagnostic lithic and ceramic artifacts. The diagnostic lithic artifacts reported from NPS 96-9 by Williams (1979:60) have been reanalyzed for this overview with the result being that the original Morrow Mountain I designation has been retained. This indicates a Middle Archaic presence at the site. The plain sand tempered sherds were too small to accurately type, and have retained their unspecified Woodland association as well.

Likewise, the temporally diagnostic artifacts reported from NPS 96-10 by Williams (1979:60) have been reanalyzed recently with the result being that the thermally altered chert projectile point originally reported as a Copena Triangular has been reclassified as a Late Woodland/Mississippian Triangular Cluster point (Justice 1987), and the Ottarre Stemmed point has been recategorized as "untyped" due to critically missing portions on the notched base. Although assignment to type for this second point is not possible because of the broken nature of the artifact, it is clear that it is a side or corner notched point, probably akin to Large Side Notched or Kirk Corner Notched Cluster types (Justice 1987). In any event, the point is not an Ottarre Stemmed.

Summarizing the Results of Ehrenhard's 1978 Investigations

Ehrenhard conducted additional work in 1978, and subsequently compiled a cultural resource inventory for the park (Ehrenhard 1979b) based on the prior research of South, Holschlag and Rodeffer, and herself. Ehrenhard listed the known archeological "sites" as:

38GN-1 Gouedy's Trading Post Complex and Fort Ninety Six
38GN-2 Holmes and Williamson's Forts and the town of Cambridge
38GN-3 Star Redoubt
38GN-3-SW Siegeworks associated with Star Redoubt
38GN-3-DC Dozier Cemetery
38GN-4 Ninety Six Village
38GN-4J Ninety Six Jail
38GN-21 Prehistoric Site (Archaic)
38GN-26 Prehistoric/post-contact 38GN-27 Historic Cemetery
38GN-28 Prehistoric
38GN-54 Tolbert Brick Kiln
38GN-57 Historic house site
38GN-58 Historic house site
38GN-59 Prehistoric lithic scatter

Ehrenhard reported that four of the historic sites (38-GN-27, 38-GN-54, 38- GN-57, and 38-GN-58) and none of the prehistoric sites had been archeologically tested (Ehrenhard 1979b:27-29).

Two sites, NPS-96-2 and NPS-96-3, that were located in the 1977 Greene's camp survey were not mentioned in this subsequent Cultural Sites Inventory. There is no explanation for this omission, but it appears likely that they were omitted because they did not fall within the then proposed park boundaries. Photo interpretation paired with ground truthing and proton magnetometry were utilized at known sites in the park to determine its worth as a site location method. As a result, Ehrenhard concluded that, while photo interpretation and photogrammetric mapping can provide valuable data and greatly increase research and cost/time efficiency, more refinement in methodology is needed in order to accurately locate sites in densely vegetated regions (Ehrenhard 1979b:55).

Ellen Ehrenhard's Investigations - 1979

Ehrenhard returned to Ninety Six in August, 1979 to conduct investigations for a proposed waterline in Cambridge (38-GN-2). The research design for the project stipulated that construction should take place in the right of way of an historic road, if possible.

A 1783 Plat of Cambridge was used to try to locate visual landmarks that may still exist. The only one identified was the intersection of Hamilton's Great Survey Line and Spring Branch. The location of the town was then hypothesized using appropriate angles and distances from this landmark. A trench was then excavated at a right angle to the proposed location of Pinkney Street. A second trench (128.2 feet long and five feet wide) was excavated on an east-west line, intersecting the first (N-S) trench. These trenches proved that the projected location of the Cambridge lots in relationship to the intersecting east-west streets was inaccurate. Ehrenhard found that a 4 1/2 degree clockwise rotation in the plat map resulted in a plan more in accordance with the features that were found. Magnetometer results from a previous survey also suggested that the plat should be shifted one lot distance to the east. A distinct roadway was never located, but a corridor was cleared for the waterline. Five hundred artifacts were recovered and two of the six features that were located were identified as "structural components" (Ehrenhard 1979a:24).

James Scurry's Investigations -1982

On June 24 and June 25, 1982, James D. Scurry (South Carolina Institute of Anthropology and Archeology) completed investigations for proposed restroom and septic facilities for SEAC. This testing was completed in three phases: 1) excavation of eight, three foot square test units along the water and drain lines, 2) total excavation of the septic tank area and the testing of the restroom facilities site, including a 3 by 7 foot test unit and a five foot square test unit, and, 3) on-site monitoring of the construction excavation of the water and drain lines. Three of the ten test units contained historic material (with date ranges of 1780 to present) in the plowzone. One subsurface feature, a probable posthole measuring 8 inches in diameter and eleven inches deep, was exposed in a grader cut near test unit 3. Because of the consistency of its form, Scurry suggested that it was of modern origin. However there was nothing significant enough to affect the progress of the facility construction (Scurry 1983).

Paglione and Ehrenhard Investigations - 1983

The decision to construct a visitor center at Ninety Six that contained restroom facilities prompted the need for investigations of the proposed site. Teresa L. Paglione and Ellen Ehrenhard (SEAC) traveled to the park on January 12 and 13, 1983 to complete these investigations. The visitor center plans called for the building to be placed on piers. Shovel tests conducted in the pier locations revealed 12 historic artifacts and nine quartzite fragments and flakes (of which only one had been utilized/worked). In addition, a tractor blade was "utilized to remove the duff and humus from between the staked areas to check the subsurface area for any features the shovel test may have failed to reveal (Paglione 1983:3). It was determined that construction in this location would have no adverse affect on significant archeological remains (Paglione 1983).

Rodeffer Investigations - 1985

In March, 1985, the Southeast Archeological Center contracted with Backcountry Archeological Services to archeologically test six anomalies found during the magnetic and aerial photo reconnaissance conducted previously by Weymouth (1981). Shovel tests, test pits, and block excavations were used. Michael J. Rodeffer supervised the: excavation of 19 blocks overlying magnetic anomalies and totaling ca. 500 square meters. Shovel testing of seven areas within three anomalous, airphoto locales resulted in identification of four areas likely associated with residential or agricultural complexes; the remaining three areas probably derive from geomorphic processes. An ethnohistoric occupation of 38GN26 is postulated, but only weakly supported by sparse evidence. The location of the colonial courthouse is discussed, but it remains an enigma despite rejection of South's (1970) postulated site. Fortification elements composing the northeast corner of the 1780-1781 village redoubt are identified and described with reference to contemporary military practices. Tested loci associated with the 18th century Gouedy plantation are reviewed; none date to the appropriate period although four areas evidence mid-19th or early 20th century occupation complexes (Rodeffer 1985:iii).

Nine areas (localities), located through the use of aerial photographs, were shovel tested. These occurred in the northeast corner of the colonial village of Ninety Six (with emphasis on the defensive works, 38-GN-4-NE), the Ninety Six courthouse site (in 38-GN-4-SW), a portion of the Gouedy plantation, and the Old Field Site (38-GN-26). Two magnetic anomalies and three localities contained material with the potential for providing information on antebellum and post-bellum use of the Gouedy complex lands. Excavations also confirmed that the defensive line is well preserved in the northeast corner of the colonial village and represents the full cross section of the fortification system. Rodeffer (1985) provides a full report, including maps of testing locations and a proposed lot plan for colonial Ninety Six. In addition, Rodeffer points out that the inability of the magnetometer survey alone to locate as of yet undefined resources shows that this method is not an acceptable substitute for traditional archeological methods.

Ken Wild's Investigations - 1991

In November 12-15, 1991, SEAC Archeologist, Ken Wild, conducted archeological investigations for the installation of a gas line measuring 130 meters. A quartz biface (identified by Wild as Archaic-Woodland) and a Woodland period sand-tempered sherd were recovered form the plow zone. Six features were located, but only two were excavated. A minor change in the gas line route left the others unimpacted. Because of the ceramics associated with one of these features, Wild interpreted these as being associated with a house in Cambridge (SEAC Accession No. 974)(Wild 1991).

Jones and Leabo Investigations - 1995

On April 11, 1995, Jeffrey Jones and Regina Leabo (SEAC) tested an area where additional vehicle parking and a gate would be constructed. Six shovel tests and two 50 by 50 centimeter units were excavated. Historic and prehistoric materials were recovered, but there was no significant find (SEAC Acc. No. 1176)(Jones 1995)

John Cornelison's Investigations - 1995

John Cornelison tested at Ninety Six on September 7, 1995, prior to the construction of a septic tank and drain system. Six shovel tests were dug to the south of the Maintenance Building on the east side of the fenced lot. Only Shovel Test 1 was positive, and it only contained modern material (a beer can and a piece of modern colorless glass). In addition, Global Positioning System (GPS) data was collected on the Star Fort, the Jail, the Ninety-Six Village area, and the Gouedy Trading Post area.

Guy Prentice's Investigations - 1996

During 1996 SEAC conducted archeological field investigations at the Ninety Six as part of the NPS Regionwide Archeological Survey Program (RASP) (Keel et al. 1996). The major focus of the field work, directed by Guy Prentice, was: 1) to conduct systematic metal detector survey in the northern portion of the park in an attempt to relocate the camps where Nathaniel Greene's men stayed during their 1781 seige of Ninety Six; and 2) conduct systematic power auger and/ or systematic shovel test surveys in various areas of the park where previous work has identified the presence of cultural resources, but their extent and integrity are unknown. These included: the pre-Revolutionary War Gouedy Trading Post (38-GN-1) area, and seven prehistoric sites. It was hoped that these investigations should provide the means of: 1) determining site limits for both historic and prehistoric components at the sites; 2) evaluating the integrity of the archeological resources encountered during the field work, including assessing their eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places; and 3) recommending appropriate strategies for conserving, managing, and interpreting those resources. In addition, the park staff requested that the corners of Ninety Six Village be relocated and marked for future interpretive purposes and that the historic cemetery (38-GN-27) located south of Gouedy's Trading Post be investigated to determine site boundaries, and, if possible, the age of the cemetery. A report of findings is expected to be completed in 1998.


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

Cann, Marvin L.
1974 Ninety Six--A History of the Backcountry 1700-1781. Manuscript on file, Department of History, Lander College, Greenwood, South Carolina.

Cornelison, John E., Jr.
1995 Research Design for an Archeological Survey of Selected Areas and Limited Site Testing at Stones River National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tennessee. Research design on file, SEAC Acc.# 1167, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

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

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

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

Holschlag, Stephanie L. and Michael J. Rodeffer
1976a Ninety Six: The Stockade Fort on the Right. National Park Service, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, Washington, D. C.

1976b Ninety Six: Siegeworks Opposite Star Redoubt. National Park Service, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, Washington, D. C.

1977 Ninety Six: Exploratory Excavations in the Village. National Park Service, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, Washington, D. C.

Holschlag, Stephanie L., Michael J. Rodeffer, and Marvin L. Cann
1978 Ninety Six: The Jail. Star Fort Historical Commission, Ninety Six National Historic Site, Ninety Six, South Carolina. House, John H., and David L. Ballenger

1976 An Archeological Survey of the Interstate 77 Route in the South Carolina Piedmont. Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 104, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Jones, Jeffrey L.
1995 Trip Report on the Archeological Investigations at Ninety Six National Historic Site (SEAC Acc. No. 1176) for the Expansion of the Parking Lot 4/11/95. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

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

Keel, Bennie C., John E. Cornelison, Jr., and David M.Brewer
1996 Regional Archeological Survey Plan, Southeast Field Area, National Park Service. National Park Service, SoutheastArcheological Center, Tallahassee. With contributions by Mark Barnes, Allen Bohnert, Dennis Finch, Guy Prentice, George Smith, and Robert Wilson.

National Park Service
1975 Old Ninety Six and Star Fort South Carolina, Alternatives for Management and Use. Area Study of Ninety Six and Star Fort South Carolina. Manuscript on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

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

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

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

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

1994 NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline, Release No. 4. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

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

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

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

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

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

1974b Holmes Redoubt Stabilization and Interpretation. Manuscript on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

Scurry, James D.
1983 Archaeological Investigation of the Proposed Restroom and Septic Facilities at the Ninety-Six National Historic Site Near Ninety- Six, South Carolina. Manuscript on file, Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

South, Stanley
1970 Exploratory Archeology at Ninety Six (38-GN-1, 38-GN-5). Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 6, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

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

1972 Archeological Excavation at the Site of Williamson's Fort of 1775, Holmes Fort of 1780, and the Town of Cambridge 1783- 1850's. Institute of Archeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series 18, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

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

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

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

Williams, Maurice A.
1979 Prehistoric Sites at Ninety Six: A Preliminary Analysis. In Cultural Resource Inventory, Ninety Six National Historic Site by Ellen B. Ehrenhard. National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

Wills, W. H.
1978 The Location of Greene's Encampment: A Remote Sensing Assessment of Ninety Six National Historic Site. Manuscript on file, National Park Service, Southeast Archeological Center, Tallahassee.

Return to Ninety Six Archeology and History