REVISITING ROSEMONT PLANTATION, LAURENS COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA CHICORA RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION 489 REVISITING ROSEMONT PLANTATION, LAURENS COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA Prepared By: Michael Trinkley, Ph.D., RPA Chicora Research Contribution 489 Chicora Foundation, Inc. PO Box 8664 ▪ 861 Arbutus Drive Columbia, South Carolina 29202-8664 803-787-6910 www.chicora.org This report is printed on permanent paper ∞ ©2008 by Chicora Foundation, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, or transcribed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior permission of Chicora Foundation, Inc. except for brief quotations used in reviews. Full credit must be given to the authors, publisher, and project sponsor. ABSTRACT The initial research at Rosemont was Artifact assemblages, while meager, conducted in 1991 and was reported in 1992. At supplement the data previously collected from the time the work was one of the earliest Rosemont and provide additional clues investigations of a piedmont plantation. It regarding both antebellum and postbellum life provided significant historical research, testing in the piedmont. The Rosemont main house of the main plantation complex, and a very (and its gardens) is certainly comparable to most detailed reconstruction of the Rosemont garden. low country plantations. The single posited In 2007 Mr. Richard Lorenz, one of the property slave structure investigated, although poorly owners, allowed Chicora to conduct additional preserved, seems to be more similar than research. This research focused on an adjacent different from low country examples. tract to the west of the previously investigated main settlement that is in the process of being A major goal for the citizens of Laurens sold for development by the Clark family. County remains the preservation of Rosemont Plantation. Although a non-profit organization On this tract are two large mounds, has been created for this purpose, much more found to represent the remains of structures. needs to be done. We made initial Structure 3, to the south of an east-west access recommendations regarding site preservation in road, was identified through investigations as a 1991, but regrettably the site has continued to probable antebellum dwelling. It has a mean deteriorate since that time. Talk today of ceramic date of 1850. Structure 8, to the north of parking lots and paths is premature. Far more the access road, was found to be a probable important is the stabilization and development postbellum structure. Further work by Mr. of a preservation plan for the site. Lorenz revealed a dry laid rock foundation for a chimney. A critical aspect of that preservation plan is additional archaeological investigation. Also identified during these There are many resources that are being investigations are two barns, situated along the gradually diminished and will be eventually lost access road. One measures 40 by 22 feet if there is not a dedicated effort to their (Structure 9), the other 30 by 18 feet (Structure examination. 10). i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures iv List of Tables v Introduction 1 Background 1 Curation 4 Natural Setting 5 Physiography, Geology, and Soils 5 Climate 6 Floristics 7 Historic Synopsis of Rosemont 13 Historical Overview of the Upcountry 13 History of Rosemont Plantation 19 A Retrospective Examination of Rosemont History 45 The Rosemont Structures 47 The Rosemont Garden 48 The Rosemont House 52 Notable Rosemont Garden Plants 55 Trees 55 Shrubs 60 Fruits 62 Roses 65 Investigations 69 Strategy and Methods 69 Surface Remains 71 Archaeological Remains 74 Artifacts 79 1991 Investigations 79 2007 Investigations 83 Summary 87 Sources Cited 93 Appendix 1. Lorenz Collections 103 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Portion of the USGS Waterloo Topographic map 1 2. Rosemont Plantation in 1991 2 3. View of the area west of the main settlement 4 4. Soils immediately surrounding the Rosemont settlement 6 5. Wet and dry years since 1900 7 6. 1939 and 1941 aerial images of the plantation 9 7. 1949 and 1964 aerial images of the plantation 10 8. 1970 aerial image of the plantation 11 9. Mouzon’s 1775 map of the Rosemont area 21 10. Mills’ 1826 Atlas of the Rosemont area 23 11. Ann Pamela Cunningham 33 12. 1883 Kyzer and Hellans map of the Rosemont area 35 13. 1892 topographic map of the Rosemont area 36 14. 1894 plat of Tract 1 of Rosemont Plantation 37 15. Ca. 1920 photograph of the Rosemont house 41 16. Ca. 1920 photograph of the north façade of the Rosemont house 42 17. Rosemont about 1926 43 18. 1941 aerial of Rosemont 45 19. Wilkes’ ca. 1947 sketch of the posited slave cemetery at Rosemont 46 20. Reconstruction of the historical arrangement of Rosemont structures 47 21. Conjectural plans of the Rosemont main house 51 22. Plan of the Rosemont Plantation site 70 23. Structure 3 mound 72 24. Structure 8 mound 72 25. Structure 9 73 26. Plans and profiles for Test Pits 1-3 75 27. Test Pit 5 76 28. Test Pit 6 77 29. Brick pathway exposed in 1991 77 30. Function and type of nails at Structures 1 and 2 81 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Rosemont’s agricultural production and that of Laurens County in 1850 26 2. Rosemont’s agricultural production and that of Laurens County in 1860 30 3. Pottery at Rosemont Plantation 79 4. Mean ceramic dates for Rosemont 80 5. Comparison of artifact patterns 82 6. Comparison of Rosemont with Millwood data 82 7. Decorative motifs 83 8. Mean ceramic date for Structure 3 83 9. Artifacts and pattern from Structure 3 84 10. Artifacts and pattern from Structure 8 85 v vi INTRODUCTION Background 221 (Shrine Club Road to the southwest and Slough or Cunningham Slough Road to the The Rosemont property is situated in northeast) (Figure 1). southeastern Laurens County, east of the confluence of the Saluda and Reedy rivers. A Although the area around the plantation portion of these rivers was flooded by the has been intensively cultivated in the past, it Buzzards Roost rural electrification project in was found in second growth hardwood forest, the 1930s, creating Lake Greenwood. Rosemont being managed primarily as a hunting preserve is about 16 miles southwest of Laurens and 4½ at the time of our first inv estigations. miles south of Waterloo. Although the original plantation was over 2000 acres, this study Research in 1991-1992 concentrated on the vicinity of the main house, encompassing about 3 acres circumscribed by S- Chicora’s first archaeological invest- Figure 1. Portion of the Waterloo 1971 USGS topographic map showing the vicinity of Rosemont Plantation in Laurens County. 1 ROSEMONT PLANTATION Several other modifications of the initial research design were made as work progressed in 1991. Initially Chicora anticipated integrating the efforts of an architectural historian at the site. We discovered, however, that the building remains were virtually all below ground and that little architectural research could be accomplished during this early phase of research. Consequently, this effort was shifted to the transcription and review of the voluminous historical Figure 2. Rosemont Plantation in 1991 looking north toward the main documentation and to the house ruins and the large granite monument erected by the DAR in 1959. additional needs of archaeological conservation of recovered remains. igation of the Rosemont Plantation site The historical documents, while collected from a (38LU323) was conducted in December 1991 variety of repositories, were not synthesized and under the auspices of the Laurens County thus could not be readily used to support the Historical Society through a SC Department of archaeological research without this Archives and History (SCDAH) Survey and intervention. Planning Grant (Trinkley et al. 1992). A crew of four and the principal investigator conducted a In addition, Chicora Foundation total of 143.5 person hours of field undertook the excavation of four 5-foot units in investigations, including a reconnaissance level the main site area to better document site survey of approximately 23 acres of the main preservation and integrity, and artifact quantity plantation complex, an intensive survey of the 3 and variety. While not required by the initial acres comprising the main settlement area, and scope of work, these test excavations provided the mapping of the gardens and main essential support to justify the integrity of the settlement. plantation site. The project scope initially included In addition to the technical report on the mapping of "boxwoods" and "magnolias" which excavations, Chicora was also responsible for form the major pattern of the Rosemont gardens. preparing and submitting a National Register As work continued at the site it became clear nomination to the SCDAH, which was accepted, that the gardens were more complex than forwarded to the Keeper of the National originally anticipated by the historical society Register, and entered onto the National Register and SCDAH. As a result the mapping by on June 11, 1993. The report also provided the Chicora incorporated a larger area, as well as a Laurens County Historical Society with greater number and variety of plants. This recommendations concerning the long-term represents not only the first such research at an preservation of the site. upland plantation in South Carolina, but also the first time that the garden of any South Beyond these "preservation" oriented Carolina plantation has been intensively goals, we recognized that the research at studied. Rosemont provided an exceptional opportunity 2 INTRODUCTION to explore a piedmont plantation. In 1991 desire for lake property. A newly formed research at up country plantations was even organization, the Rosemont Preservation more scarce than today, of variable quality, and Society, has agreed to purchase 4.5 acres typically associated with compliance projects surrounding the main house, including the bulk where the site ceased to exist after the of the gardens, for $45,000 in the hopes of archaeological investigations.