Stirring Up a Hornet's Nest: - UGA Laboratory of Archaeology ...

Locus M
Locus M is a historic house site positioned in the woods, north of the woods road, in the northern part of
the study area. This house contains a large stone chimney foundation, which is surrounded by very thick
under-story vegetation, vines and greenbrier. Consequently, the area was not well suited for metal detecting
because of this ground cover, except along the adjacent road. Many iron signals were heard during the
preliminary reconnaissance but these were not explored further. This house site appears to date, minimally,
to the 19 th century and possibly earlier. The relevance of this early house site to the Kettle Creek battle is
presently unknown. This site appears to have features and may have subsurface integrity. Additional
investigation of this site is warranted. The preliminary reconnaissance did not locate any battle-related
debris in this vicinity. No artifacts were collected from Locus M.
Locus N
Locus N consists of a minor cluster of lead balls and other 18 th century artifacts on a ridge in an overgrown
timber clear-cut on the eastern side of the study area. The vegetative cover in this vicinity was not
conducive to a thorough metal detector search, so the full potential of this area was not assessed. A total of
six metal artifacts was located at Locus N, of which three were in the Arms Group.
Locus O
Locus O was on the southeastern limit of the study area in an overgrown timber clear-cut area. This area
contained a surface scatter of prehistoric chipped stone and ground stone artifacts, which likely date to the
Archaic period (10,000-3000 years ago). The reconnaissance investigation of this area failed to locate any
historic artifacts. This area was probably outside of the engagement area. Since no historic artifacts were
located at Locus O, it is not shown on any of the artifact distribution maps.
BMATERIAL CULTURE
Tangible evidence of human presence across the landscape at Kettle Creek was widespread. A total of 573
artifacts were located by the survey and their geographic locations were recorded. Of these, 490 were
collected and transported to The LAMAR Institute’s laboratory for further analysis. The remaining 83
artifacts were identified in the field and returned to the ground in their approximate original locations. A
complete inventory of these artifacts (both those collected and those left on-site) is included as Appendix I.
Selected artifacts from the project are shown in Figures 32 through 36. Many additional photographs of
artifacts from the Kettle Creek project are contained in Appendix III.
The material culture collection included chipped stone tools, stone debris, and pottery from prehistoric
times. The archeological crew and volunteers identified a variety of domestic historic sites, many of which
post-dated the Revolutionary War battle. They also located other domestic sites, including early farmsteads
that may have existed at the time of the Kettle Creek battle, or were built within a few years afterward. It is
possible that these early farmsteads contain artifact assemblages directly relating to the battlefield
landscape. These artifacts and landscape features provide a contact for the early settlement in the region,
which has wonderful interpretive value for any discussion of the Revolutionary War events in Wilkes
County.
Due to the nature of the survey sampling strategy, which consisted primarily of controlled metal detector
surveys, the vast majority of the artifact collection from the project consists of metal items. This represents
a skewed sample of the entire material culture at Kettle Creek, although it is likely that metal objects
naturally dominate the assemblages of the military sites in the Kettle Creek area. These types of sites, of
course, were the primary subjects of the study. A systematic shovel test survey of the same land would no
doubt yield a different representation of prehistoric and historic settlement in this locality. Since the survey
funds were limited, the cost-benefit of a controlled metal detector survey strategy was justified because it
focused on locating battle related sites and had limited adverse impact on non-battlefield sites. It also
provided data that would have been uncollected using traditional archeological survey means (such as
137