“Enough of the history lesson” — Terrence McKenna, KEATING (Jan. 18, 2008)

As blurted during the Sugar House Consulting Party Meeting on Jan. 18, 2008, to Torben Jenk who was sharing historical evidence for British Army Fort No. 1 (1777) as printed in John Fanning Watson’s ‘Annals of Philadelphia’ (1830):

“The British redoubts remained til lately — one on the Delaware bank in a line with the stone-bridge street — then no houses were near it; now it is all built up, and streets are run where none were seen.”

“… And while Leigh Whitaker ‘acknowledges’ the historical importance of the site, she stated flatly that it is not the duty of SugarHouse to preserve history.” — Angelina Sciolla, (March 2008)

As reported by Angelina Sciolla in ‘Squabbling over slots‘ LifeStyle Magazine, March 2008.

Besides being a spokesperson for SugarHouse HSP Gaming, Leigh Whitaker is a lawyer.

“Please understand that some of us involved in this consultation do not have a professional background in the field of history or archaeology.” — James Boyer, US Army Corps of Engineers (Jan. 22, 2008)

For eighteen months, the Regulatory Branch, Philadelphia District, Corps of Engineers never thought it important to assign someone with “a professional background in the field of history or archaeology” despite the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106, which states:

“Professional standards. Section 112(a)(1)(A) of the act requires each Federal agency responsible for the protection of historic resources, including archaeological resources, to ensure that all actions taken by employees or contractors of the agency shall meet professional standards under regulations developed by the Secretary.” [36 CFR § 800.2.(a)(1)]

James Boyer is a biologist.

“… Marsh Street (Present-Day Ellen Street)…” — Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (Feb. 2008)

 Judson Kratzer, Principal Investigator, and Paul Schopp, Historian, wrote: 

“The Nineteenth Century at the Subject Property. The Delaware Riverfront and East and West side of Penn Street between Marsh Street (Present-Day Ellen Street) and Shackamaxon Street.” 

WRONG. Marsh Street became Poplar Street, not Ellen Street. Marsh/Poplar Street is 450 feet south of Ellen Street.

Kratzer and Schopp are off by 450 feet. Yet another example of their poor research and mapping skills.

“I urge the Army Corps to take a step back, to sit with the Consulting Parties in conversation and to discuss the outstanding concerns that have been so often raised and documented, and yet so clearly ignored.” — Maya van Rossum, RIVERKEEPER (2008/09/03)

Excerpt from letter to Frank Cianfrani, Chief, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District:

It is critical that Section 106, NEPA and all Clean Water Act decisionmaking undertaken by, and overseen by, the Army Corps be above reproach in all instances.  The Sugarhouse Casino development proposal is highly controversial and as a result even greater vigilance should be applied.  

I urge the Army Corps to take a step back, to sit with the Consulting Parties in conversation and to discuss the outstanding concerns that have been so often raised and documented, and yet so clearly ignored.  

From communications that have been circulated, other Consulting Parties clearly agree on the need for a meeting and discussion, including John Gallery of the Preservation Alliance who wrote: “the information is complex and the differing views are often difficult to understand and evaluate… It is difficult for us to evaluate the different points of view from these multiple emails….Given the lack of agreement, the Preservation Alliance would prefer that a meeting of all parties be held and that work on the site be halted until such a meeting and discussion can be occur.”   

As things stand, the Section 106 process and outcome is sorely in question and the Army Corps in our view cannot be said to have fulfilled its obligations including the one to “… ensure that a determination, finding, or agreement under the procedures in this subpart is supported by sufficient documentation to enable any reviewing parties to understand its basis” [36 CFR § 800.11].”

I respectfully request your consideration of these concerns and the need for an onsite meeting and discussion which is being requested by so many.  I urge you to halt all action on the Sugarhouse development project until this meeting and a final and informed decisionmaking process and outcome can be achieved.

“… the anti-gaming agenda of the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association and Mr. Torben Jenk,…” — Terrence McKenna, KEATING (2008/05/06)

McKenna’s attempt to cast the research delivered by myself (with Ken Milano and Rich Remer) into the “anti-gaming agenda” is ludicrous. The historic documentary evidence delivered to date should be enough but for those who are curious, I have been preserving and restoring historic structures in the Philadelphia area for twenty-five years. Significant projects include the conservation of the National Memorial Arch in Valley Forge (Paul Phillipe Cret, Architect), restoring the Kay-Evans House and outbuildings at Croft Farm, NJ (built 1753), and renovating scores of eighteenth and nineteenth century row homes. I was one of the craftsmen who restored 110-12 Linden Street, Camden NJ, which won “First Prize Exterior Rehabilitation (1991)” by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Since moving to Kensington in 1983, I has been collecting and sharing the local history through articles, handouts, maps, books (“Kensington History: Stories & Memories” & “Workshop of the World Revisited”), and the website Workshop of the World—Philadelphia. 

I have given presentations at local libraries, churches, institutions, the Union League of Philadelphia (“The Elusive Thomas Dolan” and “Union Goods, illustrated stories of manufacturing by Union League members in Philadelphia during the Civil War (1861-1865)“), and recently at the McNeil Center for Early American Studies at the University of Pennsylvania (“Colonial History of Shackamaxon & Kensington, 1664-1777”). 

For years I have led tours of historic and industrial sites, including “Kensington & Frankford — Textiles, Metals & Beer“ for the Society for Industrial Archaeology National Conference (2007). 

In 1995, Ken Milano and Rich Remer started the Kensington History Project. This grew out of a collaboration with Harry Silcox, the former Principal of Lincoln High School, who asked us to work with middle and high school students plus senior citizens on an “intergenerational service learning project” focused on the history of Kensington. The result was edited by Harry Silcox and Jamie Catrambone and published as “Kensington History: Stories & Memories” (Brighton, 1996).

Ken, Rich and I continued with presentations at local libraries, institutions and in significant buildings, always encouraging neighbors to bring and share their mementos. These presentations have been well covered in the local Star newspaper since 1995. For years, Ken has researched and written the weekly “The Rest is History” column for the Star.

Our research on Kensington and outreach was published in “Pennsylvania Legacies, (Nov. 2002)” published by the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Based upon all our research on Kensington at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Ken, Rich and I prepared the first finding guide to those resources, “Kensington: A Bibliographic Guide.”

All these activities definitively prove that Torben Jenk, Ken Milano and Rich Remer were interested in the history of Kensington long before gaming was proposed, and that interest will continue long after this Sugar House Section 106 process is over. 

During our extensive research, we did find historic references to the problem of gaming by the British Army during their occupation of Philadelphia, from John Jackson, With the British Army in Philadelphia 1777-1778 (Presidio 1979), p. 211-13:

“Ewald asserted that City Tavern was the largest of the gambling clubs; its bank always consisted of 1,000 guineas. Observers noted an ‘extravagant rage for play’ and believed that high-ranking officers encouraged young officers to gamble for high stakes, sums they could not afford to lose. Ewald said, ‘More than once I have seen 50,000 dollars change hands – where some made their fortune but many their ruin.’ Peebles visited the rooms and ‘saw much gambling going on as usual, a great deal of money lost & won this winter.’ Peebles, a small gambler, admitted playing dollar whist at the room and winning eight dollars. Colonel von Wurmb reported, ‘We have parties and gamble, whereby every night 700 and 800 pounds are lost and won.’ Apparently as a gesture, the bank permitted the players to win all the money on the table on the final night of play, 30 April. Peebles said the bank’s net winnings for the season were ₤7,000.

“The harmful effect of gambling on the British army was evidenced by the ruin of many officers. Deeply in debt as a result of their losses, they were forced to sell their commissions, usually to less qualified individuals. Ewald said, ‘Some even shot themselves out of desperation.’ Charles Stedman, a native Philadelphian and British officer with a deep-rooted prejudice against Howe, deplored the loss of numerous honorable officers who might have rendered great service to Great Britain.”

Because this gambling information does not relate to archaeological investigations at the SugarHouse site, it was not included in reports or correspondence.

McKenna’s and Kratzer’s own reports prove that they have no clue where Batchelors Hall stood.

Follow Terrence McKenna’s & Judson Kratzer’s flip-flops:

 “The Scull and Heap map depicts buildings standing along and west of Point No Point Road near Gunnar’s Run. The building labeled “Hall” is Batchelor’s Hall, … Based upon a visual review of the Scull and Heap map, it appears the two men went to some trouble to provide a level of accuracy in the sketches of buildings they drew on their map. There are distinct differences among the the various buildings, suggesting an attempt at accurate portrayal of massing and detail as much as a sketch will permit.” (Judson Kratzer, Feb. 2008)

“Mr. Jenk’s comment infers that A.D. Marble failed to address this issue and completely ignored the possible historic presence of this structure. … The fact of the matter is that the possible historic presence of Bachelor’s Hall was addressed in the A.D. Marble reports, and that A.D. Marble performed subsurface investigation activities in the reported, possible former location of Bachelor’s Hall. No evidence of the former Bachelor’s Hall was found to be present on the subject Site.” (Terrence McKenna, May 6, 2008).

“Furthermore, while the Scull & Heap map may not be scalable, it seems highly unlikely that the two cartographers and surveyors from the city would incorrectly map the location of such an important Colonial Philadelphia building on the wrong side of the road.  Scull & Heap clearly depict the building west of present-day Delaware Avenue… An advertisement from the 14 July 1763 edition of The Pennsylvania Gazette appears to provide the best locational information about Batchelor’s Hall. Based upon A.D. Marble’s investigation the USACE can be comfortable that the former Batchelor’s Hall was not located on the SugarHouse Casino site.” (Terrence McKenna, Aug. 1, 2008).

First it was thousands of feet away “near Gunnar’s Run,” then they looked for it on the “subject Site,” but now it was “not located of the SugarHouse Casino site.”

Eighteen months into this “archaeological investigation:”

• Neither Terrence McKenna nor his revolving-door of Principal Investigators at A.D. Marble (three so far) have found any manuscript maps, surveys or deeds for Batchelors Hall — NONE.
• McKenna and the Principal Investigators always rely on vague second, third and fourth-hand info, or maps described as “wall hangings.” Don’t they know how to do research in the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, City Archives and other institutions? 

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer have delivered over ten deeds, surveys, land partition and road petitions for Batchelors’ Hall. McKenna and the Principal Investigators continue to dismiss this primary-source evidence. 

“The Army Corps has not conducted the kind of independent review and oversight upon which the law depends.” — Maya van Rossum, RIVERKEEPER (2008/09/03)

Excerpt from letter to Frank Cianfrani, Chief, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District:

One very good demonstration of the level of disregard that has marred the Section 106 process in this case can be found in the Keating Response to Comments dated May 6, 2008.  As articulated in my May 15, 2008 letter the opening 15 pages of the document is filled with inflammatory, accusatory, inappropriate and inaccurate statements and seeks to dismiss all comments provided by consulting parties rather than to, in a thoughtful and diligent way, consider, analyze and appropriately include them in the ongoing research and analysis.  The response to comment document spends tremendous time dismissing comments provided because the party involved has a position on the development of the site at issue – that is not an appropriate grounds for dismissing thoughtful and meaningful comment.  

Inappropriate behavior and inaccurate characterizations by the applicant of individuals and information involved in the consulting party process began very early on.  At the January 18, 2008, Consulting Party meeting Terrence McKenna cut off Torben Jenk with “Enough of the history lesson” and then followed up the attack in email communications.  At the time I responded in email on January 23, 2008 by stating: 

“For the record, I would like to state that Mr. Jenks was very appropriate at the meeting – he was informative and passionate and appropriately challenging.  He was forthcoming with information and rightly concerned when he felt that data to date, which had been provided, was not fully considered if considered at all.   I take umbrage with accusations to the contrary.   

“I felt very educated and appreciative of the tremendous time, energy and information he has been so willing to share with others.  It is inappropriate to try to dampen his participation in the public process by accusing him of any inappropriate behavior.  I am wary and concerned about communications that are clear attempts to erode public participation in the process by making it uncomfortable for folks to speak up and participate.  There was no participant at the meeting more forthcoming, informative or prepared than Mr. Jenks, he should be only applauded and thanked for his efforts.”

It does not appear from the perspective of this consulting party that the Army Corps has taken the steps it needs to ensure the process has maintained its openness and  integrity and that it has fulfilled the goals and obligations of the Section 106 process. 

In addition, it  seems that the Applicant and its own hired consultants were given tremendous independence and authority in conducting their “archaeological investigation” and in choosing to disregard the wealth of information being provided them by consulting parties.  Whether purposeful or not, the record documents that the applicants’ investigators clearly missed crucial historic evidence of past uses of the Sugarhouse Site including British Army Redoubt No. 1, Batchelors’ Hall and three centuries of industrial development along the ancestral edge of the Delaware River.  Only recently has the Army Corps assigned an archaeologist to this Sugarhouse Section 106 process but his approvals for the “removal of obstructions” and the current effort to close-out and complete a Memorandum of Agreement are not substantiated by any documentation.  The Army Corps has not conducted the kind of independent review and oversight upon which the law depends.

“It is the obligation of the Army Corps to ensure a thoughtful Section 106 process guided by integrity that fulfills and honors the specific requirements and goals as stated in the law.” — Maya van Rossum, RIVERKEEPER (2008/09/03)

Letter to Frank Cianfrani, Chief, Regulatory Branch, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District:

Once again, I want to go on record expressing concerns about implementation of the Section 106 process for the Sugarhouse Casino development. 

I do not believe that the consulting parties — nor the tremendous wealth of information, documents and resources that they have shared — have been fully embraced by the process, by the Army Corps or by the applicant as instructed by law. 

I am concerned that the dismissive and arms-length approach that has been applied in the case of Section 106 will continue throughout the Army Corps review of the Sugarhouse Casino development proposal undermining all required Army Corps reviews for the project.

Section 106 requires that the Army Corps seek information from consulting parties, and other individuals and organizations knowledgeable about and concerned about historic properties in the area, and that they identify issues relating to a project’s potential effects on historic properties.  The Army Corps is further instructed to review information on historic properties within the area of potential effects, including possible historic properties not yet identified.

While the Army Corps has provided a path for information to come forth from consulting parties, thus fulfilling their functional obligation under the law, it has not ensured a meaningful review to honor the intent of the regulations.  

It is the obligation of the Army Corps to ensure a thoughtful Section 106 process guided by integrity that fulfills and honors the specific requirements and goals as stated in the law.   From the record it is clear that the documentation, information and expert opinions delivered by the consulting parties in this 106 process have not received an appropriate level of analysis, consideration and use by the applicant and their designated experts.   It is the obligation of the Army Corps to remedy this and to ensure that the knowledgeable information and documentation brought to the process by those other than the applicant are appropriately embraced, considered, included and analyzed…

the revolving-door of Principal Investigators for the Sugar House site

A.D. Marble & Co. appears to be on its third Principal Investigator for this archaeological investigation of the Sugar House site.

1. Daniel N. Bailey, “Principal Investigator,” wrote Marble’s Phase 1A Archaeological Survey Report (March 2007). Marble staff explained at the Sugar House Consulting Party meeting (Jan. 18, 2008) that Bailey left during the summer of 2007 “to lead a Christian Youth Group.” 
2. Richard Baublitz, “Principal Investigator,” wrote Marble’s Phase IB Management Summary Report (Oct. 2007).
3. Judson Kratzer, “Archaeologist/Principal Investigator,” wrote Marble’s Phase IB/II Archaeological Investigation (Feb. 2008) and Phase IB/II Supplemental Archaeological Survey, Geomorphological Assessment, and Report Clarification (June 2008).

These three Principal Investigators were consistently guided by the failed historical research of Marble’s consistent “Historian” during these Sugar House investigations, Paul Schopp.

This revolving-door of Principal Investigators — Bailey, Baublitz and Kratzer — has relied on inaccurate secondary sources, has continually made inaccurate assumptions and has provided contradictory information for the location of historic sites within the Sugar House Area of Potential Effect.

As an example of their twenty months of incompetence, Bailey, Baublitz, Kratzer and Schopp found:

NO maps of British Army Redoubt No. 1 (local historians provided ALL SIXTEEN)

NO manuscript maps, surveys, deeds, land patitions or road petitions for Batchelors’ Hall (local historians provided MORE THAN TEN)

NO maps or information on Masters Tide Mill (local historians provided TWO).

“… the claim by consulting parties for Batchelor’s Hall’s location within the project area is not supported by the documentation provided to date.” — Judson Kratzer, MARBLE (Sept. 16, 2008)

Kratzer’s ludicrous claim is clearly contradicted by many reports and emails sent by Torben Jenk to the Sugar House Consulting Parties including:

“Response to Marble & Co.’s SugarHouse Phase IB/II Report (Feb. 2008)” — Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer (March 10, 2008)

Historical evidence and archaeological potential for Batchelor’s Hall (ca. 1728-1775) on the site of the proposed SugarHouse casino, 941-1025 North Delaware Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, — Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer (2008/04/04), containing:  

• Batchelor’s Hall; A Poem. George Webb & Ben Franklin, 1731.
• Writ of Partition of the Real Estate of William Masters, Esq. Deceased, 1775. 
• Plan of about three Acres of Land on which the Building call’d Batchelor Hall lately stood the lines through the same shew the manner in which it was divided amongst severall claimers by a Jury of the County of Philadelphia began in January 1775 and finished in June following in order of Confirmation. Survey by Jn. Lukens. 
• Indenture, Oct. 6, 1779, John Sobers to Paine Newman. 
• Stephen Girard vs Paine Newman, Deed to Manual Eyre. Feb. 2, 1791. 
• Batchelor’s Hall Ground & John Dickinson’s Ground. Reading Howell, 1804. 
• Road petition “…to open and continue Shackamaxon Street to the River Delaware” and Shackamaxon Street survey (1816). 
• Plan of Property late of John Dickinson Esq. Decd Philad. May 30, 1861.  

The influence of Batchelors Hall on horticulture, society and literature, starting in 1731, plus “Batchelors-Hall: A Poem” — email sent by Torben Jenk to Sugar House Consulting Parties (2008/07/18). 

“Not every nook and cranny needs to be investigated, especially in light of the apparent extent of previous ground disturbance on this site.” — email sent by Torben Jenk to Tom McCulloch and Sugar House Consulting Parties (2008/08/06).

“Keating’s and Marble’s own reports “flip-flop” on the location of Batchelors Hall:  flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop.” — email sent by Torben Jenk to Sugar House Consulting Parties (2008/08/14).

“Batchelor’s Hall. It was burnt in 1776 and a smith’s shop was built atop its ruins” (John F. Watson) — email sent by Torben Jenk to Sugar House Consulting Parties (2008/08/14).

The evidence delivered by the local historians for the Masters Estate (directly to the south) and Batchelors’ Hall clearly shows the land boundaries, the neighbors, the building, the subdivision and the extension of Shackamaxon Street to the Delaware River.

These deeds, surveys, land partitions and road petitions for Batchelors’ Hall are legally-enforceable documents.

If Kratzer or the Regulators doubt the authenticity of these deeds, surveys, land partitions and road petitions for Batchelors’ Hall then they should examine the originals at the respective collecting institutions including Philadelphia City Archives and the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

“… it remains ADM’s contention that this building [Batchelors' Hall] was not located within the physical APE of the SugarHouse Casino project.” — Judson Kratzer (Sept. 16, 2008)

Kratzer’s contention is clearly wrong:

“The position of Batchelor’s Hall is NOT depicted… it remains ADM’s contention that this building was not located within the physical APE of the SugarHouse Casino project.”

What is clear is that A.D. Marble’s revolving-door of “Principal Investigators” (Daniel Bailey, Richard Baublitz & Judson Kratzer) have repeatedly delivered contradictory statements about the location of Batchelors’ Hall.

A.D. Marble’s Principal Investigators, and their historian (Paul Schopp) have NEVER accurately identified the location of either the Batchelors’ Hall building nor the Batchelors’ Hall lands.

In Feb. 2008, Kratzer wrote:

“The Scull and Heap map depicts buildings standing along and west of Point No Point Road near Gunnar’s Run. The building labeled “Hall” is Batchelor’s Hall, a gentlemen’s’ social club founded in the early eighteenth century and certainly functioning by December 1730 when a mention of the club’s name appeared in the columns of the Pennsylvania Gazette (Pennsylvania gazette December 22, 1730).”

Kratzer is wrong, the “Ball” estate is northeast of “Guners Run” while the Batchelors’ “Hall” is between the Delaware River and Cohocksink Creek.

Close examination of the color version of the Scull & Heap map shows no buildings along the riverside of the road to Point-No-Point.  Scull & Heap leave that riverside section clear of buildings for the green highlight to define the edge of land and water. 

Deed, survey and documentary evidence for Batchelors’ Hall (ca. 1728), Fairman’s Mansion (1702-1825) and the Ball estate show that those prominent early buildings stood on the riverside of Hall Street (now Delaware Avenue) and the road to “Point-No-Point” (now Richmond Street). 

Common sense suggests that these wealthy early landowners would place their homes and social clubs on the waterside of any public road.

Beyond mis-interpreting Scull & Heap’s map, Marble’s Principal Investigators ignored clear many extent eighteenth-century descriptions:

“Bachelor’s Hall,” mentioned by Dr. Rush, was a club-house, in the district of Kensington. It was a square building, of considerable beauty, and was chiefly used for balls and late suppers. It stood on the main river-street, with a fine open view of the Delaware.

Marble’s Principal Investigators have also continually ignored the primary source historical documentary evidence provided by local historians including more than ten deeds, surveys, land partitions and road petitions for Batchelors’ Hall.

On May 6, 2008, Terrence McKenna of Keating Consulting wrote: 

“Bachelor’s Hall. Mr. Jenk’s comment infers that A.D. Marble failed to address this issue and completely ignored the possible historic presence of this structure. (See, for example, discussion on pages 8 and 59.) The fact of the matter is that the possible historic presence of Bachelor’s Hall was addressed in the A.D. Marble reports, and that A.D. Marble performed subsurface investigation activities in the reported, possible former location of Bachelor’s Hall. No evidence of the former Bachelor’s Hall was found to be present on the subject Site.”

Either McKenna or Kratzer are lying — how can the “subsurface investigation activities” have taken place outside the Area of Potential Effect?

• McKenna should clearly explain where “A.D. Marble performed subsurface investigation activities in the reported, former location of Bachelor’s Hall.” 
• Kratzer should clearly explain how “A.D. Marble performed subsurface investigation activities in the reported, former location of Bachelor’s Hall” when he later claimed “it remains ADM’s contention that this building was not located within the physical APE of SugarHouse Casino project.”
• Which of Marble’s trenches looked for Batchelor’s Hall on the Sugar House site, or elsewhere?
• What evidence did Marble use to guide those “subsurface investigation activities”?
• What pages of which of Marble’s reports substantiate McKenna’s claim “The fact of the matter is that the possible historic presence of Bachelor’s Hall was addressed in the A.D. Marble reports,…”?

“two recently uncovered historical accounts provide additional detail that the Batchelor’s Hall building was not on the SugarHouse property.” — Terrence McKenna (Aug. 1, 2008)

Neither Terrence McKenna, Judson Kratzer (Principal Investigator #3), nor Paul Schopp (Historian), did any research for primary-source evidence. They looked for second-hand conjecture to support their pre-established and faulty assertions to exclude historical documentary evidence for Batchelors’ Hall from the Sugar House Area of Potential Effect

Let’s examine both of McKenna’s historical accounts and his interpretation — #1 is McKenna’s conjecture, #2 is McKenna’s conflation.

McKenna’s conjecture

“Volume XI of the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography contains a query and a response about the location of Batchelor’s Hall: 

“Bachelor’s Hall.—In a letter dated from Philadelphia, 27th January, 1742, some account is given of a visit to ‘Bachelor’s Hall.’ The location of this hall is requested. J.F.T. Muncy, Pa. (p. 126).

“Bachelor’s Hall.—This ‘Hall,’ with its surrounding grounds, was located on the square now bounded by Poplar, Shackamaxon, Beach and Allen Street, Kensington. It was erected prior to 1728,…” (p. 126)”

The reference to “Bachelors Hall” comes from the “Notes and Queries” section of the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography  (1887, Vol. 11, p. 126), not from the scholarly and footnoted articles which the PMHB is known for.

The source for this faulty description of “Poplar, Shackamaxon, Beach and Allen” appears to be another publication from 1879:

“… we conjecture that Bachelors’ Hall was situated on the square now bounded south by Poplar street, north by Shackamaxon street, east by Beach street, and west by Allen street.”

McKenna’s conflation

“An advertisement from the 14 July 1763 edition of The Pennsylvania Gazette appears to provide the best locational information about Batchelor’s Hall:

“TO be sold, on the 23d Instant, several lots of Ground, situated in the Northern Liberties, opposite Batchelors Hall, bounded on the East by a 50 Foot Street, called Queen-street, and on the North by a 60 Foot Street, called Shackamaxon- street, laid open and extending from Frankfort Road to Queen-street aforesaid. A Plan of the Lots may be seen at Richard Blackham’s, Thomas Say’s, and at Joseph Greenwood’s, opposite the Premises. The Purchasers paying one Third of the Money down, may have six Months to pay the Remainder, without interest, giving good Security, if required. The Sale to begin at Four o’Clock in the Afternoon, on the Premises. (p. 4).

“The lots being sold stood on the west side of present-day Richmond Street. For the ad to describe these lots as ‘opposite Batchelors Hall’ would clearly place the hall building somewhere between Richmond Avenue and Delaware Avenue, the same location as indicated on the Scull and Heap map and as the note from the 1887 volume of the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography states.

“Based upon A.D. Marble’s investigation the USACE can be comfortable that the former Batchelor’s Hall was not located on the SugarHouse Casino site.”

The 1763 advertisement does NOT define an eastern boundary for the Batchelors’ Hall Lands. The deeds and surveys clearly show that the Batchelors’ Hall lands ran to “low water” at the Delaware River. 

McKenna tries to EXCLUDE Batchelors’ Hall by overlaying the 1763 advertisement with the 1879/1887 “… we conjecture that Bachelors’ Hall was situated on the square now bounded south by Poplar street, north by Shackamaxon street, east by Beach street, and west by Allen street.”

Note that these “two recently uncovered historical accounts” were interpreted by Terrence McKenna as Project Executive for Keating Consulting, not Judson Kratzer as Principal Investigator / Archaeologist for A.D. Marble.

McKenna’s conjecture and conflation are are not a “good faith effort” but a deliberate attempt to put a fig leaf on corrupt evidence.

“Well, there might be stuff there you don’t want,” McKenna replied to a laughing response from the crowd. (2008/04/10)

Reporter Hayden Mitman wrote in Casino Moves Ahead Slowly (North Star, April 10, 2008):

Terrence McKenna, project executive for Keating Consulting LLC, which is in charge of overall development at the SugarHouse site, also addressed residents at the Fishtown Action meeting. Fishtown resident Rich Levins asked if a nearly year-long archaeological dig on the property — a required prelude to construction there —  yielded notable artifacts, and whether any of value could be kept in the community.

“Well, there might be stuff there you don’t want,” McKenna replied to a laughing response from the crowd.

“The following issues also relate in varying ways to the adequacy of testing within the SugarHouse site, as well as to the specific resources proposed by the Army Corps for mitigation and data recovery during subsequent stages of the investigation.” — Doug Mooney, PAF (2008/09/27)

•  Supplemental geomorphological studies within H-2 determined that the alluvial wash stratum overlying truncated Pleistocene deposits, and associated with borrow pit/site grading activities, was created sometime after the Revolution and before the 1870s, and that it likely accumulated naturally over a period of 20-30 years.  Were any artifacts recovered from this stratum that could be used to more precisely date its creation?  Why was no additional testing of this stratum recommended for the purpose of dating the deposits? 
• Phase IB and II test trenches were excavated to the depth at which intact foundations and features were identified. In completing this task, substantial segments of multiple trenches exposed stretches of presumed intact subsoil.  However, based on revised geomorphological findings for area H-2, many of the deposits identified as subsoil appear to have actually been the top of the alluvial wash stratum.  Given that this stratum is interpreted as having been created post-Revolution, and potentially as late as the early 19th century, the possibility is raised that significant portions of the Phase IB/II trenches did not go sufficiently deep to identify features (specifically brick shafts) constructed prior to the creation of the borrow pit.  Any such early features within H-2 would not be visible stratigraphically until the truncated top of the Pleistocene soil horizon underlying the alluvial wash sediments.  
• Feature 178, a brick privy in area H-2, was tested and determined to contain approximately 1.5 feet of intact, artifact-bearing 19th century deposits; however this feature was not recommended for mitigation in the Supplemental Phase IB/II report.  Why was this feature not recommended for data recovery? Why was this feature not included among the significant resources to be mitigated in the Determination of Effects letter? 
• Feature 174, a wood-lined shaft of unknown function, was determined to represent a potentially significant feature in the Supplemental Phase IB/II report, and was recommended by HSP Gaming for data recovery.  Why was this feature not included among the features to be mitigated in the Determination of Effects letter? 
• If the Army Corps believes that portions of the site underneath Penn Street do have the potential to contain additional historic and/or prehistoric resources – in other words, that such resources are anticipated – then how is it appropriate to address those resources through the provisions of an unanticipated discovery clause in the MOA?  As the PAF has pointed out previously, the investigation of Penn Street must be conducted in a deliberate, systematic manner, not by means of monitoring during the removal of utilities.  The removal of utilities is an activity that remains completely separate from archaeological investigations. 

In closing, the members of the Philadelphia Archaeological Forum hope that the comments and concerns presented above will enable the Army Corps to re-evaluate the positions and interpretations presented in the August 27 letter. We believe that the issues was have raised cast serious doubt on the adequacy of archaeological investigations conducted in several sections of the SugarHouse Casino property, and urge the Corps to complete the exploratory level studies of the site in a manner that does not leave acknowledged unresolved identification issues still on the table.  As we have previously stated, the PAF looks forward to the opportunity of discussing the above issues directly with the Army Corps in an effort to resolve existing disagreements and reach consensus on how to appropriately move this project forward. 

“… any claims by the Applicant that the posited location of the Hall has been previously examined archaeologically are baseless.” — Doug Mooney, PAF (2008/09/27)

“With respect to the issue of whether or not the historic location of Bachelor’s Hall falls within the SugarHouse property, the PAF believes that neither HSP Gaming nor the Army Corps has fully taken into account the evidence presented by Mr. Jenk and other researchers with the Kensington History Project.  Having reviewed this material, we find these individuals have in fact made a credible argument placing that former structure along the east side of Delaware Avenue, in the northwest section of the project area, and has supported this interpretation with multiple sources of historical documentation. Likewise, we concur that any arguments to the contrary presented by HSP Gaming have been both confusing and contradictory in nature. We also find that any claims by the Applicant that the posited location of the Hall has been previously examined archaeologically are baseless.  A review of field maps clearly indicates that the location of the Hall, as identified by Mr. Jenk and others, has not been directly or fully investigated by any archaeological testing thus far completed.  Regardless of the arguments for and against, the presence or absence of archaeological remains associated with Bachelor’s Hall is an issue that can be simply and easily resolved through additional testing.  Given the obvious historical significance of this resource we maintain that such additional testing must be performed before identification level investigations of this project are concluded.” 

“The PAF strenuously disagrees with the determination by the Army Corps concerning the potential determination of eligibility of both British Redoubt #1 and Batchelor’s Hall…” — Doug Mooney, PAF (2008/09/27)

“… The Corps’ Aug. 27 letter states that even if archaeological remains of one or both of these resources did still exist within the SugarHouse property, “they would not possess the integrity needed to be considered an historic property.” In both cases the PAF has raised serious concerns about the testing methodology applied in the identification and assessment of these resources. While it is obvious that neither possess integrity as architectural properties, absent adequate archaeological testing there is simply no substantial grounds on which to reach a conclusion concerning archaeological integrity. We maintain that the Corps conclusion represents an unsupported rush to judgment on this issue.” 

“Regrettably, all arguments related to the integrity and context of the refinery’s archaeological remains may be, or may soon be, moot given that the Army Corps is currently allowing HSP Gaming to destroy archaeological features associated with the Sugar Refinery complex as a result of on-going pre-construction activities.” — Doug Mooney, PAF (2008/09/27)

“In light of the above unsupported conclusions and contradictory evidence the Determination of Effects statement that, “Demolition of the [Sugar Refinery] structures in 1997 resulted in loss of integrity and context of the structures, effectively eliminating its National Register status”, would seem to: 1) suggest that the Army Corps is confusing issues related to the evaluation of archaeological and architectural integrity in this case; 2) infer that the Corps does not completely understand issues pertaining to the evaluation of archaeological integrity and significance as established by the Section 106 guidelines; and 3) imply that the Army Corps maintains that the process of building demolition, by its very nature, inherently and necessarily imparts loss of integrity and context to historic archaeological resources.  If this latter situation were true, then a substantial proportion of all historic archaeological sites, including many that are currently on the Register, would, in fact, be ineligible for listing in the National Register. 

“Regrettably, all arguments related to the integrity and context of the refinery’s archaeological remains may be, or may soon be, moot given that the Army Corps is currently allowing HSP Gaming to destroy archaeological features associated with the Sugar Refinery complex as a result of on-going pre-construction activities.  The PAF objects to, and is profoundly disturbed by the manner in which this specific part of the project – test pilings – was conducted by the Corps.  We are particularly perplexed by the Corps’ position that the installation of test pilings and associated activities somehow fell outside the Section 106 review process.  Any activity that has the potential to affect archaeological resources falls squarely under the aegis of Section 106, and appropriate archaeological testing, documentation, and evaluation is mandated in advance of those activities.  In this instance, proposed activities clearly had the potential to impact archaeological resources. To date the deliberative process involved in assessing effects associated with the test piles has not been in any way fully articulated or documented, as required by the Section 106 regulations. This, in our view, represents a very serious violation of the intent of federally mandated preservation law.” 

“… purported historical documentation indicating the nature and extent of prior disturbance has never been presented…” — Doug Mooney, PAF (2008/09/27)

“For resources east of Penn Street, and with specific reference to the former Sugar Refinery complex, arguments presented in the Evaluation of Historic Significance section of the Aug. 27 letter approach the situation from two different perspectives.  On one hand, it is argued that the construction of the Sugar Refinery complex effectively destroyed any trace of earlier waterfront industrial and economic development.  While this may be correct, the PAF maintains that archaeological testing completed to date has not been sufficient in scope to verify this condition.  In addition, we note, once again, that purported historical documentation indicating the nature and extent of prior disturbance has never been presented to any of the consulting parties for review, has not appeared graphically in any archaeological report, and has not been cited or fully referenced in any known project document.  

“The second argument maintains that the Sugar Refinery complex was itself so badly impacted by demolition in the late 1990s that it can not represent a potentially significant historic property.  The only circumstances under which this conclusion can be defended is if either archaeological testing or specific historic documentation had demonstrated that the archaeological remains of the refinery complex were substantially destroyed by the implosion, that they retained little integrity, and that the study of these remains could afford no reasonable opportunity to collect otherwise unavailable information about the complex, its function, and history. The fact remains that no such evidence has been produced, and HSP Gaming has included no specific archaeological assessment of integrity in any project document that the PAF has received.  In fact, just the opposite condition seems to be indicated by the evidence we have reviewed – that the archaeological remains do retain at least some measure of integrity.  HSP Gaming, their consultants, and the Army Corps regularly reference the presence of multiple subsurface foundations, walls, and floors within this former complex. HSP Gaming’s own archaeological consultant has assigned feature designations to associated foundations they have identified – again demonstrating that below ground evidence of the complex does exist on the site.  Based on our review of the available evidence it would seem that the argument for lack of integrity regarding the Sugar Refinery property (and for other industrial complexes along the riverfront part of the project area) essentially boils down to two subtly intertwined, equally tortured, and ultimately illogical positions: 1) that the preserved walls, foundations, floors and other archaeological features associated with the Sugar Refinery are now filled with rubble, therefore this site has no integrity; and 2) that the construction of the Refinery complex disturbed any trace of earlier historic resources, therefore the Refinery is itself a disturbance and lacks integrity.  In any event, the specific criteria used to evaluate issues of integrity and archaeological significance in this instance have never been clearly articulated, nor has the specific evidence used to support a lack of integrity and archaeological potential been fully and unambiguously presented.” 

“The Determination of Effects letter places undue weight on the evidence of prior disturbance within the site, and, based on this erroneous reading of the evidence reaches the unjustified conclusion that no further testing is warranted in either areas H-2 or along the historic waterfront, to the east of Penn Street.” — Doug Mooney, PAF (2008/09/27)

“The completion of Supplemental testing added much new and welcome information related to the archaeology of the SugarHouse Site.  Especially important was the data produced by additional geomorphological testing which clarified some details related to the nature, timing, and extent of prior disturbance within the APE (and significantly revises the historic landform model previously presented in the Phase IA report).  However, after evaluating this new evidence the PAF does not reach the same conclusions the Army Corps evidently does regarding what it indicates concerning archaeological preservation on the site.  The Determination of Effects letter places undue weight on the evidence of prior disturbance within the site, and, based on this erroneous reading of the evidence reaches the unjustified conclusion that no further testing is warranted in either areas H-2 or along the historic waterfront, to the east of Penn Street.  As noted above, testing has now conclusively demonstrated that disturbance in H-2 has not extended deep enough to remove evidence of historic structures or the associated deep shaft features that are the frequently the primary source of archaeological data on urban sites, and which have been a the revealing and rewarding focus of many archaeological investigations in this city. Given these facts, the PAF maintains that any discussion of “extensive subsurface impacts” with respect to area H-2 is misplaced and not supported by the archaeological evidence, and therefore can not be relied on in reaching a determination of  historic significance. Historic resources contained within area H-2 remain potentially significant, and must be subjected to additional identification level investigation, documentation, and eligibility assessment.” 

“In archaeological investigations, a reasonable and good faith effort to identify potentially significant resources within a site requires the deployment of methodologies appropriate to specific site conditions and to the nature, extent, and potential significance of suspected cultural resources…” — Doug Mooney, PAF (2008/09/27)

“… In addition, the intensity and extent of the survey program must be sufficient to offer a reasonable likelihood that execution of the survey will locate a significantly high percentage of subsurface resources, and that it will also provide information about those resources sufficient to support a reasonable and complete evaluation of the nature, significance, and integrity of the resources in question.  It is our expressed view that this standard has not always been met during the current undertaking. We believe, and have previously stated, that investigation and evaluation of the area bounded by Laurel, Delaware, Shackamaxon, and Penn Streets, and containing the area of high historic resource potential designated H-2, falls far short of the standard of a reasonable and good faith effort.  In previous comments the PAF has pointed out the inadequacy of HSP Gaming’s use of limited trenching methodologies to investigate the multiple historic properties formerly located there. Specifically, we have noted that, by itself, trenching is poorly suited to the task of identifying dispersed and localized features, such as wells and privies associated with historic residential and business properties. Such evidence is easily overlooked, yet often very significant. Our concern in this regard has been countered, with little effect, by discussions of the extent of prior disturbance within H-2 (an argument that addresses only the likelihood near-surface deposits have been removed, but does not address the possibility of survival of deep features like privies), and by arguments that finding privies and similar features in this part of the site was less likely given the less intensive nature of domestic development (an argument that is directly contradicted by the historic maps and historical data presented in the Phase I and II archaeological reports).   

“Relying on these dubious, indeed discredited, arguments the Corps has accepted an inadequate testing program that was guaranteed from the start to under represent shaft features and other localized domestic resources in H-2. While testing in this area has resulted in the discovery of multiple historic building foundations, some of which were determined to date to the 18th and 19th centuries, investigation was not extended beyond limited trenching in an attempt to identify and assess privies and other possible features or artifact deposits associated with the structural remains that were encountered.  Simply put, the arbitrary dismissal of historic structural remains without expanding testing to search for associated features does not represent a reasonable and good faith effort to document and evaluate archaeological resources. 

“The recently completed Supplemental Phase IB/II testing provides concrete support for PAF’s contention that good faith efforts were not carried out in this part of the site. These excavations resulted in the identification of a total of seven new shaft features (six brick-lined, one wood-lined), all of which were found exactly where they would be expected – at the rear of known historical lots.  Despite the identification of these features, in a part of the site where no shafts had been previously found, HSP Gaming made no effort to revise earlier assessments of archaeological potential for this section of the site, and recommended no further testing to ensure that systematic efforts at identification are completed in an area with demonstrated archeological sensitivity.  The failure to alter prior assessments of archaeological potential, or to adapt existing testing strategies in the face of compelling new evidence, is not consistent with reasonable and good faith efforts to identify potentially significant archaeological resources. 

“The PAF has also questioned the extent and adequacy of the testing program designed to assess potential waterfront resources on the site.  The only response the PAF has received on this issue is the unsupported assertion that modern wharf and pier construction has destroyed archaeological evidence of Philadelphia’s early maritime history in this area.  To date no documentation has been presented to support this assertion. Again, as in area H-2, unsupported claims of disturbance do not substitute for concrete evidence, and lacking such documented evidence it can not be concluded that HSP Gaming has made a reasonable and good faith effort to identify significant waterfront archaeological resources on the site. “ 

“Mr. Jenk provides commentary, at times very lengthy commentary, relative to the historical research performed by A.D. Marble, as well as his own historical research, compares the two and concludes that A.D. Marble’s research has been inadequate…” – Terrence McKenna, KEATING (2008/05/06)

… In fact, Mr. Jenk routinely uses the word ”incompetent”, when referring to A.D. Marble’s research. Furthermore, Mr. Jenk is misleading and inconsistent relative to the duration of the research he references. On page 38, paragraph 6, Mr. Jenk states that he has been conducting research on the history of Kensington since 1995. In paragraph 8 on that same page, Mr. Jenk states “Knowing that ‘evidence leads’, we challenge anyone to weigh the quality of Marble & Co.’s fourteen-month $500,000 study with what we three local historians (with friends) have compiled within just three weeks of receiving that Phase lB/Il report”. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Jenk has been conducting research on the Site and surrounding area for the better part of 15 years. What the Corps must keep in mind is that in the 15 years of research and the comments submitted, Mr. Jenk identifies no information relative to potential archaeological resources at the Site that A.D. Marble has not addressed in this Section 106 process to date. Mr. Jenk’s exposition of historical record provides no information that would affect the archaeological investigation and results, given the historic industrial development and use of the Site since the late nineteenth century.

Research and compiling are two different things, and both continue. Torben Jenk has been researching this area since 1995 and did compile some of that historical documentary evidence within three weeks of receiving that Phase IB/II report.

Torben Jenk with friends Ken Milano and Rich Remer (all co-founders of the Kensington History Project) have submitted hundreds of pages of historical documentary evidence for the archaeological potential of the Sugar House site since Dec. 2007.

It was Torben Jenk who brought the evidence for British Fort No. 1 (1777) to Paul Schopp, Historian, A.D. Marble, on Dec. 12, 2007. On Dec. 28, 2007, Marble wrote: “… it came to A.D. Marble & Company’s attention that a Revolutionary War period fort was potentially located within the subject property…” 

Torben Jenk has also been the strongest advocate for Batchelors’ Hall (ca. 1728), Masters’ Tide Mill (ca. 1715), and many other historic structures that stood on the Sugar House site.

To date, twenty months into this “archaeological investigation,” Terrence McKenna and his revolving team of Principal Investigators have found:

• NO maps for the Fort (Torben Jenk submitted all sixteen) 
• NO manuscript maps, surveys, deeds, land partitions or road petitions for Batchelors’ Hall (Torben Jenk has submitted more than ten). McKenna, Bailey, Kratzer and Schopp have repeatedly flip-flopped on the location of Batchelors’ Hall.
• NO maps or information on Master’s Tide Mill (Torben Jenk has supplied two manuscript maps dating to 1730)
• NO valid information on the eighteenth and nineteenth century shipyards (Torben Jenk has provided scores of maps, Port Warden surveys and descriptions).

“I suggest you and your research team actually take the time and research the ownership of the property, rather then developing and relying on catchy one liners that you dream up and subsequently repeat like a washed-up comic. Here’s a hint, your wrong about the ownership fact also. Like I said, there is always tomorrow! Rest Well!” — Terrence McKenna, KEATING (2008/03/11)

Terrence McKenna’s belligerence and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts continues:

Torben Jenk to Terrence McKenna, March 11, 2008:

“We did research the ownership of the properties. The City of Philadelphia Board of Revision of Taxes website shows that LHTW still owns the properties at 941-67 N. Delaware Avenue, 1015-25 N. Delaware Avenue and 1001-71 Penn Street. Here is the evidence…”

Terrence McKenna, KEATING, March 11, 2008:

“I am very surprised.  Relying on a computer search instead of pulling the deeds?”

Debbie King to Terrence McKenna, March 18, 2008:

“If the City of Philadelphia’s BRT records are wrong, and “Let’s Hope This Works” is not the owner of record, perhaps you could enlighten us all and produce the deed to the property.  

“It would be good for all concerned to understand who the current owner is.  

“Isn’t it a requirement of the law that the applicant must demonstrate ownership of the land?” 

Terrence McKenna, KEATING, May 6, 2008:

“… Mr. Jenk states that the property is owned by LHTW Corporation, and was purchased on May 16, 1996.” 

McKenna attached a “Memorandum of Agreement made as of the 27th day of December, 2005, by and between LHTW CORP, a Delaware corporation, and 1001 Christopher Columbus Blvd. LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (collectively “Seller”), and Sugarhouse HSP Gaming LLC (a limited liability company (“Buyer”).

This Memorandum shows an “Existence of Agreement” but does not specify terms.

Deeds recorded May 8, 2008, purchased by Sugarhouse HSP Gaming for $70,000,000:

885003017, 941-67 N. Delaware Ave.

884019045, 1001 N. Delaware Ave.

884019054, 1015-25 N. Delaware Ave.

884018938, 937 N. Penn St.

884018941, 967 N. Penn St.,

884018944, 969 N. Penn St.

885003068, 1080 N. Penn St.

884018948, 1001-71 N. Penn St.

This disproves McKenns’s claim on March 11, 2008 to Torben Jenk: “your wrong about the ownership fact.”

“The driving of support piles and construction of this power station decimated the structures that once stood on the property.” — Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (Feb. 2008)

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer responded on March 10, 2008:

Where is the evidence for this statement? Marble & Co. do not appear to have done any documentary research or archaeological excavation in this area.

“Moving over to the west side of Penn Street, foundries began to appear in Point Pleasant during the early nineteenth century with Parke and Tiers, founded by C.B. Parke, being among the first. Local historian Rich Remer states this foundry opened in 1809, while Russell Frank Weigley, Nicholas B. Wainwright, and Edwin Wolf indicate the year is 1819″ — Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (Feb. 2008)

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer responded on March 10, 2008:

Yet again, without proper research, Marble & Co. dismisses the history of this early industrial works in one vague paragraph selected from an inaccurate late-twentieth-century text.

Remer got it right because he researched original documents including Deed IC29 p. 164-7 which shows “Charles. B. Parke, Brass Founder” bought the land from Mary Masters Penn, “northwest side of Penn Street to corner of lot of Samuel Bowers, from Penn Street to Hall Street, to Bowers lot to Penn Street, Lot #24 of Masters Estate Map Parti.”

Deed and map research (Deed Registry Map 6N7, Lot 14 ) identifies the property as 951 Beach Street, on the southwestern corner of the SugarHouse site. Marble & Co. should have identified all the individual properties on the SugarHouse site by deed registry map and late-nineteenth-century street number.

Remer also found the “List of Patterns at the Foundry of Parke & Tiers, Point Pleasant, Kensington, Philadelphia” including pages of “Spur Wheels, Spur Segments, Straight Spur Segments, Small Spur Wheel Patterns, Spur Wheels for Patent Rope Machinery, Mortice Wheel, Small Mitre and Bevel Wheels, Bevel Geer [sic],Worm Wheels and Worms, Mitre Wheels, Rail Road Wheels and Chills, also an assortment of patterns of all kinds, for Cotton and Woolen Machinery, and many others too tedious to enumerate.”

Charles Parke was joined by Arundius Tiers in 1824. Tiers’ son, William H. Tiers, bought the works in 1861. James T. Bradshaw became a partner in 1864 and became a sole-proprietor in 1869. By 1875, the Point Pleasant Iron and Brass Foundry “employ an average of fifty hands, and manufacture general castings, principally for rolling mills and vessels. A large portion of the business is the making of gear wheels, for which they have the largest assortment. They produce about 1000 tons of castings per annum, in which they consume about 1500 tons of iron and 500 tons of coal.”

Letters written and signed by Arundius Tiers survive in the Masters Collection at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. One, dated March 19, 1841, describes the “ground rent” payments paid and owed to descendants of the Masters family. 

Following the lead of so many other Kensington manufacturers who volunteered for military service, James T. Bradshaw served in the State Militia during the Gettysburg campaign.

Parke & Tiers Brass & Bell Foundry stood on, or adjacent to, the spot where Marble & Co. found 250 Native Indian artifacts, 3,500 years old, lying in the top four inches of the soil. Surely some archaeological evidence can also be found for one of Philadelphia’s first foundries, where brass church bells and pioneering rail road wheels were also cast.

“In 1797, renowned cartographer John Hills, who formerly served in the British Army engineers during the Revolutionary War and remained in America, published his first full map of Philadelphia and its environs.” — Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (Feb. 2008)

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer responded on March 10, 2008:

Peter J. Parker, Curator of Manuscripts at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania wrote: “Like P.C. Varlé’s map of Philadelphia [Plan of Philadelphia, 1796], John Hills’s circular map has few pretenses to utility; it was conceived as a wall-hanging.” [1]  While Marble & Co. refer to a different Hills map (1796 not 1810), they provide no evidence of Hills being “renowned.” 

What Marble & Co. call the “Hills 1797 Map” is properly referred to as “This Plan of the City of Philadelphia and its’ Environs, (shewing the improved Parts), is Dedicated to the Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens thereof, by their most obedient Servant, John Hills, Surveyor & Draughtsman, May 30, 1796.” Hills never claimed this to be an accurate map, he offered it as an “Elegant Plan,” for popular consumption on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. It is the eighteenth century equivalent of a Rand McNally or AAA road map.

A close examination of the map reveals that the Hills 1796 map was engraved and printed in London, where there was popular interest in the former Colony: “Philadelphia, Published and Sold by John Hills, Surveyor & Draugh[t]sman, 1797,” “Engraved by John Cooke of Hendon, Middlesex, near London,” “Published 1st January 1798 by Mesrs. John & Josiah Boydell at the Shakespeare Gallery at No. 90 Cheapside.”

Both Paul Schopp (Senior Historian, Marble & Co.) and Daniel Wagner, PhD (Pedologist) use the Hills 1796 map as their base map for all pre-1800 documentary research. Throughout 2007, Marble & Co. revealed no other earlier documents during their research or archaeological investigations on the SugarHouse site.

An original Hills 1796 map (in four pieces), plus three nineteenth-century reproductions, survive at the Free Library of Philadelphia. The original is far crisper, especially along the edge of the Delaware River. Evidence suggests that Marble & Co. used the “Republished by Sam. L. Smedley, Chief Engineer & Surveyor, Philadelphia May 30, 1881.” Produced by “Photo-Lith. 1881 by Thomas. Hunter 716 Filbert St Phila.”

The Hills 1796 map has three obvious problems in Kensington, the area including and surrounding the SugarHouse site:

1. The topographic shading angles through Penn Street, depicting a cliff-like edge in the street, an impossibility. No land is shown east of Penn Street, north of Maiden (now Laurel) Street, a clear mistake to anyone who reviews the famous images of the Treaty Tree [2] which stood near the foot of Hanover (now Columbia) Street (depicted here between “King  sinton”).
2. Shackamaxon Street is labeled “Cohocksink Creek” [look under “King”] even though the real winding Cohocksink Creek is clearly shown two inches to the left.
3. This Kensington was named in the 1730’s after the famous neighborhood near London but is here identified as “King sinton.” Engraver “John Cooke of Hendon, Middlesex, near London” surely knew how to spell Kensington.

Why the problems? Cartographers often insert deliberate mistakes as proof of authorship and copyright, even today. Prepared as a scheme to make money, Hills focussed on the City of Philadelphia, which then stretched only from Vine to South Streets. A third suggestion has surfaced. Hills won the contract to survey Southwark and that map certainly shows his skills. 

Hills did not win the contract to prepare surveys for the Commissioners of Northern Liberties. [3]

On the left of the map, Hills writes: “N.B. The Line from Vine Street Public Landing to Eyres Wharf, was fixed by the Port Wardens, March 21st, 1796.” On the right of that map, the line is marked in the Delaware River and ending at “Eyres,” at the tip of “Maiden [Laurel] Street).” Throughout their entire research, [4] Marble & Co. never studied the Port Warden records which detail the history of bulk heading, pier building and extensions. 

Footnotes:

1. Philadelphia: Three Centuries of American Art, (Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1976, reprint 1990), p. 216
   
2. See Barralet’s Landscape View of Philadelphia from Kensington, 1796, as reprinted in Snyder’s City of Independence, p. 197 
   
3. Two surveys of the district were ordered by the “Act of Assembly, April 17, 1795.” Both surveys would have included the SugarHouse site. See A Digest of the Acts of Assembly of the Ordinances of the Commissioners and Inhabitants of the Kensington District of the Northern Liberties (Rakestraw, Philadelphia, 1832), p. 102-04. 
   
4. Marble & Co., SugarHouse Phase IA, IB & IB/II reports make no mention of the Port Warden records.

 

“One undated copy of the plan, complete with annotation of some lots sold, exists within the Masters Family Papers Collection at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania.” — Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (Feb. 2008)

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer responded on March 28, 2008:

False. Dozens of these original subdivision plans exist for the Masters family estate. Many are dated. Other maps are supported by “ground rent” ledgers and correspondence. Marble & Co. probably looked only at a “clipped” reproduction an original Masters map.

Marble relies on second-hand information (Horle) to describe the division of the William Masters estate amongst his daughters Mary & Sarah. The Masters Collection at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania is superb and hardly examined, if at all, by Marble & Co, who should have consulted:

“The Writ of Partition of the Real Estate of William Masters, Esq. deceased, 1775” gives dimensions of the thirty-odd lots divided between Mary and Sarah. A superb watercolor map clarifies this break up with verifiable dimensions. Mary, Sarah and there families controlled most of the SugarHouse land into the nineteenth-century.

The Masters “Ground Rent Ledgers” date back to the eighteenth-century and follow the development through 1840, including occupants, uses and exact locations. 

The hundreds of pages of correspondence received by the Masters family from their many tenants and lawyers. This is much more than just “rent overdue” notices. Lives and deaths are noted. Industrial enterprises are described. Partnerships are described.

Ephemera notices and receipts are also included showing auctions, sales and tax payments and even a tax on dogs!

“Archaeological evidence for Contact-era Native American sites in Philadelphia is scarce. Archaeological remains at the National Constitution Center Site were perhaps the largest Contact Period assemblage ever recovered in the Philadelphia area.” — Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (Feb. 2008)

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer responded on March 10, 2008:

The 250 recovered Native Indian artifacts already recovered from the top four inches of one small section of the SugarHouse prove it has enormous potential for pre- contact and contact-era Native American artifacts. This is the largest-ever find of Native artifacts in Philadelphia.

Prior to 1678, the SugarHouse was owned by Lasse Cock, the most famous translator and mediator between the Native Indians and first settlers, including William Penn.

Surviving documents show the subsequent owners of the site also lived and traded with the Native Indians, including Elizabeth Kinsey, Thomas Fairman and Sybilla Masters.

The team investigating and leading the archaeology at the Constitution Center were highly qualified and experienced. They brought high expectations to an equally “disturbed” site. Over one million artifacts were recovered from the Constitution Center site which measures about five acres. The SugarHouse site sits along the Delaware River, a preferred archaeological location by all measures, and encompasses 22.6 acres.

“…documented historical activities can be traced back to 1678… A later Lenape settlement, known as Shackamaxon, was established ca. 1680” — Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (Feb. 2008)

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer responded on March 10, 2008:

Swedish deeds for this site date back to 1664. Elizabeth Kinsey, a single woman, bought this site on March 30, 1678 “…amount to 300 acres, as above mentioned, together with his, L. Cock’s share of marsh or meadow, with all and singular the houses, dwelling-houses, barns, stables, stalls, fences, &c. now standing upon said land.”

Kratzer continued:

“A later Lenape settlement, known as Shackamaxon, was established ca. 1680 to the north in what would become the Kensington section of Philadelphia (Kent et al. 1981). According to the map provided in Kent et al.’s article, Shackamaxon was located on the Delaware River in the general vicinity of the current project. However, the exact location of Shackamaxon is not currently known.”

Jenk, Milano & Remer responded:

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The first recorded European name for this area was “Kackamensi” (“the old or large tree”) dating back to 1656 [1].

The name becomes “Shaka Mexunk” in 1664 when six Swedish families settle on this site including the surrounding 1,800 acres up to the Frankford Creek [2].

 In 1678, one of those Swedes, Laurence (Lasse) Cock sells 300 acres (including the SugarHouse site) to Elizabeth Kinsey [3], who marries Thomas Fairman in 1680. This indicates that Shackamaxon was founded well before Marble & Co.’s estimate of 1680 and probably well before Peter Lindstrom’s mention of it in 1656.

Footnotes: 

1. Peter Lindström, Geographia Americae with An Account of the Delaware Indians, based on Surveys and Notes Made in 1654-1656. Translated from the Original Manuscript  with Notes, Introduction and an Appendix of Indian Geographical Names with their meaning by Amandus Johnson, Author of ’Swedish settlements,’ etc. (Swedish Colonial Society, Philadelphia, 1925).
2. John Reed, An Explanation of the Map of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia, 1774 (& 1870).
3. Upland Court Record, p.99, as quoted in Samuel Hazard, Annals of Pennsylvania, 1609-1682 (Hazard & Mitchell, Philadelphia 1850), p. 460.

“Flats along river terraces are known settings for Late Woodland horticultural fields. There is limited evidence for Woodland occupation along the terrace of the Coastal Plain in the Philadelphia area.” – Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (Feb. 2008)

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer responded on March 10, 2008:

Batchelor’s Hall and Ground stood on the SugarHouse site, south of Shackamaxon Street. “Formed for fellowship and pleasure before 1728” it was also “The first botanic garden, for the cultivation of plants having medicinal properties, was established at Bachelors Hall, Kensington,…”  There, George Webb composed his famous “Batchelor’s Hall: A Poem” 

“Close to the dome a garden shall be join’d—

A fit employment for a studious mind.

In our vast woods whatever simples grow.

Whose virtues none, or none but Indians, know,

Within the confines of this garden brought,

To rise with added lustre shall be taught;

Then culled with judgment each shall yield its juice

Saliferous balsam to the sick man’s use;

A longer date of life mankind shall boast,

And Death shall mourn her ancient empire lost.”

We suspect these wealthy young Batchelor’s took over a Native Indian garden or clearing to build their Hall and enjoy their garden.

“The scarcity of known precontact sites in Philadelphia is a function of the city’s early and extensive development. This development obscured or obliterated precontact land surfaces, which virtually eliminated pedestrian identification techniques, the methods used to find the vast majority of reported precontact sites in Pennsylvania.” — Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (Feb. 2008)

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer responded on March 10, 2008:

• Two ancient Native Indian footpaths meet at the SugarHouse site, Frankford Road and Germantown Avenue (respectively northeast and southwest of the Cohocksink Creek). Frankford Road is sometimes called the “pre-Columbian I-95” since it connected to the Falls at Trenton, New York and New England. Germantown Road connected to the Wissahickon Creek, Schuylkill River and points farther west. Documentary evidence supports another link to the SugarHouse site, the ferry service from Camden, NJ, which the Cooper family took over from the Native Indians before 1682. Three ancient transportation routes meet at the SugarHouse site so pre-contact artifacts should be expected. Luckily, they were found; 250 artifacts dating back to 1,500BC. When asked about his reaction to this find, Principal Investigator Judson Kratzer said “I almost fell over.”  Sure proof of low expectations.
• Dan Wagner, a consultant hired by Marble & Co., identified three A-Horizon soils on the SugarHouse site. Marble & Co. could only find one, where close investigation  revealed 250 Native Indian artifacts dating back to 1,500BC.

 

“Although no remains of the redoubt were found,…” — Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (Feb. 2008)

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer responded on March 10, 2008:

•  The research on and for British Redoubt No. 1 is completely incompetent. After a year of research, on Dec. 28, 2007, “… it came to A.D. Marble & Company’s attention that a Revolutionary War period fort was potentially located within the subject property…” The denials and “spin” have continued ever since and into this report. 
• To date, Marble & Co. have revealed no original maps of the fort — none. We have revealed six original  230-year old maps of British Fort No. 1. 
• Marble has done all their calculations from the first map we shared with them on Dec. 12, 2007, the Nicole/Montresor 1777 map. Field archaeology stopped 8 days later, on Dec. 21, 2007.
• Even when provided with Lewis Nicola’s superbly-detailed “Plan of the English Lines near Philadelphia 1777,” Marble & Co. cannot interpret it. Why run Trench #16 through the only section of the fort without a moat, the entrance? Trench #17 is too shallow to find the moat which flooded before “High Water,” about twelve feet below the current grade.
• Two original maps (Fleury & Nicola) show something even deeper, a defensive stockade extending into the Delaware River. Marble & Co. never looked for it.
• Marble continues to deny the strength and longevity of the fort, even after we sent them Watson’s quote, “The British redoubts remained til lately—one on the Delaware bank in a line with the stone-bridge street — then no houses were near it; now it is all built up, and streets are run where none were seen.”

Qualifications of SugarHouse Phase IA, IB & IB/II researchers and investigators.

Keating Consulting & HSP Gaming hold responsibility for those they selected to perform the archaeological investigation. Marble & Co.’s reports reflect poor initial planning, dreadful documentary research and a shocking disregard for the cultural heritage of Shackamaxon and Kensington.

Dan Bailey, “Archaeologist / Principal Investigator,” B.A. in Anthropology (Kutztown, 1988), M.A. in American Studies (Penn State, 2003). Bailey left mid-stream (summer 2007) to “lead his church youth group.”

Paul Schopp, “Historian,” appears self-taught (no degrees listed). Schopp is knowledgeable about late-nineteenth to twentieth-century industrial and transportation history in New Jersey. Schopp relied on inaccurate nineteenth- and twentieth-century texts, and cheap reproductions of maps, thereby ignoring the ancient and fascinating history of the Sugar House site.

Judson Kratzer, “Archaeologist – Principal Investigator,” B.A. in Anthropology (Clarion, 1979), M.A. in Public History (Armstrong Atlantic State, 1995). Kratzer’s skill seems to be in expediting, not investigation. Kratzer joined the Sugar House project mid-stream so cannot be blamed for the poor initial planning but he seems unable to review and interpret historic documents. From when we sent Marble & Co. the Nicole/Montresor map on Dec. 12, 2007, through to the Sugar House site visit on Jan. 27, 2008, Kratzer revealed no historic evidence for the the British Revolutionary War Fort — none. Kratzer admitted to not looking at the original “Plan of the English Lines Near Philadelphia” by Lewis Nicola which might explain why he missed two of the critical scales on the plan, the moat which flooded before “High Water” and the relevance of the stockade which stretched into the Delaware River. Further, Kratzer “almost fell over” when they found the 3,500 year old Native Indian artifacts on the section of the site selected by Daniel Wagner, PhD, Pedologist. Expediters aren’t investigators.

Richard Baublitz, “Principal Investigator,” B.A. in “Independent Studies with a focus on East Asian history and culture” (University of MD, 1986), Grasshopper Field School (University of Arizona, 1989), M.A. in Anthropology/Archaeology (University of Pennsylvania, 1991).

Richard White, “Archaeological Field Director,” B.A in Anthropology (Bloomsburg, 1995), M.A. in “Archaeology and Heritage” (University of Leicester, 2007), earned just months before joining A.D. Marble & Co.  White “couldn’t remember” which maps he used when digging east of Penn Street. Marble and Co. ignored primary-source evidence (deeds, surveys, land partitions and road petitions) and worked from maps with “few pretenses to utility; it was conceived as a wall-hanging” — wasting valuable time and money.

Principal Investigators, Historians and Archaeological Field Directors need to know the limits of their own skills, then find others to fill the void. Marble & Co.’s continued confusion with, and denial of, evidence for the Revolutionary War British Fort is astounding. On a site just a few hundred feet south of the famed Penn Treaty Park, and bounded to the north by Shakamaxon Street, how could they so long ignore the ancient history of the Native Indians? 

Marble & Co.’s Phase IA, IB and IB/II reports might reflect what they were paid, as might their current recommendations for “monitoring the below ground construction… as a cost saving measure” (Feb. 2008). The evidence shows that suggestion is ludicrous.

(This information was written by Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer on March 10, 2008, then updated a few weeks later).

“Heavy Disturbance” & implosions

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer wrote (2008/03/10):

Marble & Co.’s claims that “heavy disturbance” by deep basements or foundations have removed the possibility of finding pre-nineteenth-century underground remains should be justified with evidence. 

Below ground construction is rarely shown in the Hexamer General Surveys (1865-1897), the Hopkins Atlases (1873 & 1875) or the Bromley Atlases (1886-1924).

The Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps at the Free Library of Philadelphia show only one small area of the “Pennsylvania Sugar Company” denoted with ‘B’ [basement] at the southwest corner (top left) of the “By-Products Building” (1015 Penn Street). 

Much of the Sanborn survey shows “Reinf. Conc. Thruout,” “driveway,” “garage,” rail lines and massive boilers—none of which likely sat atop basements. Disturbance is likeliest at the perimeter walls and at any internal structural supports.

Further, Marble & Co. claims that this section of the site, east of Penn Street and north of Laurel, was originally part of the Delaware River. Nineteenth-century building technology did not allow basements below water.

Both McKenna and Whitaker have made repeated references to the “implosion” of the sugar refinery and how that would have destroyed archaeological evidence. Nonsense. Implosions do not create huge craters in the ground, they are carefully planned to destroy above-ground structural elements so the building collapses into a huge pile of rubble which is then carted away.

No chain-of-title

A.D. Marble’s Historian (Paul Schopp) and Principal Investigators (Daniel Bailey, Dick Baublitz & Judson Kratzer) ignored this primary-source historical documentation.

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer provided evidence of and wrote (3/10/2008):

Searches of the Sugar House site would have revealed maps, surveys and deeds dating back to 1664, revealing Peter Cock (1664), Elizabeth Kinsey (1678), Thomas Fairman (1680), Robert Fairman (1714), Thomas Masters (1715), William Masters (1724), Mary Masters Penn and Sarah Masters (1775-1800s) and on. 

From 1715 until the 1840s, most of Sugar House site was controlled, managed and developed by the Masters-Penn-Camac family. Their family papers, including deeds, surveys, ground rent ledgers and correspondence with tenants, are preserved at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. Marble did not look until 2008—after field archaeology was complete. This indenture for neighboring lands was signed by Thomas Masters in 1706.

Some historians complain about the illegibility of manuscript documents, others delight in revealing their details, such as payment with: ”Two fat Capons on the One and thirtieth day of December in every year forever if the same be lawfully demanded.”

Land = wealth = lawsuits, so many of the prominent estates, including the Masters Estate, was revisited and reaffirmed, as here in 1845 with this: “Copy of the Return of the Sheriff to the Writ of Partition of the Real Estate of William Masters, Esq. Deceased, 1775.”

The Historical Society of Pennsylvania is full of these fascinating documents which offer valuable clues to history above and below ground. 

1802 Varlé Map — fake or spin?

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer provided evidence of this fakery and wrote (2008/03/10): 

“[Paul Schopp, Historian, A.D.] Marble originally claimed that they used the ‘Varlé 1802 Map’ but the evidence shows they did not. Using a cheap reprint, Marble completely missed the British Fort that is clearly shown on the original with the description ‘Entrenchment of the English in the Late War.’ The Toudy reprint (1875) and others eliminates the dotted line and fort east of Frankford Road.

Local historians protested at this flagrant misrepresentation of the evidence. The fake 1802 Varlé Map has no fort and square waves. The real 1802 Varlé Map has the fort and sinuous waves. Was the fort excluded by mistake or by design?

“In 1796, Pierre Charles Varlé issued a map of Philadelphia and its environs. He included on this original edition of his map four of the redoubts including Redoubt no. 1 and a dotted line to represent the British Northern Line of Defense (Figure 11) (Varlé 1796). Whether he depicted existing conditions for 1796 or included the defensive line for its historical interest is unknown.” (Marble & Co., SugarHouse Phase IB/II (Feb. 2008), p. 33).

Yet again, Marble & Co. try to “spin” the evidence against the fort with that last sentence. 

“It was clear at the outset that this area has been in large part neglected, but that it has a distinctive and important history which reflects major economic and social trends as manifest in Philadelphia….” — Anthony Garvan (1967)

Dr. Anthony Garvan from the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of American Civilization led the Philadelphia Historical Salvage Council from its inception in 1967, continued:

“In fact, it now seems evident that the Northern Liberties-Fishtown-Kensington community, like Southwark, is one of the earliest speculative planned communities in English-speaking America and one which, by design or accident, attracted a relatively homogeneous group of residents, thus creating a community similar in many of its aspects to the new urban developments of the twentieth century. The architectural residential style developed, while typical of Philadelphia building elsewhere, has distinctive variants in design which quite precisely suited the family needs and personal aspirations of the immigrants and successive generations of occupants.” (Philadelphia Archaeological Salvage Council, Summary Report, August 15, 1967, p. 1, from Garvan Papers, University of Pennsylvania. UPT 50/G244, Box 31, Folder 15).

“Marble devotes just one paragraph to the Revolutionary War…” — Jenk, Milano & Remer (3/10/2008)

Paul Schopp, Historian, A.D. Marble wrote (March 2007):

“According to Scharf and Westcott (1884:2150), much of the land along the river in Kensington was originally marshy. This marshy ground extended from the confluence of the Delaware River and Cohocksink Creek near Green Street up to Point Pleasant near Shackamaxon Street. When British forces occupied Philadelphia during the American War for Independence, Kensington proved a strategic location for defensive positions, guarding the city against any attack from the north or northwest. Germantown Pike, Old York Road, and Frankford Road all converged nearby. Using the Cohocksink Creek as a natural barrier to sorties, British engineers dammed the stream, flooding the adjacent marshlands. The occupying army firebombed any plantations, orchards, woods, or estates that impeded an unobstructed view of the north and northwestern horizon. During the fall and winter of 1777-1778, British Major John Simcoe, along with a contingent of the Queen’s Rangers, a group of Tory militarists, bivouacked in Kensington and made frequent foraging raids and guard patrols. The group guarded the Penn Treaty Elm from damage, but the very same forces pillaged the nearby Eyre Mansion. Despite the departure of British forces in June 1778, reportedly no new ship construction occurred in Kensington until 1783 (Remer 2002a:11).”

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer wrote (2008/3/10):

History of Philadelphia, 1609-1884. John Thomas Scharf & Thompson Westcott. 

The [A.D. Marble] Phase IA bibliography references this three volume, 2,399 page compendium. Most historians recognize Scharf & Westcott as an accessible compendium, full of information, not all of it accurate. Scharf & Wescott devote 166 pages to “Philadelphia During the Revolution.”

Marble devotes just half a paragraph to the Revolutionary War  and seems to attribute that information to Rich Remer.

Yet Scharf & Westcott clearly state:

“At Kensington a battery was built on a wharf above Cohocksink Creek” (p. 1027); and

“Battery No. 1, east of Front Street, above Cohocksink Creek, of a square shape, commanding the river and the Front Street road, with a small two-gun battery south of it. Intrenchments and abates extended nearly along the line of the present Maiden Street to Germantown Road. Saw-shaped redans, each calculated to hold three men, were at the northwest angle of Germantown road and Maiden Street.” (p. 1028).

Scharf & Westcott includes an inaccurate map of the defenses showing British Fort No. 1 south of the Cohocksink Creek (opposite p. 360).

 Marble & Co. reference Scharf & Westcott in their IA & IB bibliographies but failed to investigate the British Revolutionary War fort until the IB/II Report — why?

“… in the quarter-century following the Revolution, Philadelphians witnessed the beginnings of an industrial revolution…” — Ronald Schultz (1993).

Ronald Schultz, The Republic of Labor: Philadelphia Artisans and the Politics of Class, 1720-1830 (Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 165-66:

“… in the quarter-century following the Revolution, Philadelphians witnessed the beginnings of an industrial revolution. It was an experimental period for everyone involved, as much for the merchants and master crafts-men who became industrial capitalists and created the city’s outwork and manufactory systems as for the journeymen and half-trained apprentices who labored under their control. The uncertainty of the era was underscored by those who styled themselves the “manufacturing interest” of the city when, in 1787, they formed the Pennsylvania Society for the Encouragement of Manufactures and the Useful Arts in the hope that an emulation of English industrial machinery would provide a safe and easy way to transform Philadelphia into a cornucopia of industrial wealth… It was, then, the anti-British embargo of 1807-9 and the subsequent second Anglo-American War that propelled Philadelphia’s transformation into a manufacturing center. The lack of competition from British imported goods between 1807 and 1809, and again from 1812 to 1815, provided a natural protective tariff for domestic production at the same time that idle merchant capital sought new forms of investment.”

“here in addition to the pleasing spectacle which is exhibited, of shipbuilding, in all the various stages,…” Thomas Wilson (1828)

Thomas Wilson, Picture of Philadelphia, for 1824, containing the Picture of Philadelphia for 1811 by James Mease, M.D. with all its improvements since that period, (Town, Philadelphia, 1828), p. 338-49

“Passing up Front street as far as the hay scales, take the right hand road, and crossing the turnpike (leading the Frankfort, Bristol &c.) you stride on the bank of the Delaware through Kensington, called Shakamexunk by the natives; here in addition to the pleasing spectacle which is exhibited, of shipbuilding, in all the various stages,…”
 

“Of course, some of the later building and demolition phases must have obliterated earlier building remnants and deposits in certain portions of the site…” — Dan Bailey, MARBLE (March 2007)

Daniel Bailey, Principal Investigator, A.D. Marble continued:

“… Specifically, construction and subsequent demolition of the sprawling sugar factory complex in the northern portion of the APE more than likely destroyed the remains of earlier warehouses, shops and piers in that area. Thus the focus of this section will be to identify sections of the APE that have a high potential to contain significant historical archaeological resources.”

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer wrote (3/10/2008):

Yet again, Marble & Co. does not substantiate this claim with any evidence.

If Marble & Co. truly studied the maps that they included in their Phase IB/II report (Vol. II, Fig. 13), then they would have found helpful clues to the early occupants of the SugarHouse site, including “Jno. Burtis and Charles Keen, ground rent $200 p. an.”

Burtis & Keen operated the Kensington Cotton Mill which “employs constantly 163 persons, men, women and children; spins on 1200 spindles, about 1500 wt of raw cotton weekly into yarn of No’s. from 14 to 20.”

“Opposite Burtis’ Factory” stood the Kensington Iron, Brass & Bell Foundry. “Holmes, Bailey & Co.. Beg leave to inform their friends and the public in general, that they have opened the Foundry, formerly occupied by John Pierce, and intend carrying on the business in all its various branches. Soap Boilers Pans, Sugar Kettles, Oil Pans of every description and pattern made to order in the best manner and at the shortest notice” (J.R. Savage, Philadelphia Circulating Business Directory (1838), p. 183?).

Kensington Iron, Brass & Bell Foundry, “The extensive iron, brass and bell foundry, situated on Beach and Penn Streets, Kensington, it was built in the year 1826; the proprietor, Mr. Francis Harley, Senior, gives employment to 27 men. The following articles are manufactured at this establishment. Sugar pans, sugar mills, soapboilers’ pans, forge and tilt hammers, anvils, castings for grist and saw mills, steam engines, cotton and woolen manufactories, &c. Composition work for ships, spikes, &c. Bells for churches, ships, steamboats &c. Every attention is paid to orders by the superintendent at the works, or the proprietor, South Front above Walnut” (Thomas Porter, Picture of Philadelphia, 1811-31 (1831), Vol. II).

“The southern half of the block had been completely disturbed by the construction and demolition of the Powerhouse plant.” — Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (Feb. 2008)

Kratzer’s claims (as A.D. Marble’s third Principal Investigator on this Sugar House archaeological investigation) along with Schopp’s faulty research, do not reflect an understanding of the history of this site.

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer wrote (3/10/2008):

“This section of the SugarHouse site has long served as home to foundries, like “Parke & Tiers Brass Bell & Iron Founders, Point Pleasant, Kensington, Philada.” which started in 1809. They also cast nautical items for the neighboring shipyards. By the 1820s, with partner Arundius Tiers, iron gears and wheels were cast and sold to manufacturers of looms and even for rail road locomotives. 

“William & Harvey Rowland, later Kensington Iron & Steel Works, also owned property on the SugarHouse site, including Pier 41. As a manufacturer of saws and springs “the operations of the works give employment to 175 men and boys. The large rolling mill is particularly interesting, while their spring shops present a scene of unceasing activity. All of the springs are made of Swedish stock… In 1872 they worked up over seventeen hundred tons of Swedish iron, and  made, in addition, over twenty-one hundred tons of steel.” 

“These foundry and steel works did not have basements, hence the survival of 3,500 year old Native Indian artifacts within the top four inches of this section of the SugarHouse site. 

“Another spectacular archaeological find … would be Thomas Masters Tide Mill, which was in operation before 1718. Masters own surveys show this to have been powered by a sluice that ran from near the intersection of Laurel Street and Frankford Avenue in a southerly direction to the edge of the Delaware River, possibly on the SugarHouse site.

“A grant bearing the date Feb. 4, 1735, states, “… northward to the mouth of the Cohocksink Creek, wherein the mills some years since built by Thomas Masters dec’d now stands,…”

“Thomas Masters also operated the “Governor’s Mill” which stood along the Cohocksink at the southwest corner of Germantown and Girard Avenues. To the north of the SugarHouse site, “To be sold or lett by Thomas Say, a good windmill, with a bolting mill, and a small brick building, with a large oven, fit for a baker, situate in Kensington…” Water, tide and wind powered America’s first machines — before steam — here in Kensington. Masters Tide Mill might be on the SugarHouse site.”

Kratzer’s claim is not supported by field archaeology. The concrete slab at grade level survived for months and was only broken up recently. The chunks of concrete slab remain in-situ.

“Research for the Phase IA study found no evidence for shipwrecks in the APE. It seems unlikely that wrecks would be present, given the dredging that must have occurred…” — Daniel Bailey & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (March 2007)

Daniel Bailey, Principal Investigator, and Paul Schopp, Historian, continued:  

“… in this area on a fairly regular basis to maintain access to the piers. If any wrecks were once present in this area, dredging would have likely obliterated them. Hence, the potential for shipwrecks or abandoned ship hulks seems fairly low.”

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer wrote (3/10/2008):

Marble & Co. again dismisses the archaeological potential of ship hulks without providing any evidence of research. While Marble & Co. completely ignored John Watson’s Annals of Philadelphia during the Phase IA & IB investigations, they claim to have used it during Phase IB/II. So why did they ignore the description therein of the builders of America’s first steam boats — John Fitch, Henry Voight, Peter Brown (blacksmith) and John Wilson (ship builder) — and then ignore the evidence of those vessels demise on or near to the SugarHouse site?

“While Robert Fulton was thus engaged in London, John Fitch, a clockmaker and silversmith, was contriving schemes in Philadelphia, for the propulsion of boats by steam. He conducted his mysterious operations at a projection on the shore of the Delaware, at Kensington, which, among the wise and prudent of the neighbourhood, the scorners of magicians and their dark works, soon acquired the ominous and fearful title of Conjurer’s point. I often witnessed the performance of his boat, 1788, ’89 and ’90. It was propelled by five paddles over the stern, and constantly getting out of order. I saw it when it was returning from a trip to Burlington, from whence it was said to have arrived in little more than two hours. When coming to, off Kensington, some part of the machinery broke, and I never saw it in motion afterwards… The company, thereupon, gave up the ghost — the boat went to pieces — and Fitch became bankrupt and broken-hearted… During the days of his aspiring hopes, two mechanics were of sufficient daring to work for him. Ay, and they suffered in purse for their confidence. These were Peter Brown, ship-smith, and John Wilson, boat-builder, both of Kensington. They were worthy, benevolent men, well known to the writer, and much esteemed in the city. Towards Fitch in particular, they ever extended the kindest sympathy. While he lived, therefore, he was in the habit of calling almost daily at their workshops, to while away time; to talk over his misfortunes; and to rail at the ingratitude and cold neglect of an unfeeling, spiritless world. From Wilson I derived the following anecdote: Fitch called to see him as usual — Brown happened to be present. Fitch mounted his hobby, and became unusually eloquent in the praise of steam, and of the benefits which mankind were destined to derive from its use in propelling boats. They listened, of course, without faith, but not without interest, to this animated appeal; but it failed to rouse them to give any future support to schemes by which they had already suffered. After indulging himself for some time, in this never- failing topic of deep excitement, he concluded with these memorable words — ‘Well, gentlemen, although I shall not live to see the time, you will, when steamboats will be preferred to all other means of conveyance, and especially for passengers; and they will be particularly useful in the navigation of the river Mississippi.’” — John F. Watson, Annals of Philadelphia (1857), Vol 2. p. 451.

Careful research might define where the hulks of Fitch’s other steam boats lie (Watson claims two rotted in the docks or mud flats of Kensington). One of the later investors and inventors to join Fitch’s experiments with steam locomotion was Dr. William Thornton,

“one of those active intelligent liberals produced in so great a quantity in the latter half of the eighteenth century… In 1802 Thomas Jefferson appointed him [Thornton] Superintendent of the United States Patent Office, which position he held in 1814 when the British troops besieged Washington. On August 25 it is said he met their cannon and destructive torches with the words, ‘Are you Englishmen or Vandals? This is the Patent Office, a depository of the ingenuity of the American nation, in which the whole of the civilized world is interested. Would you destroy it?’”

Many other pioneering vessels and their rudimentary propulsion systems which ”never saw it in motion afterwards”might lie in fragments along the SugarHouse waterfront. Recovering those artifacts would prove the inventive genius of America’s earliest shipwrights, from Kensington.

“Virtually the entire parcel east of Penn Street and north of Laurel Street is situated on artificial land…” — Daniel Bailey & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (March 2007)

Daniel Bailey, Principal Investigator, and Paul Schopp, Historian continued:

“… created through the filling of the Delaware River and former riverside tidal flats and shoals. This area has no potential to contain precontact archaeological resources. Even in areas marked as fast land on the 1797 Hills map have very limited potential, mainly due to the successive building and demolition phases during the historic and modern periods that disturbed the original precontact-era deposits.”

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer wrote (3/10/2008):

Hundreds of maps, deeds, surveys and descriptions dating back to the eighteenth-century show over 150 feet of land east of Penn Street between Laurel & Shackamaxon Streets.

Marble & Co. based their assumptions on the inaccurate “1797 Hills Map,” a map that scholars describe as having “few pretenses to utility; it was conceived as a wall-hanging.”

 

“$1 Million Per Day… Every day that SugarHouse Casino is delayed..,” — HSP Gaming

HSP Gaming has run a series of mis-leading full color, full page advertisements in local newspapers including:

“$1 Million Per Day…Every day that SugarHouse Casino is delayed has real costs to our community.” (2/27/2008 +)

“Which is Better? Flooding or No Flooding? (4/9/2008+)

“Which Do You Prefer? Higher taxes or Lower Taxes? (3/9/2008+)

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer wrote (3/10/2008):

“As demonstrated by their own advertising ‘$1 Million Per Day…Every day that SugarHouse Casino is delayed..,’ Keating and SugarHouse have a huge financial interest in finding nothing of archaeological importance. Rather than hoping that these inadequate reports would slip through the regulators, SugarHouse should have committed the necessary resources up front, hired the best team, and thoroughly investigate the evidence and site. That poor planning has, and will, by their own account, cost both SugarHouse and the taxpayers of Pennsylvania, ‘$ 1 million per day.’”

“Chestnut, Walnut, Spruce and Pine; Market, Arch, Race and Vine”

Nathaniel Burt wrote in ‘The Perennial Philadelphians’ (Little, Brown), pp. 529-30:

“The only area of the city that ‘Old Philadelphians’ really consider Philadelphia is that narrow belt that extends from the Delaware to the Schuylkill, south of Market and north of Lombard. The rhyme ‘Chestnut, Walnut, Spruce and Pine; Market, Arch, Race and Vine’ expressed the ultimate limits, north and south, of an ‘Old Philadelphian’s’ personal knowledge of the city—and Race and Vine were only included because of the rhyme. 

“Except for the more liberated spirits, or those for some reason not totally assimilated, ‘Old Philadelphian’s’ when they say ‘Philadelphia’ mean automatically the ‘sacred zone,’ their somewhat limited Philadelphia, and not the sprawling jungles to the north, south, west and even east across the river in Camden, the ‘Greater Philadelphia’ of Frankford and Kensington, Manayunk and Passyunk, of Marian Anderson and Connie Mack and W.C. Fields. It is not that they don’t know this Greater Philadelphia exists; in fact, many of them, particularly historically-minded older gentlemen, have a sort of benevolent curiosity about it, the feeling a bird-watcher has for some particularly busy bog; they know about the people that live there, but they don’t and won’t actually know the odd specimens inhabiting this swamp that surrounds the walled bastion, the inner, the forbidden city, of real Philadelphia, their own narrow historical, hereditary turf.” 

“The PAF is alarmed and deeply concern by the premature commencement of supplemental archeological and geomorphological work on the SugarHouse site…” — Doug Mooney, PAF (5/14/2008)

Doug Mooney, President, Philadelphia Archaeological Forum, to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (5/14/2008):

“… based on a plan of action that the Army Corps had neither reviewed nor expressly approved, and one that does not adequately address the concerns of the interested parties. While it must be assumed that PHMC had concurred with the provisions of the plan submitted May 7, no communications thus far received explicitely confirm that status, or indicate that you have had an opportunity to discuss the submitted plan with Mark Shaffer. It is simply unacceptable to allow work of any kind, whether archeological or geomorphological, to continue when it has been neither reviewed nor authorized by the Corps of Engineers. Under the terms of the National Historical Preservation Act the Corps remains singularly responsible for insuring that the review of cultural resources be completed in a careful, deliberate, and transparent manner, and likewise bears sole legal jeopardy if the process is allowed to break down.

“In the interest of preserving the integrity of the compliance process, we urge the Corp to halt all work on the site until review of the pertinent document has been completed by both your agency and the interested parties, and the current state of confusion has been resolved. It is also critical that the Corp provide the interested parties with a response to their previously submitted comments, and that those concerns are adequately addressed in any plan for supplemental archaeological or geomorphological testing within the SugarHouse Site.”

 

“…a protracted round of written comments and counter responses is not conducive to the proper conduct of these archaeological investigations…” — Doug Mooney, PAF (6/25/2008)

On June 25, 2008, Doug Mooney, President, Philadelphia Archaeological Forum, wrote to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers: 

“… or the Section 106 process in general, and can actually result in unintended misunderstandings about both the results of work already completed and that which is proposed for the future. We believe that scheduled face to face discussions between Army Corps representatives, HSP Gaming’s consultants, and the various consulting parties would be a much more productive way to proceed. Therefore, we request that the Army Corps arrange such a direct meeting of all concerned parties at the earliest possible convenience. This meeting should follow an agenda that is focused on describing the current status of the investigations, including those recent additional excavations conducted during the week of May 14, and discussing the various differences of opinion regarding the sufficiency of work thus far completed (pertaining to both the overall project and specific resources). The ultimate goal of such discussions should be the development of an acceptable plan for moving the Section 106 process forward. With respect to this last point, we fully support the Army Corps in its decision to seek guidance from, and to start consultation with the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation (ACHP). 

“Finally, given concerns raised by the PAF and the other consulting parties, and in the interest of transparency, we wish to make a standing request that an opportunity be provided for the consulting parties to visit the site during all future archaeological investigations. In our opinion, the ability to view the excavations and findings first-hand, and to have questions answered on the spot by HSP Gaming’s consultants, would be extremely useful tool for getting the consulting party and Section 106 processes back on track.” 

“… we have proposed that testing beneath Penn Street take the same form as that utilized.” — Doug Mooney, APF (6/25/2008)

On June 25, 2008, Doug Mooney, President, Philadelphia Archaeological Forum, wrote to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers:

“Penn Street. Having agreed that this portion of the site does need to be tested, differing opinions regarding the archaeological potential of areas contained beneath Penn Street are for the moment largely irrelevant. The presence/absence and potential significance of resources in this portion of the project area must first be assessed by archaeological testing, or the extent of prior disturbance should be demonstrated based on historical documentation.  The PAF’s previous comments largely addressed the manner in which this testing should occur.  HSP Gaming consultants propose that monitoring during the removal of existing utility lines is a sufficient and proper methodology for complying with the requirements of Section 106. The PAF believes that discussions of utility removal should not enter into the current dialogue.  This is an activity associated with the construction phase of the project, and bears no direct relation to the search for archaeological resources. The utilities contained under Penn Street are likely not significant resources; however any resources contained in intact soils on either side of the utilities could be significant.  We believe that monitoring during utility removal would not adequately address any features and/or artifact deposits located in soils adjacent to these utilities. Moreover, the removal of utilities, presumably with machine assistance, has the potential to impact archaeological resources that may be located in close proximity. Instead we have proposed that testing beneath Penn Street take the same form as that utilized in other portions of the site – namely the mechanized removal of the street bed and underlying fill materials, followed by careful shovel scraping of any intact soils to reveal any features and/or artifact deposits that may be present.  Depending on conditions below the street, the use of shovel testing and/or test unit excavation may also be prudent in order to more thoroughly demarcate resources, or to more conclusively demonstrate their absence. The removal of utility lines should not occur until all archaeological testing and evaluations have been completed.” 

“HSP Gaming’s consultants contend no additional testing should be completed in area H-2 because the intensity of domestic development was not as great in this area.” — Doug Mooney, PAF (6/25/2008)

On June 25, 2008, Doug Mooney, President, Philadelphia Archaeological Forum, wrote to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers:

“Area H-2 [between Delaware Avenue and Penn Street, Laurel Street to Shackamaxon Street]: HSP Gaming’s objections to the PAF recommendations for additional, more robust identification level testing within area H-2 and neighboring parts of the property revolve around three key issues: 1) the reduced intensity of 18th and 19th century development and residential occupation in this part of the property; 2) the suggested scope of the PAF’s recommended testing approach; and 3) the degree of disturbance and truncation of landforms in this section. We believe that none of the issues raised in the May 6 document effectively counter or refute the concerns we raised previously. 

“With respect to point 1 above, HSP Gaming’s consultants contend no additional testing should be completed in area H-2 because the intensity of domestic development was not as great in this area as in H-1, and that therefore the identification of privy/well shafts or other potentially significant artifact-bearing deposits here is considerably less likely (May 6 response, Appendix B, p. 4). If intensity in this case refers to the density of historical occupation, then it needs to be pointed out that the number or dispersal of domestic properties in a given area bears no necessary or direct relationship to the preservation of archaeological resources, or the probability that such resources contain potentially significant deposits. The Phase II report indicates that at least 10 domestic dwellings had been established along the east side of Delaware Ave. by the middle of the 19th century (the total number of domestic properties present is not identified). While perhaps fewer and more dispersed than those in H-1, this does not represent an insignificant number of domestic historical properties. As defined by the NHPA, all of these properties represent resources that are potentially eligible for listing on the National Register, and under the provisions of Section 106 and the PHMC guidelines they must be identified and evaluated for their archaeological significance. Of additional relevance in this case is that H-2 domestic properties may have been occupied by households with an overall higher socio-economic standing that their H-1 counterparts. As such, archaeological deposits from H-2 could be especially useful for comparing and contrasting lifeways between populations within the same neighborhood.  It also needs to be pointed out that previous cultural resource findings for this area note that H-2 was “heavily developed” by the early to mid 19th century (A.D. Marble & Associates, March 2007, p. 50), and contained not only domestic sites, but numerous commercial and industrial properties as well.  All of these represent historical resources that are potentially eligible for listing in the NR, and need to be identified and evaluated regarding their archaeological significance. 

“The PAF’s primary concerns in the treatment of this part of the site revolve around the methods used in attempting to identify archaeological resources. We believe that the use of relatively narrow, widely spaced, constant interval trenches, such as were employed during prior Phase IA and IB investigations, is not an appropriate means of identifying domestic or other resources that may be more dispersed throughout the landscape. Instead, we believe that an approach based on the stripping of large block areas is substantially more likely to result in the identification of possible widely spaced privies and other features associated with the domestic properties in this part of the site. 

“With respect to our suggestion of stripping 100% of area H-2 to facilitate the identification of historic properties and associated archaeological resources, HSP Gaming’s consultants argue (point 2 above) that this represents a sample size far in excess of what is typically performed on Section 106 compliance projects (May 6 response, Appendix B, p. 4). This argument is misguided – stripping all of area H-2 is a methodology for identifying archaeological resources, not a sample of those resources that may be present. From a different perspective this argument is even more difficult to defend, given that prior archaeological studies within H-1 utilized a similar large block stripping methodology to successfully identify intact shaft and other features, and involved the sampling/ testing of 100% of all potentially significant features located in this area. Moreover, throughout the entire site, it has thus far been standard practice (rightly so) to test 100% of all identified, potentially significant features and deposits. 

“In our opinion, the stripping of 100% of area H-2 could be particularly beneficial given the inadequacies of many maps of the 18th and 19th centuries, and incomplete information contained in other historical sources.  Not only would it ensure compliance with the provisions of Section 106, and result in the identification of all potentially significant archaeological resources in this part of the proposed SugarHouse Casino property, but in the case of domestic privies and related features would greatly facilitate the association of such features within specific historical properties (by allowing privies to be matched with preserved structural foundations) and known historical households. 

“The final argument used to justify their conclusion that further identification level testing in this part of the site is not warranted pertains to the overall extent of prior disturbances experienced within area H-2 (point 3 above). HSP Gaming’s consultants contend that some 3 to 5 feet of the former ground surface in this area had been previously truncated, and that this in turn has negatively effected the preservation of potential archaeological resources (May 6 response, Appendix B, p. 4). The PAF asserts that this level of truncation has not yet been conclusively documented or demonstrated. We also point out that such disturbance, even if verified, would not be sufficient to remove all potentially significant 18th and 19th century archaeological resources in this location. Prior Phase IB/II testing in H-2 have shown that structural remains of possible domestic residences are preserved within H-2 (see A.D. Marble & Company, February 2008, Table 23, pp. 137-140; features 24, 26, 50, 52, 53, 89, 92, 98, and 114 are all foundations listed as being potentially associated with 18th – 20th century domestic residential structures), all of which could have privies or other significant features or artifact deposits associated with them. The fact that these foundation remnants are preserved within H-2 would seem to confirm that prior truncation has not been sufficient to remove all historic resources. In addition, prior testing within H-1 has shown that privies associated with domestic residences extend, in at least some instances, to depths of 10-12 feet or more below the level of former historical ground surfaces. A similar situation may exist in H-2. Even if the landform here was truncated to depths of 3-5 feet below the former historic ground surface the lower portions of shafts or other features may still be preserved in the area. As noted above, we believe that the testing methodology used in this area is simply not sufficient to identify more widely dispersed, truncated resources of this kind. 

“HSP Gaming’s consultants also ‘believe [that] extending the stripping excavation westward into the former locations of the Railroad Freight Station and Warehouse will have negative results for residential shaft features’ (May 6 response, Appendix B, p.4). A simple assertion of this conclusion, absent supporting evidence, does not constitute archaeological verification. Figure 18 in the Phase II archaeological report appears to show that Phase IB trenches excavated within H-2 either did not extend into the densely packed historical properties lining the east side of Delaware Avenue north of Laurel Street (subsequently replaced by the freight station), or at best only minimally touched on a handful of those sites. As a result, there would appear to be no, or at least only very little, archaeological justification for assuming that no shafts or other potential artifact bearing domestic features are preserved in this part of H-2.  

“The area of the former freight warehouse was only examined by a single Phase IB trench (Trench 14), and the Phase II report states that the trenching results suggested that ‘the area [of the former warehouse] was heavily impacted by later commercial and industrial construction activities’, to the extent that no evidence of earlier 18th and 19th century residential or other properties were likely to have survived (A.D. Marble & Company, February 2008, p. 100). However, the same summary of findings does note that a single probable 18th century foundation wall (Feature 83) was identified in the bottom of Trench 14, while photograph 38 in the Phase II report suggests that the excavation of Trench 14 was terminated at a depth of only a few feet below the present ground surface. The discovery of an intact 18th century foundation wall in this trench would seem to contradict the assertion that the preservation of earlier historical resources beneath the former warehouse is unlikely or not possible. To the contrary, it argues that earlier domestic and other resources may very well be preserved in this portion of the site, and that prior archaeological testing was insufficient to meet the requirements of Section 106. Once again, if HSP Gaming or its consultants possesses historical documentation to support assertions of massive prior disturbance associated with the construction of the former freight station and warehouse, or any other portions of area H-2, then those documents and that information must be inserted into a revised Phase II archaeological report and fully discussed in the accompanying text.” 

“those legal protections were violated when the buildings were demolished without prior HABS/HAER or other recordation, and that archaeological investigation may now be the only means of salvaging the proper documentation of the refinery complex.” — Doug Mooney, PAF (6/25/2008)

On June 25, 2008, Doug Mooney, President, Philadelphia Archaeological Forum, wrote to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers:

“Beach St. Power Plant/Sugar Refinery. As discussed earlier in this document, the response from HSP Gaming consultants presents new and previously uncited information regarding the construction of both of these historic complexes — specifically the use of closely spaced pilings (reportedly at intervals of 5 feet or less) to support those structures — to reinforce assertions that older cultural resources in these locations had been demolished, and therefore warrant no further archaeological testing. Regarding the construction of the Beach Street Power Plant, prior archaeological reports reference only a single historical document (an advertisement) that states simply, and in general terms, that “a number of piles are to be driven” to support the foundations of the plant (A.D. Marble & Company, February 2008, p. 49). Discussions of the Sugar Refinery in the same report note that new refinery buildings were built on that property in the early 20th century, but make no mention of massed pilings used in their construction. The PAF concurs that the use of such massed pilings would have had a devastating effect on any older archaeological resources within those respective properties, and once again insists that any historical documentation confirming this construction methodology must be incorporated into, and fully referenced within, a revised Phase II archaeological report for this project. We also point out that PHMC staff also appears to have been previously unaware of this information, as they joined with the PAF in calling for additional identification level testing within both of these properties. 

“With respect to the former Pennsylvania Sugar Refinery, HSP Gaming’s consultants incorrectly assert in their response (p. 4) that it is the PAF’s position that this complex constitutes an archaeological resource. As indicated in our January 31, 2008 comments, the determination that the Sugar Refinery complex does represent an archaeological resource that has been declared eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NR) was made by the Philadelphia Historical Commission and the PHMC, in 1989. As an eligible archaeological resource, the refinery complex would have therefore been afforded a measure of legal protection under the NR guidelines. The PAF’s position is that those legal protections were violated when the buildings were demolished without prior HABS/HAER or other recordation, and that archaeological investigation may now be the only means of salvaging the proper documentation of the refinery complex. In this instance, it is up to the Army Corps to review surviving historical documents pertaining to the refinery complex and to determine whether or not further archaeological investigations would help to fill in any recognized gaps in the historical record. The PAF also suggests that all available historical documentation pertaining to the Sugar Refinery complex be collected, organized, and curated in association with current cultural resource studies. 

“The HSP Gaming consultants also state in their response that the implosion of these buildings in the 1990s resulted in the complete destruction of all subsurface structures, “to the point where excavating within the building footprint does not result in the identification of discernable building features” (May 6 response, p. 4). This statement is inconsistent with the results of building implosion, which typically are limited to the demolition of above-ground structures, not subsurface foundations, and would seem to be refuted by the findings of current archaeological investigations. During Phase IB/II testing of the site, the excavation of Trench 16 is documented as having exposed at least one intact foundation wall associated with the former Sugar Refinery complex (Feature 167; A.D. Marble & Company, February 2008, Table 26, p. 161). This discovery, although not conclusive, would appear to suggest that at least some parts of the Sugar Refinery complex are still preserved below the present ground surface, and tends to support the position that this property does continue to represent a potentially viable archaeological resource. If HSP Gaming consultants possess evidence demonstrating that below ground components of the Sugar Refinery were substantially disturbed or destroyed during demolition, those records and documents must be included and cited in the revised Phase II report of findings.”

“HSP Gaming’s consultants contend that no waterfront resources (piers, shipways, etc.) have yet been found, therefore they no longer exist.” — Doug Mooney, PAF (6/25/2008)

On June 25, 2008, Doug Mooney, Presidnt of the Philadelphia Archaeological Forum, wrote to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers:

“In their section of the response, Keating representatives provided potentially important information regarding the construction of more recent crib supported pier structures within the SugarHouse property, and of the large scale disturbance that accompanied this construction (p. 3-4). The PAF is familiar with crib piers and acknowledges that the creation of these later structures, and the corresponding dredging of inter pier docking waterways, may have destroyed any traces of earlier like resources within those specific sections of the project area. However, as noted above, specific documentation of the nature, extent, and impacts of this pier construction must be fully documented and discussed in the Phase II report. These amendments must provide all documented evidence that supports the conclusion that extensive dredging occurred under and around the locations of Piers 41 through 48, and that these disturbances were sufficient to remove all significant evidence or earlier waterfront structures and activities.  Currently this documentation is lacking and the Phase II report must be amended accordingly.  

“In addition, it should be noted, the issues raised by PAF regarding waterfront resources do not pertain solely to the areas occupied by later piers, but also to a relatively narrow band at, or immediately adjacent to the original shoreline, where subsequent in-filling and the gradual extension of made land could have helped preserve elements of early waterfront resources. It is our contention that archaeological investigations completed prior to May 12 were not sufficient in extent to conclusively determine whether or not there may be potentially significant resources located at or near the former river edge within the project area. 

“Keating maintains that prior pier construction was sufficiently destructive that ‘earlier resources relating to riverfront commerce can no longer be present’ within the project area (p. 4). If this is the case, and historic documents exist that can support this position, then why did HSP Gaming’s archaeological consultants identify two areas of high cultural resource potential (H-3 and H-4) in the presumed vicinity of the original shoreline? One of those areas (H-4) was assessed to possibly contain “remnants of the shipbuilding trade that was so common along this stretch of the river in Kensington in the 1700s and early- to mid- 1800s” (A.D. Marble & Company, March 2007, p. 52). While Phase IB testing in those areas did identify evidence of crib construction in Trench 11, excavations closer to the presumed original shoreline (vicinity of Trenches 12 and 13) documented conditions exhibiting a much higher degree of archaeological preservation, and successfully identified the intact remains of several historic structures. Thus far, however, testing in H-3 and H-4 has focused largely on evaluating the significance of these structures, and not on assessing the potential preservation of possible more deeply buried and/or adjacent resources, some of which could be associated with the development of the early shoreline and waterfront. 

“HSP Gaming’s consultants contend that no waterfront resources (piers, shipways, etc.) have yet been found, therefore they no longer exist. The PAF maintains that the archeological testing conducted to date has not been sufficient in extent or depth to support such a sweeping conclusion. Initial testing along the presumed original waterfront was confined to the excavation of a series of relatively narrow trenches, and resulted in the opening of only very limited windows through which subsurface preservation could be assessed. Phase II testing along the waterfront has so far focused on the evaluation of identified historic structures and, with the exception of a very small section of Trench 12 and a small number of hand dug shovel tests, has terminated at the depth at which those structures were identified. Moreover, while Phase II testing in H-3 and H-4 did identify areas exhibiting good preservation of archaeological resources, no effort has been made to expand those excavations outward in order to trace out the full extent of similarly preserved areas.  

“One specific example that illustrates PAF’s contention of insufficient testing for waterfront features is the southern part of H-4, in the vicinity of Pier 41, where the earliest waterfront development occurred within the project area. Testing in this area has so far been limited to Trench 12; however, earlier reports indicate that the southern part of this trench was not completed due to near surface obstructions (A.D. Marble & Company, February 2008, p. 103). While Keating representatives assert, without supporting documentation,  that Piers 41-48 were all crib supported structures, and that their construction would have destroyed all traces of earlier archaeological resources (May 6 response, p. 3), the Phase II archaeological report indicates that Pier 41 (as of 1932) was constructed of earth-filled pilings, not cribbing (A.D. Marble, February 2008, p. 85). If this latter information is accurate, and in the absence of documentation verifying the construction of cribbed piers resulted in destruction of underlying resources, it is reasonable to assume that significant early waterfront resources in the vicinity of Pier 41 may be better preserved than in other areas of the site that have been more extensively tested.” 

“… it is the Philadelphia District of the Army Corps of Engineers, not the PHMC nor HSP Gaming and its consultants, that bears complete legal responsibility for ensuring that this undertaking fully complies with all requirements of Section 106.” — Doug Mooney, PAF (2008/02/25)

On June 25, 2008, Doug Mooney, President of the Philadelphia Archaeological Forum wrote to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers:

“HSP Gaming’s response also states that archaeological investigations within the planned SugarHouse Casino property have been “guided by the Section 106 process under the specific direction provided by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission” (p.5). This statement is also in error. The PHMC is not directing the archaeological investigations of the SugarHouse Casino site, nor is this the proper role of a SHPO under provisions of the NHPA. Instead, that agency is reviewing ongoing investigations, ensuring that they comply with its Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations (1991), and providing guidance regarding the conduct of those studies. In light of the events that transpired during the week of May 12-16, we feel it is important to point out this distinction and to reinforce that, in this instance, it is the Philadelphia District of the Army Corps of Engineers, not the PHMC nor HSP Gaming and its consultants, that bears complete legal responsibility for ensuring that this undertaking fully complies with all requirements of Section 106. To discharge this responsibility the USACE must ensure that all significant archaeological resources within this property are properly identified, documented, and studied in accordance with the provisions and directives of the NHPA.” 

“… HSP Gaming reports and documents have stated that the demolition of the Sugar Refinery complex resulted in the complete destruction of this site — to the point that no intact archaeological evidence of the refinery could possibly be preserved below ground…” — Doug Mooney, PAF (2008/08/07)

“… Yet the July 17 Keating proposal acknowledges that foundations, floor slabs, walls and other archaeological features are in fact preserved within this property. Indeed, prior archaeological investigations within this parcel have also confirmed that such features do remain preserved intact, and suggest that the site does exhibit at least some degree of archaeological integrity. If this historic property has been severely disturbed, then how does HSP Gaming and the Corps account for the continued presence of apparent intact wall, floors, and foundations? Keating’s July 17 proposal further acknowledges that the full extent of these preserved features remains unknown. In light of these apparent contradictions and lack of specific, necessary information it would seem that any prior opinions of NR ineligibility regarding this historic property – ones that may have been based on the presumed severe disturbance of archaeological remains – must now be seen as invalid. We do not argue that the site is NR eligible, but do suggest that issues of potential site integrity need to be more fully documented, and that potential significance and eligibility in this case need to be revisited in a more comprehensive manner. We also suggest that any determinations of ineligibility or archaeological insignificance would have to be grounded in some argument other than disturbance/lack of integrity. Once again, we believe that any construction related disturbance to this site is premature at this time, and should not be allowed to proceed until the Corps provides a final, written determination regarding the Sugar Refinery’s integrity, archaeological significance, and potential eligibility for listing in the NR.”

“foundations, slabs, walls, etc.” are in reality archaeological features…” Doug Mooney, PAF (8/7/2008)

“… Moreover, these features are associated with a site that, prior to demolition, had been determined by the Philadelphia Historical Commission to represent a resource that was individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NR). In prior comments the PAF has raised the issue of whether or not archaeological remains of the former Sugar Refinery could potentially add to our understandings of this important industrial complex, especially since no formal recordation of the complex appears to have been performed prior to demolition. To date, we are unaware that any determination related to this issue has been reached by the Corps, and we have received no reply to this issue. Given that the removal of these archaeological features, over an area of some four acres, will result in massive impacts to this site, that the exploratory phase of archaeological investigations within the site have not yet been concluded, and that no formal determination of significance or NR eligibility for this property would appear to have been reached, it seems premature to allow the proposed work to move forward at this time.” 

“knowledge of the extent of the obstructions is limited: however, it is currently anticipated that approximately 50 percent of the 8.3 acre designated area could be disturbed.” — Judson Kratzer, MARBLE (June 18, 2008)

Judson Kratzer, Principal Investigator, A.D. Marble wrote on June 18, 2008:

“HSP Gaming’s knowledge of the extent of the obstructions is limited: however, it is currently anticipated that approximately 50 percent of the 8.3 acre designated area could be disturbed in some fashion to investigate or remove obstructions…” 

“It is ADM’s opinion that the disturbance of soil associated with the obstruction removal activity will have no impact on the archaeological resources identified at the site. The designated area east of Penn Street has been investigated and it has been confirmed that no resource potential is present.” 

To further obscure things, Kratzer refers to the archaeological artifacts by the euphemism “obstructions (foundations, slabs, walls, etc.)”

Without proper “knowledge” of the archaeological potential, Kratzer should not parrot the wishes of HSP Gaming for the “removal of obstructions (foundations, slabs, walls, etc.), to whatever extent they are now present,” while admitting that “50 percent of the 8.3 acre designated area could be disturbed.”

Kratzer’s own reports show that less than one percent of Historic Area H-3 has been archaeologically investigated by area and less than half of one percent by volume. 

“Areas A-2 and A-3 are located east of Penn Street, where the investigation activities have confirmed that no significant archaeological resource potential is present.” — Judson Kratzer, MARBLE (June 18, 2008)

“It is ADM’s opinion that the limited disturbance of soil and driving of the test piles planned by HSP Gaming will have no impact on the archaeological resources identified on the property… [Test Piling] Areas A-2 and A-3 are located east of Penn Street, where the investigation activities have confirmed that no significant archaeological resource potential is present.” 

Judson Kratzer, Principal Investigator, A.D. Marble, refuses to acknowledge that Areas A-2 and A-3 are in a section of Historic Area H-3 where Marble has not excavated even one trench, therefore he has no knowledge of the archaeological potential. 

“No intact cultural soil surfaces were encountered…” — Judson Kratzer, MARBLE (June 2008)

Judson Kratzer, Principal Investigator, A.D. Marble repeatedly discounts the archaeological potential along the Delaware River waterfront:

“Historic Area H-3 Discussion. The amount of destruction due to construction of large industrial buildings is clearly obvious within all six trenches excavated in Historic Area H-3. Large foundation walls, deeply buried concrete footers, and numerous poured-concrete floors are testament to the former industrial landscape throughout the entire area. No intact cultural soil surfaces were encountered in these trenches. Greenish-gray, gley soils were encountered in several instances at depths of 12.0 to 14.0 feet below surface but it is not known if this particular soil horizon was actually higher in the profile before construction of the Sugar Refinery foundations. What is apparent is that development and subsequent demolition activities of the industrial complexes within Historic Area H-3 had been extensive and wide-ranging in both horizontal and vertical extent and massive in scale.” 

Kratzer’s rush to conclude, and focus solely on “intact cultural soil surfaces,” tries to obscure the archaeological potential.

1. The concrete slabs were found at depths of 7 – 8 feet which is not “deeply buried,” but a standard depth for a basement. 
2. “No intact cultural soil surfaces” probably refers to Native Indian soils. Kratzer has not been able to determine the original shoreline or “beach” anywhere on the SugarHouse site. 
3. “What is apparent… massive in scale” is a broad generalization to dismiss the historic development of the site. 
4. The maps included in the various reports by Marble and the Consulting Parties include over a dozen structures in Historic Area H-3 before the arrival of the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Company in 1881. Marble has not located and identified even one. Marble has not found British Army Redoubt No. 1 (1777-78), not found Bower’s Wharves & Shipyard (1809), not found the Kensington Screw Dock & Spermaceti Works (1830), not found the Hay Press, nor found Eyre’s Wharf & Shipyard, not found Park’s Wharf, not found John Kille Hammitt’s shipyard, not found Donaldson’s Wharf & Mast Yard, not found the Quaker City Flour Mill, not found the wharves of Vaughn, Garrison, Howell, not found the lumber yards of Collins, Landell and Malone. 

“…the potential for maritime-related resources and / or buried historic or pre-contact surfaces.” — Judson Kratzer, MARBLE (June 2008)

Judson Kratzer, Principal Investiogator for A.D. Marble wrote (June 2008):

“Historic Area H-3… Six exploratory trenches were mechanically excavated by trackhoe in order to gain a better understanding of the location of the historic shoreline and further assess the potential for maritime-related resources and/or buried historic or pre-contact surfaces.” 

A close examination of Kratzer’s trenches reveals:

1. Those six exploratory trenches range in size from 190 – 1,120 square feet each, for a total of 2,450 sf. Trench 16 appears to be 400 sf. Trench 13 has no discernible dimensions but appears a bit larger than 16. Total excavations measure about 3,000 – 3,500 sf, therefore less than 1% of the area Historic Area H-3 has been archeologically investigated. 
2. Some of these trenches went only to seven feet deep, thereby totally missing the maritime related resources. By volume, Marble has archaeologically investigated less than 0.5% of Historic Area H-3. 
3. Because no historic deeds and surveys were used to guide field archaeology, these trenches were not designed to find the eighteenth and early nineteenth century buildings, shipbuilding slipways or other maritime artifacts. So they found none. 
4. None of these trenches found even the eighteenth and nineteenth century crib piers. 

“monitoring the below ground construction of the project east of Penn Street as a cost savings measure.” — Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp (Feb. 2008)

Kratzer’s “Conclusions and Recommendations” call for:

“monitoring the below ground construction of the project east of Penn Street as a cost savings measure. Recordation of any historic resources would be carried out as the excavation progressed and work would be halted if necessary to examine potentially significant cultural resources. Such an approach could be structured and tied to an MOA that would benefit the project scope, eliminate the need to conduct very deep excavations twice in the same area, and to ensure the proper treatment of resources within the section 106 guidelines.” 

“Cost savings” is not a valid justification on a site with such a rich documented history including detailed deeds, surveys, land partitions, road petitions, and Port Warden Records. 

“Potentially significant” should not be left to Kratzer’s field technicians standing near bulldozers and pile drivers. 

“Eliminating deep excavations” eliminates the possibility of finding the eighteenth and early nineteenth century shipways. 

“Historic Area H-3 is located just north of Laurel Street and east of Penn Street. This area represents the smallest of the historic areas.” — Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (Feb. 2008)

Judson Kratzer, Principal Investigator for A.D. Marble, and Paul Schopp, Historian, are clearly wrong and deliberately ignore these dimensions from their own reports to falsely claim “smallest”:

• Historic Area H-3 is 8.3 acres, or 37% of the 22.6 acre SugarHouse site. 
• 8.3 acres = 361,548 square feet.
• Kratzer’s “single trench” was 400 square feet.
• 361,548 / 400 = 0.001
• Kratzer investigated one one-thousandth of Historic Area H-3 by area, and even less by volume.

“We have not sought further comments at this time from CPs on the additional archaeology / geomorphology that was carried out recently.” — James Boyer, USACE (2007/07/11).

After specifically stating to the Sugar House Consulting Parties on July 11, 2008:

“We have not sought further comments at this time from CPs on the additional archaeology / geomorphology that was carried out recently.”

James Boyer, Corps of Engineers, then wrote on Sept. 9, 2008:

“As part of the subsurface identification efforts, the Corps would like to emphasize the results of the A. D. Marble’s geomorphology investigation in this matter.  In addition to the explanation provided by ACHP, it should be noted that the basic findings of the geomorphology were that the area west of Penn Street was a former high spot that has since been graded down a meter or more, removing the original surface soil layers.  The area east of Penn Street is a former pile-supported foundation over former river sediments, now filled with demolition rubble.  The foundation and piers of the former sugar refinery were originally excavated over two meters deep.  Taking these facts into consideration, we determined that additional study in these areas was not necessary.  We have not seen an acknowledgement by the consulting parties of the geomorphology findings.  After review, we are satisfied that this area does not have a good potential for finding eligible resources.  It is not reasonable to make an applicant continue looking for a proverbial “needle in a haystack.”

“… we would like to point out to everyone what constitutes a “reasonable and good faith effort” on the part of a permit applicant to identify historic resources within a permit area such as this. Archaeological investigations normally apply sampling techniques within areas that have the potential to contain resources. Basic survey and subsurface investigations for historic properties identification do not entail moving 100% of the overburden.” — James Boyer, USACE (2008/09/09)

James Boyer, Corps of Engineers, self-described as: ”Please understand that some of us involved in this consultation do not have a professional background in the field of history or archaeology” (Jan. 22, 2008), provides the upper limit of sampling (100%), not the acceptable limit of “reasonable and good faith effort” sampling.

On June 17, 2008, Terrence McKenna of Keating/HSP Gaming claimed:

“the extent and location of the obstructions remains unknown… removal of the obstructions (foundations, slabs, walls, etc.), to whatever extent they are now present, must be performed.”

On June 18, 2008, Judson Kratzer of A.D. Marble claimed:

“It is ADM’s opinion that the disturbance of soil associated with the obstruction removal activity will have no impact on the archaeological resources identified at the site.  The designated area east of Penn Street has been investigated and it has been confirmed that no resource potential is present.”

Kratzer has not found nor recovered even one artifact of historic interest in Historic Area H-3. Kratzer’s own reports show that a tiny fraction of this 8.3-acre section has been archaeologically investigated — less than 1% by area, and less than than 0.5% by volume. 

.

“Has the most basic question been resolved?…different maps have been presented…” — John Connors, PTM (2008/07/11)

John Connors, Penn Treaty Museum, wrote to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (July 15, 2008):

“Jim, Has the most basic question been resolved? Two different maps have been presented relative to the location of the British fort, Bachelor’s Hall and other structures.  Have the professionals agreed which map is the basis for all archaeological investigations? Would test pilings affect the site regardless of which map is used? John Connors.”

Boyer responded (July 15, 2008):

“Once we have reviewed all the relevant information with our archaeologist, and consulted with PHMC and ACHP on our findings, we will let everyone know our determination in this matter.”

“We have not sought further comments at this time from CPs on the additional archaeology / geomorphology that was carried out recently.” — James Boyer, USACE (2008/07/11)

Email from Torben Jenk to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (July 10, 2008):

“Mr. Boyer & Consulting Parties, Please read the attached letter which describes the concerns of the Kensington History Project about the possible destruction of archaeological evidence for Batchelor’s Hall and the shipyards in Test Piling sites A-1 and A-3.

“Therein I also raise a few other important issues. You have mentioned the possibility of Consulting Party meetings instead of reports and responses. If a meeting is to be held, it should be focussed on reviewing the historic documentary evidence to find consensus for future archaeological investigations. Claims of destruction must matched with evidence of that destruction. To prevent future problems, that meeting should be recorded as evidence. The meeting chairperson should also prevent the applicant’s representatives from cutting off the evidence being presented by Consulting Parties, as McKenna did on January 18, 2008 with “enough of the history lesson.”

“If no meeting is planned, then how long do we have to respond to Keating’s report (May 6, 2008) and Marble’s report (June 2008)? What is the preferred format for a response? Should we follow the lead of the PAF by quoting specific sections from the National Historic Preservation Act?”

James Boyer responded (2008/07/11):

“Mr. Jenk  –  I do not recall mentioning anything about meetings in my recent e-mails.  We have no consulting party meetings planned at this time.  If one becomes necessary as we move ahead in the process, we will let everyone know. We have not sought further comments at this time from CPs on the additional archaeology/geomorphology that was carried out recently.  The report was provided to everyone for their information.  This work was carried out based on recommendations from PHMC, and we are reviewing the results.  If you have comments you would like to submit (in addition to the latest ones attached to your e-mail), you are welcome to do so, and they will be made part of the record for consideration.  We have not requested responses to the applicant’s responses to the CP’s responses to the Phase II report.  The applicant’s responses to the responses were provided to everyone for their information. Again, if there is something further that you wish to add for the record and our consideration, you are welcome to do so.”

“since the Philadelphia District does not currently have a professional archaeologist on its staff, and the controversial preservation issues in this case are archaeological in nature, your office should request the assistance of one of the Corps’ archaeologists in another District office…” — Charlene Dwin-Vaughn, ACHP (2008/06/25)

“… This qualified professional could assist you in reviewing and making some of the findings and determinations that are the responsibility of the Federal agency with jurisdiction over the undertaking. Findings and determinations the Federal agency will need to make include, for example:

• at what point has the applicant made a ‘reasonable and good faith effort’ to identify historic properties as the ACHP’s regulations require:
• decisions regarding National Register eligibility:
• assessments of effects and adverse effects to historic properties
• development of reasonable and appropriate mitigation measures to resolve adverse effects.”

“The fact that we have asked ACHP for input in this high-profile case should not be used to make inferences about our skills and abilities, as I have seen recently in the media.” — James Boyer, USACE (2008/06/10)

James Boyer, Corps of Engineers, to Torben Jenk (Jan. 22, 2008):

“Please understand that some of us involved in this consultation do not have a professional background in the field of history or archaeology.” 

James Boyer to Torben Jenk (June 10, 2008):

“Mr. Jenk  –  Regarding your last statement about “pass[ing] responsibility,” we should be clear that this is not the case.  The Corps is the responsible Federal agency for 106 compliance in this matter.  We are simply seeking ACHP’s input.  It is not unusual for ACHP to be directly involved in these matters, either by invitation from the agency or by their choice to include themselves.  I know of two other current cases we have (just of my own and the person sitting next to me) where ACHP is directly involved in the consultation.  There may be others in the branch that I do not know about.  The fact that we have asked ACHP for input in this high-profile case should not be used to make inferences about our skills and abilities, as I have seen recently in the media.”

“I haven’t even had a chance to look at it myself. Furthermore, we have not decided whether there is a need to solicit consulting parties’ responses to Keatings’ responses to consulting parties’ comments.” — James Boyer, USACE (2008/05/13)

Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeological Forum to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers:

“Hello Jim, It appears from the e-mail you forwarded yesterday that proposed supplemental archaeological testing within the SugarHouse site is scheduled to begin today.  Is that correct?  If so, the members of the Philadelphia Archaeological Forum are dismayed that you are allowing the Section 106 process for this project to move forward without first addressing the substantive comments and concerns submitted by our organization and the other consulting parties. If that schedule is correct, why were the consulting parties not forwarded the proposed plan for supplemental testing when it was initially released to you, and why were we not afforded an opportunity to first comment on this new proposed plan?  

“At this point in time, does the Army Corps have any plans to respond to the concerns put forward by the SugarHouse consulting parties?  Prior e-mails also indicated that the representatives of SugarHouse would be submitting a written response to the consulting party comments and concerns.  Has such a responce been prepared, and if so when might we expect to receive it? Presumably, PHMC has now reviewed the proposed plan for supplemental testing
and had an opportunity to comment on it.  The PAF would like to receive copies any official communications from PHMC that pertain to this proposed plan.

“Thank you for addressing these concerns and I eagerly await your reply, Doug.”

Response from Boyer to Mooney:

“Doug —  First of all, we advised Keating on Friday not to do any earth work out there yet (see more at the end of this message).  I don’t know about PHMC, but I have not had a chance to go over and understand exactly what they were planning to do in terms of utility work, etc.; nor have I talked to PHMC about the archaeology plans.  I am hoping to have a conference call with Terry McKenna (Keating) and Mark Shaffer (PHMC), perhaps today, to discuss their plans (archaeology and utility work, etc.).  I received their archaeologist’s e-mail late Wednesday, after I had left for the day.  I was tied up with other matters Thursday and Friday, and just got to it yesterday, which is when I sent it out for everyone’s information.  I don’t think a two-day delay due to other workload issues is terribly unreasonable.  I also received a binder late last week with their responses to the various comments, which I have not looked at yet.  I have not even talked to Terry about getting that out to consulting parties that may want to see it.  As I said, I haven’t even had a chance to look at it myself. Furthermore, we have not decided whether there is a need to solicit consulting parties’ responses to Keatings’ responses to consulting parties’ comments.  I think you can see how this could easily turn into an endless cycle of responses to responses. When I am able to speak further with PHMC, as well as my supervisor, and review the information we have just received, we will figure out where we are going next in this process, and when we may need to reach out further to consulting parties for more advice beyond what we have already received.  As always, we will keep consulting parties informed as we move ahead.  As for communications with PHMC, I have nothing in writing.  Mark Shaffer called me Friday morning expressing concern about their plans to begin some activities out there.  This was the result of an e-mail late Thursday describing plans for site work, which I had not had a chance to look at.  As a result, I left a phone message for Terry, and followed up with an e-mail advising him not to start any site work out there yet.  After I coordinate further with PHMC, I should have a better idea of where we are going.”

“Both the reports of Phase IB and Phase II archaeological investigation state as a matter of fact that the construction of these industrial complexes [Beach St. Power Plant / Pennsylvania Sugar Refinery Complex] completely destroyed any evidence of earlier occupation…” — Doug Mooney, PAD (3/7/2008)

Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeology Forum, to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (3/7/2008):

“… however, to date no documented evidence, of either an archaeological or historical nature, has been presented to support this conclusion. In the absence of such confirmatory data, the PAF recommends that additional reconnaissance-level archaeological testing be performed within the footprints of both industrial complexes.  In the case of the Beach Street Power Plant, further exploration should seek to document the vertical extent of disturbance resulting from the construction of the plant, as well as the truncated remains of any shaft features that may be sealed beneath its foundations.  If such shafts are present, they could contain significant further information pertaining to the early residential occupation of this area during the 18th and 19th centuries.  

“For the Pennsylvania Sugar Refinery, archaeological resources sealed beneath that complex could relate to the early development of the local waterfront and the industries that grew up alongside it. Although previous testing in this vicinity (Trench 16) encountered only unconsolidated demolition debris to a depth of approximately 9 feet below the present ground surface, the PAF believes that these trenching efforts may not have extended deep enough to demonstrate the extent of disturbance caused by the construction of the complex, or to document that all traces of earlier archaeological resources have been completely disturbed.  Future explorations of this complex should proceed to a point at which undisturbed, and presumably culturally sterile river bottom soils are encountered, and if necessary should provide for the use of de-watering technologies as a means of controlling potential infiltration from the river.”

“field testing in critical areas at or near the margins of the historic waterfront (areas H-3 and H-4; east of Penn Street) did not extend deep enough to discount the possibility of significant archeological resources being preserved below later fill or demolition layers.” Doug Mooney, PAF (3/7/2008)

Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeology Forum, to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (3/7/2008):

“Waterfront Resources: Based on information provided in the Phase II report and discussed during the recent field view meeting, it is our opinion that field testing in critical areas at or near the margins of the historic waterfront (areas H-3 and H-4; east of Penn Street) did not extend deep enough to discount the possibility of significant archeological resources being preserved below later fill or demolition layers. A careful reading of available site data suggests that the trenching conducted in these two areas was not extended to a depth sufficient to penetrate below later fill and demolition layers to where deposits and features related to early wharf and shipbuilding activities might be encountered. Our experience is that such potentially important resources are likely to be encountered in undisturbed sediments or early fill layer near or just below river level. None of the trenches completed in these areas reached undisturbed riverine sediments.  It is our opinion that the existing test trenches should be re-excavated and extended to a depth sufficient to verify the presence/absence of potential early historical waterfront resources.”

“British Redoubt #1: All parties to this project are in agreement that this fortification represents an extremely important historical and archaeological resource….” — Doug Mooney, PAF (3/7/2008)

Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeology Forum, to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (3/7/2008):

“… At present, the precise location of this fort within the study area is not known (though its general location seems to have been established), and testing to identify any surviving remnants of its outer trenches has been comparatively limited.  The PAF believes that more expansive archaeological testing will be required in order to determine whether or not any traces of the fort or associated features might be preserved within this property, and it is our opinion that such testing should be afforded the widest latitude possible. We also maintain that any arguments suggesting that all traces of the fort have likely been destroyed by prior historic development/landform truncation have not been sufficiently supported or confirmed by existing field data. While later alteration to the site may have removed all or substantially all of the above ground and near surface portions of the fort, testing to date has not established that significant portions of the exterior moat or ditch may not survive.  The location of the lower portion of the moat might serve to delineate the exact location of the fort, could perhaps serve as a benchmark useful in locating other, more ephemeral, features relating to the fortifications, and might contain trash deposits associated with the occupation of the fort. 

“Additional reconnaissance-level archaeological explorations discussed above for Penn Street and Area H- 2 are believed likely to encompass much of the area believed to have been once occupied by the fort, and would be likely to reveal any remaining archaeological traces of that structure, including portions of the exterior trench or moat, and any more extensive interior features, such as a privy.  Based on information generated by the testing of Penn Street and adjacent portions of Area H-2, the exploration of previously untested areas to the east of Penn Street may also be warranted.  Geomorphological evaluations of sub-surface soils in the approximate location of the fort should also be conducted, and may provide critical interpretive data in the event that no physical evidence of the fortifications is identified.” 

“If 18th and/or early 19th century foundations are preserved in this portion of the study area, it then stands to reason that at least truncated portions of shaft features associated with these structures should also survive.” — Doug Mooney, PAF (3/7/2008)

Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeology Forum, to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (3/7/2008):

“According to historical documentation included in the Phase II report, the H-2 section of the project area [between Delaware Avenue and Penn Street, and Laurel Street to Shackamaxon Street],  was occupied by at least the early 19th century, and within a few decades thereafter had developed into a thriving residential neighborhood.  Archaeological testing within this area has turned up physical evidence of potential residential structures dating to this time period; however, no associated shaft features or related artifact deposits have been identified. While near surface horizons in this area appear to have been truncated to some extent by later railroad construction, the full extent of this truncation has not been firmly established.  As such, the absence of shaft and related features, and associated artifact deposits, has not been verified. If 18th and/or early 19th century foundations are preserved in this portion of the study area, it then stands to reason that at least truncated portions of shaft features associated with these structures should also survive. Given this situation, the PAF believes that current testing levels have been insufficient to enable accurate evaluation regarding the National Register eligibility of resources in this area. 

“Prior testing in section H-2 primarily involved the use of test trench excavations to identify archaeological resources, and has thus far resulted in the direct examination of only very limited sections of this larger area.  We believe that more expansive testing, coupled with additional geomorphological work, will be required to adequately identify the full range of resources that may be contained in this area, and to permit accurate assessments of potential resource eligibility.  Considering that this area could contain a wide assortment of resources, including materials associated with prior Native American occupation (possibly associated with the late 17th century Lenape village of Shackamaxon), 18th and 19th residential properties, and features associated with British Redoubt #1, we recommend that: 1) the boundaries of area H-2 be extended to the southeast margins of Delaware Avenue; and 2) that the entire area bounded by Laurel, Delaware, Shackamaxon, and Penn Streets be stripped of overlying fill materials and thoroughly examined for potentially significant artifact deposits.  While this represents a comparatively large portion of the entire SugarHouse property, prior testing has determined that intact archaeological materials are generally encountered within approximately two (2) feet of the present ground surface.  As such this area, like the adjacent H-1 segment, is readily amenable to this sort of large scale stripping effort.”

“… we believe that the ground beneath Penn Street represents a potentially well-preserved section of the site, and an area that could exhibit a high probability for containing significant archaeological data…” — Doug Mooney, PAF (3/7/2008)

Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeology Forum, to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (3/7/2008):

 ”… Specific evidence that could be sealed beneath this former roadbed include archaeological remains of the Revolutionary War-era British redoubt #1, additional Native American features and/or artifact deposits, resources pertaining to early waterfront development, and stratigraphic information related to the formation of the historical landscape and its subsequent modification by historical occupation. 

“According to the Phase II report, it is currently proposed that future investigation of this potentially significant corridor through the site should be accomplished by means of archaeological monitoring methodologies.  Given the potential importance of this area, the PAF believes that archaeological monitoring represents an insufficiently rigorous approach to employ in this instance.  Instead, we recommend that a plan be developed that outlines a deliberate, controlled, and comprehensive methodology designed to identify and document any archaeological deposits and/or features that may be contained below the historic roadbed. Any such plan should also provide for conduct of additional geomorphological examinations as a means of evaluating landform development and impacts caused by historical development and transformation of the local landscape.”

“Moreover, we contend that the inadequacy of current investigations pertains to both specific identified resources as well as to the site as a whole…” — Doug Mooney, PAF (3/7/2008)

Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeology Forum, to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (3/7/2008):

“… As such, it is our position that additional, and in some instances potentially extensive reconnaissance-level exploration (i.e., Phase IB/II) is required within the site before proposals for the mitigation of significant archaeological features and deposits (i.e., Phase III data recovery investigations) can be considered. More detailed discussions regarding the need to perform additional archaeological investigations, as related to specific sections of the site, are included below. 

“In large measure current interpretations of site preservation seem to stem from the position that the planned SugarHouse property has been “massively” impacted by later 19th and 20th century development. Our organization believes that such an assertion has not yet been conclusively demonstrated, and in fact information thus far generated may contradict this interpretation. While specific locales within the site have no doubt been extensively disturbed, substantial areas have been shown to contain comparatively intact historical foundations, features, and potentially artifact-bearing soil horizons within a few feet of the current ground surface. Near surface archaeological deposits, including former historic ground surfaces, have been truncated across large stretches of the study area; however, we believe that there has been an insufficient amount of geomorphological investigation completed in support of archaeological investigations to allow an accurate or comprehensive evaluation of the full extent of prior disturbance or landform truncation within the site.”

“The area of potential effect for the SugarHouse project encompasses an area that offers extraordinary potential to illuminate thousands of years of our history and shared heritage…” — Doug Mooney, PAF (3/7/2008)

Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeology Forum, to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (3/7/2008):

“… The stories that may lie hidden beneath the ground on this seemingly unassuming plot of ground can reveal much about locally and national significant themes. The unique and rich history of this site tells us a great deal about pre-contact habitation in the Philadelphia area, early contact and interaction between Native Americans and early Europe settlers, colonial settlement of the area, the development and rise of Philadelphia as a major shipbuilding center and port, and the emergence of the city as a urban metropolis that came to be know as the ‘workshop of the world’. 

“The PAF is aware of the need to complete Section 106 compliance as expediently as possible. We have no interest in seeing one-more minute expended than is necessary to complete pre-construction archeological work. But it is absolutely vital that not one minute less than necessary be expended to thoroughly survey the site; to do otherwise risks destruction of a heritage that belongs to Philadelphians and, indeed, to all Americans.”

“Native American Component: the PAF strongly disagrees with the conclusion that this site component does not warrant additional archaeological investigation…” — Doug Mooney, PAF (1/31/08)

Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeology Forum, to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (1/31/2008):

“… To the contrary, we believe that the Phase II suggests that this component does represent a National Register-eligible resource, that it does have the potential to contain significant archaeological data, and we consequently recommend that additional archaeological exploration of this component be required. Based on information provided at the January 18 meeting this occupation appears to be preserved in a substantially intact state and has produced significant quantities of prehistoric artifacts, including diagnostic and non-diagnostic tools, fire-cracked rock, and manufacturing debitage. We feel that testing completed to date is insufficient to demonstrate an absence of associated artifact patterning or in situ features (a post hole was identified in this vicinity during Phase IA testing), or to support the stated interpretations of site function.  

“To date, there are only a mere handful of intact pre-contact sites known within the limits of Philadelphia, and only four other such sites have ever been identified in the central, most heavily developed sections of the city (see www.phillyarchaeology.org for more information on previously identified Native American sites in Philadelphia). Given the paucity of such previous finds, and considering that associated archaeological resources represent the primary means of learning about the pre-contact occupants of this vicinity, any discovery of intact Native American artifact deposits merits careful and intensive investigation. In this particular instance, more thorough study is especially warranted because the SugarHouse property is in close proximity to the both site of the Penn Treaty Tree and the historically documented Lenape settlement of Shackamaxon. It is also important to note that this site component was additionally associated with intact artifact deposits possibly associated with the early historical residents of this community. The rarity of such archaeological deposits in the city, and their potential for shedding light on separate, but equally significant cultural periods, further justifies the conduct of more intensive archaeological explorations. 

“Given the potential significance of the pre-contact component, we further strongly urge the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to initiate consultation with appropriate federally recognized Native American groups regarding this discovery, and suggest that such actions be initiated at the earliest possible opportunity. It is our organization’s experience that members of the Lenape/Delaware Indian tribes have shown an increasing interest in archaeological discoveries from Philadelphia and the surrounding vicinity related to their heritage. It is our belief that the active involvement of these groups is essential to successful consultation and would serve to greatly enhance this project and the interpretation of its associated archaeological findings.”

“British Fort #1: based on information presented at the January 18 meeting all parties agree that the site of the British fort falls within the SugarHouse property,…” — Doug Mooney, PAF (1/31/08)

Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeology Forum, to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (1/31/2008):

“… and there seems to be at least general consensus as to the approximate location of that resource within the current APE. While efforts were made during Phase II investigations to discover any surviving archaeological evidence of the fort, the PAF maintains that those excavations were insufficient is scope to conclusively determine whether or not significant portions of the fort and/or associated artifact deposits remain preserved below ground surface, or to support the recommendation of no further investigation contained in the Phase II summary letter. 

“Although the excavation of Trench 17 is reported to have produced no evidence of the fort, these findings do not rule out the possibility that it was located further to the east, in ground nearer to the Delaware River shoreline; nor do they conclusively show that historical landform modification in this vicinity has been sufficiently extensive to remove all potential significant evidence of this important resource. Thus far in the investigations, no testing has been performed below the former road bed of Penn Street, due to the presence of active utility lines. Penn Street occupies a relatively wide swath through the project area under which evidence of the former fort could easily be concealed. While the Phase II summary letter presumes that the construction of the street and associated utilities probably removed any traces of the fort that might have once been there, such assumptions are not supported by evidence from this and other sites in the city. To the contrary, findings from other archaeological investigations in Philadelphia have repeatedly demonstrated that the construction of streets frequently serves to enhance the preservation of archaeological deposits, and that utility installation tends to result in comparatively localized disturbances.  

“The PAF strongly recommends that additional archaeological testing be performed below the bed of Penn Street in order to determine if any evidence of the fort or its military occupation is yet preserved within the APE.  These specific investigations should be robust in nature and cover a large section of that former roadway, to allow for a reasonable margin of error regarding the probable location of the fort (further testing should also take into account any historical information identified by local historians that may pertain to the fort’s placement). Testing should also incorporate a thorough geomorphological assessment of any exposed soil horizons in order to allow a more accurate landform reconstruction of this specific section of the APE. Geomorphological interpretations could be especially critical in the event that additional testing produces no physical evidence of the fort.”

“Pennsylvania Sugar Refinery: The refinery represents a unique resource within the SugarHouse Casino property in that it had been previously determined to represent a resource that was eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NR)…” — Doug Mooney, PAF (1/31/08)

Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeology Forum, to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (1/31/2008):

“… This prior determination resulted from an architectural and archaeological survey of industrial properties within the Fishtown section of the city, conducted by the staff of the Philadelphia Historical Commission (Dixon et al. 1989). Unfortunately, the refinery was demolished in 1997 without the benefit of prior HABS/HAER recordation. In light of this resource’s prior determination of significance, and considering that its foundations likely survive below ground surface, the only means left to physically document the Pennsylvania Sugar Refinery before its final destruction is through the archaeological investigation of structural remains. The PAF believes that archaeological testing of this portion of the SugarHouse property should also be conducted in order to verify the extent of impacts to possible earlier resources, and to determine whether or not any evidence of the original shoreline, waterfront structures associated with the local shipping industry, and/or information related to the construction of the refinery itself might be preserved below its foundations and basement floors.”

“From the outset of this investigation it appears that certain unsupported a priori assumptions were made regarding the probable extent of prior impacts on archaeological resources resulting from the construction of the Beach St. Powerplant and the Pennsylvania Sugar Refinery…” — Doug Mooney (1/31/2008)

Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeology Forum, to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (1/31/2008):

“… Specifically, it seems to have been assumed that the construction of these two industrial complexes resulted in the disturbance of earlier resources within these areas, and therefore no archaeological investigation of these portions of the APE was necessary. It appears, however, that no effort has been made to conclusively verify the extent of prior disturbance generated by that construction. This approach would seem to ignore the findings of previous archaeological investigations in the city which, on numerous occasions, have shown that industrial construction is very often not sufficient to destroy all archaeological features and/or artifact deposits that may be present – in particular deep shaft features such as privies and wells.

“In the case of the Beach St. Powerplant Phase IB testing, and in particular the information generated from Trench 1, seems to imply that foundations for at least a portion of that complex extend only some six feet below the present ground surface. While the construction of this factory certainly truncated any shaft features previously established in this area, it would seem that this disturbance may have been insufficient to completely remove all traces of those features, or any intact artifact deposits contained within them.  Given that the power plant location was previously a residential neighborhood, and possibly one of the earliest settled sections of this vicinity, archaeological resources associated with the 18th and/or 19th century residents of the Fishtown/Kensington community may well be preserved below the powerplant’s foundations. In the absence of more concrete historical documentation regarding the impacts caused by the construction of the Beach St. Powerplant, the PAF believes that additional archaeological testing should be performed within this complex. This testing should be conducted with the goal of verifying the extent of prior disturbance and of determining whether or not any earlier historical features and/or potentially significant artifact deposits are present beneath that building complex.”    

“Everything in our file is open to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, if someone makes the proper request to come in to look at it.” — James Boyer, USACE (2008/03/11)

On March 11, 2008, Torben Jenk wrote to James Boyer:

“Common sense suggests that the public comment period cannot begin until the public can review all the relevant documents. Only when the public has a chance to read Marble & Co.’s SugarHouse Phase IB/II report and the responses from the Consulting Parties, can they respond intelligently.

“Where will that SugarHouse Phase IB/II report be available to the public? Can you or one of your associates at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers load both volumes of the SugarHouse Phase IB/II report to the internet, or provide a link from the USACE website. Volume I is about 1 MB, Volume II is about 32 MB. Printed copies should be distributed to local libraries for those without internet access.” 

James Boyer responded (3/11/08): 

“Everything in our file is open to the public under the Freedom of Information Act, if someone makes the proper request to come in to look at it.  We have shared the archaeological reports with the Section 106 consulting parties.  Our public notice gives all the public an opportunity to comment about the proposed development plans, including any of our public interest factors.  The public notice is not just about the Section 106 process.  The notice provides basic information about the project, including some basic plans. That is the best that we can do for mass distribution purposes.  If someone has a specific concern that needs a more detailed dialogue, we deal with that situation as required.

“We are engaged in a 106 consultation with consulting parties that have been identified for that specific process (just like we consult with certain Federal agencies about endangered species in a specific process).  The public notice is meant to include information about those processes, but goes beyond them.  If someone from the public, separate from the consulting parties, identifies some specific concern about historic properties that we are not currently dealing with, or makes a request to see any information that we have (about archaeology or anything else), we will deal with that as the need arises.  We have no current plans to post the archaeological reports somewhere.  We feel that we are currently dealing with the parties that we need to be consulting with for advice about archaeology.”

“With few exceptions, investigations to date have focused almost exclusively on terrestrial archaeological resources, while riverfront resources related to the local shipping industry (including wharves, piers, slip-ways, and/or relict ships) having been largely, and without clear justification, ignored…” — Doug Mooney, PAF (1/31/2008)

Doug Mooney, Philadelphia Archaeology Forum, to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers (1/31/2008):

“… Considering the central role that shipping, ship building, and related industries played in the development of the Fishtown-Kensington area, the exclusion of these resources from the archaeological research design and associated field testing strategy essentially disregards one of, if not the most important aspects of the history of these communities. Beyond that, this exclusion also ignores resources that may shed light on the period that marked the rise of Philadelphia as the preeminent U. S. port. This exclusion of waterfront resources is especially questionable given the overall paucity of well-documented archaeological data concerning Philadelphia’s port and shipping industries. To our knowledge, only two prior archaeological investigations — the Hertz Lot (Webber 1990) and Meadows Site (Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.) projects — specifically targeted potential waterfront resources. It is critical to note that in both those prior instances, well preserved and archaeologically significant resources dating to the early years of the city were identified, despite the effects of extensive subsequent development and disturbance.”

Six months later, without any proper research or investigations of those waterfront resources, the Corps of Engineers authorized the “removal of obstructions (foundations, slabs, walls, etc.), to whatever extent they are now present,” along the 8.3-acre Historic Area H-3, east of Penn Street to the Delaware River from Laurel Street to Shackamaxon Street.

“the Corps has said that in its opinion two components at the site meet the National Register criteria and possess sufficient integrity to be deemed historic properties while other archaeological resources at the site do not possess integrity due to the past centuries of land disturbance on the site.” — Tom McCulloch, ACHP (2008/09/04)

The Corps of Engineers selected only “two components at the site” — the Native American settlement and British Army Redoubt No. 1.

James Boyer, Corps of Engineers, wrote on Jan. 22, 2008:

“Please understand that some of us involved in this consultation do not have a professional background in the field of history or archaeology.”

Without that expertise, the Corps of Engineers cannot determine National Register potential. Further, Boyer refuses to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106:

“The agency official shall ensure that a determination, finding, or agreement under the procedures in this subpart is supported by sufficient documentation to enable any reviewing parties to understand its basis” [36 CFR § 800.11]

After repeated requests by Torben Jenk for that “sufficient documentation,” Boyer wrote on Aug. 4, 2008:

“We will get back to you once we have had a chance to discuss your message with our archaeologist, who is on vacation.”

That sufficient documentation has NOT been delivered and there is no basis for their determination that “other archaeological resources at the site do not possess integrity due to the past centuries of land disturbance on the site.”

Boyer relied upon the false assertions of Terrence McKenna (Keating) and his revolving-door of Principal Investigators: Daniel Bailey, Richard Baublitz and Judson Kratzer (A.D. Marble).

The applicant, Corps, PHMC and ACHP knew nothing about British Army Redoubt No. 1, Batchelors’ Hall and many other historic structures that stood on the Sugar House site.  The Corps cannot ignore the historic documentary evidence for Masters’ Tide Mill (c. 1715), Kensington Bank (ca. 1826), Burtis & Keen’s Cotton Mill (ca. 1820), Kensington Screw Dock & Spermaceti Works (ca. 1830), Point Pleasant Foundry (ca. 1809), plus the 18th & 19th century shipyards, associated industries, residences and taverns.

That extensive historic documentary evidence provided by local historians should have been studied by the Corps, PHMC and ACHP prior to authorizing the “removal of obstructions (foundations, slabs, walls, etc.), to whatever extent they are now present” — to preserve the sufficient integrity of association and setting, and the preserved contextual relationship between artifacts in an environment that can be reconstructed.

“I have known both the Corps’ and State’s archaeologists for many years and I trust their judgment…” — Tom McCulloch, ACHP (2008/08/04)

Tom McCulloch, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, continued:

“… when they say they have given due consideration to the information provided by the consulting parties, and are satisfied that the consultants also have taken this material into account in designing their identification efforts.”

“I trust their judgement” is neither sufficient oversight nor sufficient documentation to comply with National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106: 

“The agency official shall ensure that a determination, finding, or agreement under the procedures in this subpart is supported by sufficient documentation to enable any reviewing parties to understand its basis” [36 CFR § 800.11].

“We will get back to you once we have had a chance to discuss your message with our archaeologist, who is on vacation.” — James Boyer, USACE (2008/08/04)

Still no response.

“Seek information, as appropriate, from consulting parties, and other individuals and organizations likely to have knowledge of, or concerns with, historic properties in the area, and identify issues relating to the undertaking’s potential effects on historic properties” — Section 106, 36 CFR § 800.4.a.3

There has been only one Consulting Party meeting to date, on Jan. 18, 2008. The Corps of Engineers has largely ignored the hundreds of pages of historical documentary evidence provided by local historians and Revolutionary War military experts.

The Corps resists all requests from the Consulting Parties for a meeting to resolve the different interpretations of the evidence. Skipper Scott, the late-comer Corps’ archaeologist met only with the applicant and their consultants, ignoring the local historians who have provided the bulk of the historical documentary evidence.

“Not every nook and cranny needs to be investigated, especially in light of the apparent extent of previous ground disturbance on this site.” — Tom McCulloch, ACHP (2008/08/04)

National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 requires:

“Review existing information on historic properties within the area of potential effects, including any data concerning possible historic properties not yet identified” [36 CFR § 800.4.a.2]. 

McCulloch does not reconcile his “not every nook and cranny needs to be investigated” with the requirement to review “any data concerning possible historic properties not yet identified.” What qualifies as less or more than a “nook and cranny”? 

— Revolutionary War forts and/or weapons and weapon projectiles?

— Early learned societies and eighteenth century craftsmen workshops?

— Shipyards and slipways?

— Tools, structures or portions of structures of other industries?

— What material remains of past human life or activities?

McCulloch’s claim of “apparent extent of previous ground disturbance” is not substantiated by documentary evidence.

“… we believe the applicant should provide to all the consulting parties a map that overlays…” — Tom McCulloch, ACHP (2008/09/04)

Full excerpt from Tom McCulloch, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (9/4/2008):

“Finally, since the question of whether the applicant actually tested the specific area where folks believe the location of Redoubt # 1 and Batchelors’ Hall to be continues to remain an issue, and is one that the Pennsylvania SHPO needs to have clarified as it reviews the Corps’ findings, we believe the applicant should provide to all the consulting parties a map that overlays its test trenches, pits, and borings against the purported location of the fort and hall, with a short summary of the findings of its testing program in these specific areas.  We assume the applicant may simply need to assemble this material out of the documentation it has already generated or received from the consulting parties; however, if the Corps believes this issue can best be dealt with in a meeting among the consulting parties focusing solely on this issue (and not on the Sugar House project in general), we would support such a meeting.”

National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 requires: “Review existing information on historic properties within the area of potential effects, including any data concerning possible historic properties not yet identified” [36 CFR § 800.4.a.2].

Why does McCulloch limit the “map that overlays” solely to the location Redoubt No. 1 and Batchelors’ Hall?

This follows the applicant’s repeated attempts to ignore or deny the “sufficient documentation” that has been provided for Masters Tide Mill (c. 1715), Kensington Bank (ca. 1826), Burtis & Keen’s Cotton Mill (ca. 1820), Kensington Screw Dock & Spermaceti Works (ca. 1830), Point Pleasant Foundry (ca. 1809), plus the 18th & 19th century shipyards, associated industries, residences and taverns. 

The “map that overlays” should also include the structures so well described and located in the insurance surveys provided in A.D. Marble’s reports (yet never used for field archaeology).

The “map that overlays” should include more information on the shipwrights including the Grice’s, Eyre’s, Bowers’, Donaldson’s, Clinton’s and Wilson.

This poorly-managed and ignore-the-evidence Sugar House Section 106 Process has forced the local historians to constantly repeat themselves rather than adding yet more information to the record to efficiently guide field archaeology.

“most important for archaeological sites is the integrity of association and setting, the preserved contextual relationship between artifacts in an environment that can be reconstructed.” — Tom McCulloch, ACHP (2008/09/04)

The Corps of Engineers, Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and applicant have long ignored, misunderstood and dismissed the hundreds of pages of historical documentary evidence delivered by local historians to help guide field archaeology during this Sugar House Section 106 Process.

This wealth of information provides the crucial details by location (deeds, surveys, maps), by description of activities (journals, diaries, account books, manuscript and published histories), and by time (all of the above) to show the development of the SugarHouse site from first Swedish settlement in 1664 through eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth century industrialization.

It is precisely these layers of contextual documentary data that should have been used by field archaeologists to guide and understand the “contextual relationship between artifacts in an environment that can be reconstructed.”

Surely in-situ “foundations, slabs, walls, etc.” qualify as “the integrity of association and setting, the preserved contextual relationship between artifacts in an environment that can be reconstructed.”

By approving the “removal of obstructions (foundations, slabs, walls, etc.), to whatever extent they are now present,” from the 8.3-acre Historic Area H-3 on the SugarHouse site the Corps, PHMC and ACHP have likely destroyed the sufficient integrity of association and setting, the preserved contextual relationship between artifacts in an environment that can be reconstructed.

“The agency official shall ensure that a determination, finding, or agreement under the procedures in this subpart is supported by sufficient documentation to enable any reviewing parties to understand its basis” — Section 106, 36 CFR § 800.11

“Review existing information on historic properties within the area of potential effects, including any data concerning possible historic properties not yet identified” — Section 106, 36 CFR § 800.4.a.2

“extremely satisfied with the work done by A.D. Marble. We are extremely confident of the data that we have recovered.” — Terrence McKenna, KEATING (2/21/08)

— as quoted by reporter Brian Rademaeker in “Archaeologists release final report from dig,” Star Newspaper, (Feb. 21, 2008).

Of course McKenna of Keating is satisfied. The archaeologists that he selected, A.D. Marble, neither found nor recovered even one artifact of historic interest to them from Historic Area H-3 along the Delaware River. Marble’s own reports show that a tiny fraction of this 8.3-acre section has been archaeologically investigated — less than one percent by area, and less than than one half of one percent by volume.

Judson Kratzer of A.D. Marble claimed (6/18/2008):

“It is ADM’s opinion that the disturbance of soil associated with the obstruction removal activity will have no impact on the archaeological resources identified at the site.  The designated area east of Penn Street has been investigated and it has been confirmed that no resource potential is present.”

“We’re zoned, we’ve got the rough grading permit, we’re ready to rock and roll.” — Leigh Whitaker, HSP GAMING (2008/01/05)

— as reported by Kellie Patrick Gates, “SugarHouse to begin preliminary construction,” PlanPhilly, (Jan. 5, 2008), http://www.planphilly.com/node/2517

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer wrote on March 10, 2008:

Weeks before the Jan. 18, 2008 meeting to review Marble & Co.’s archaeology reports, Leigh Whitaker, spokesperson for SugarHouse, said: “We’re zoned, we’ve got the rough grading permit, we’re ready to rock and roll.”

Those rough grading permits were issued on the last day of the corruption-plagued administration of Mayor John Street. Rough grading would have destroyed archaeological evidence before the Consulting Party meeting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Jan. 18, 2008. After swift action by local preservationists, incoming Mayor Michael Nutter wisely pulled those last-minute permits.

On Feb. 5, 2008, “Whitaker said costs are at least $100 million over initial projections, all tied to a delay in the start of construction. ‘Steel costs money, and every month we don’t buy steel, it costs more money. Everything costs more money,’ she said.”

The SugarHouse properties were purchased on May 16, 1996, and are still owned by LHTW Corp., which stands for “Let’s Hope This Works.” After eleven years of doing nothing, full-page, full-color advertising by SugarHouse now proclaims “Don’t Delay, Build Today… $1 million per day.” Politicians with no comprehension of the historical significance of the SugarHouse site are joining the chorus, blaming the delay on “community groups. 

Any delays are caused by SugarHouse and their poor management of these Federally-required archaeological investigations. Their hostility towards historic and cultural preservation became clear at the Jan. 18, 2008 Consulting Party meeting, when Terrence McKenna, Project Executive for Keating, cut off local historian Torben Jenk with “Enough of the history lesson!” In an unpublished letter to the Star newspaper dated Feb. 15, 2008, McKenna describes the Star’s weekly history columnist, Ken Milano, as “…misleading and bordering on sensationalism. First, the author neglects to disclose that he is part of the research team aiding certain anti-casino organization participating as Consulting Parties to the SugarHouse archaeology investigation.” 

Torben Jenk, Ken Milano and Rich Remer have been collaborating with others since 1995 to research, share and publish the history of Kensington. Books, magazines, articles, presentations, lectures, tours and websites attest to this long interest and expertise — before casinos were ever proposed. From December 12, 2007, through to the completion of the Phase IB/II report, we historians offered our knowledge and collections to Marble & Co. They weren’t interested and the results show in their current report, which reflects the wishes of their client more than the profession of historic research and archaeology.

On Feb 7, 2008, McKenna wrote to the Star “In addition to the time spent, SugarHouse has spent more than $500,000 during the course of this study. It is irresponsible to characterize A.D. Marble’s investigation as anything less than comprehensive and professional.”

Knowing that “evidence leads,” we challenge anyone to weigh the quality of Marble & Co.’s fourteen-month $500,000 study with what we three local historians (with friends) have compiled within just three weeks of receiving that Phase IB/II report.

Since Federal mandates require proper archaeological investigations on the SugarHouse site prior to construction, any delays are self-inflicted — by the belligerent project executive and incompetent archaeology — which, by their own calculations, costs both SugarHouse and the tax payers of Pennsylvania over “$1 million per day.” “Let’s Hope This Works” isn’t enough!

Whitaker said costs are at least $100 million over initial projections, all tied to a delay in the start of construction.

Reported by Kellie Patrick Gates, ‘SugarHouse pulls workers from site,’  PlanPhilly, Feb. 5, 2008, http://www.planphilly.com/node/2685 :

Whitaker said costs are at least $100 million over initial projections, all tied to a delay in the start of construction. “Steel costs money, and every month we don’t buy steel, it costs more money. Everything costs more money,” she said.

“Their only road and gate of egress and ingress northward”

 John F. Watson, “Annals of Philadelphia” (1830):

“While the British army occupied Philadelphia, in the year 1777 and ’78, they damned in all the Cohocksinc meadows, so as to lay them all under water from the river, and thus produced to themselves a water barrier of defence in connection with their line of redoubts across the north end of the city. Their only road and gate of egress and ingress northward, was at the head of Front street where it parts to Germantown, and by Kensington to Frankford.” 

 

“it came to A.D. Marble & Company’s attention that a Revolutionary War period fort was potentially located within the subject property” — Judson Kratzer, MARBLE (Dec. 28, 2007)

After a year of finding NO documentary evidence for the British Fort No. 1, yet just two weeks after being given the Montresor map (1777) by local historians, Judson Kratzer wrote (Dec. 28, 2007):

“We believe no other significant remains from the fort exist. If any remains could possibly exist, it would only be the filled in portion of the depression that likely surrounded the fort. It is our contention that any remains of any kind would be difficult to interpret without the existence of the overall resource. No further action is recommended within the area of the former Fort.”

Twenty months into this archaeological investigation, A.D. Marble’s three “Principal Investigators” (Daniel Bailey, Richard Baublitz and Judson Kratzer) and their “Historian” (Paul Schopp) have NOT found even one map of British Army Redoubt No. 1. Kratzer and Schopp never bothered to look.

Local and Revolutionary War historians revealed ALL SIXTEEN MAPS of that fort.

Nicola “did not provide dimensional information except for scaling his plan” — Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, MARBLE (Feb. 2008)

As “Archaeologist/Principal Investigator” for A.D. Marble, Judson Kratzer claims that only one scale existed for the overall plan of Lewis Nicola’s “Plan of the English Lines Near Philadelphia 1777.”  From the detail view included in A.D. Marble’s reports it is clear that Kratzer relied solely on the cheap partial reproduction of Nicola’s Plan in Martin Snyder’s “City of Independence.” 

Anyone who examines Nicola’s original “Plan of the English Lines Near Philadelphia 1777” will see that it is thoroughly scaled:

— Scale for Principal Plan 100 fathoms [600 feet] per inch.

— Scale for Detach’d Plans 40 feet to an inch.

— Scale for Detach’d Profils 20 feet to an inch.

Nicola’s superbly-detailed section views offers height dimensions from grade (the dotted line) to the bottom of the moat, plus “High Water” and “Low Watermark”, and the stockade which ran into the Delaware River. 

Kratzer never examined Nicola’s original plan and never saw the detailed scales. Cheap reproductions, or even photos without a ruler or other discernible scale, obviously cannot be used to transcribe the dimensions from Nicola’s Plan onto modern surveys.

“a former high spot that has since been graded down a meter or more, removing the original soil layers” — James Boyer, USACE (2008/09/09)

Full Boyer quote is:

“As part of the subsurface identification efforts, the Corps would like to emphasize the results of the A.D. Marble’s geomorphology investigation in this matter.  In addition to the explanation provided by ACHP, it should be noted that the basic findings of the geomorphology were that the area west of Penn Street was a former high spot that has since been graded down a meter or more, removing the original surface soil layers.  The area east of Penn Street is a former pile-supported foundation over former river sediments, now filled with demolition rubble.  The foundation and piers of the former sugar refinery were originally excavated over two meters deep.  Taking these facts into consideration, we determined that additional study in these areas was not necessary.”

Nicola’s “Plan of the English Lines Near Philadelphia 1777” clearly shows that the moat which surrounded Redoubt No. 1 was close to four meters deep and was flooded before “High Water.” The stockade extended from Redoubt No. 1 into the Delaware River below “Low  Water.”

The evidence for Masters’ Tide Mill (ca. 1715) suggest that race or sluice (to direct the water) was over five meters deep.

The slipways of the numerous shipyards extended from hard land into the Delaware River well below low tide.

“HSP Gaming’s knowledge of the extent of the obstructions is limited…” — MARBLE (June 18, 2008)

Judson Kratzer, A.D. Marble (June 18, 2008):

“… however, it is currently anticipated that approximately 50 percent of the 8.3 acre designated area could be disturbed in some fashion to investigate or remove obstructions.”

“It is ADM’s opinion that the disturbance of soil associated with the obstruction removal activity will have no impact on the archaeological resources identified at the site.  The designated area east of Penn Street has been investigated and it has been confirmed that no resource potential is present.”

Kratzer’s own reports show that a tiny fraction of this 8.3-acre section has been archaeologically investigated — less than one percent by area, and less than than one half of one percent by volume.

Kratzer has not found nor recovered even one artifact of historic interest to them from this 8.3-acre section.

“Milano and Remer are not proper parties to the Section 106 process.” — Terrence McKenna, KEATING (2008/05/06)

McKenna’s full quote:

“Note that on page four of Mr. Jenk’s comments, he identifies two additional contributors to the document: Mr. Ken Milano and Mr. Rich Remer. Of this group, Mr. Jenk is the only Consulting Party to the SugarHouse Section 106 process. Messrs. Milano and Remer are not proper parties to the Section 106 process.”

The participation of local historians Ken Milano & Rich Remer was made clear to James Boyer, Corps of Engineers, in January 2008. Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer founded the Kensington History Project in 1995 and they are the acknowledged experts on the history of the neighborhood which includes the Sugar House site.

McKenna’s current attempt to exclude Milano’s & Remer’s research is a flagrant attempt to exclude historical evidence and violates the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106:

“Seek information, as appropriate, from consulting parties, and other individuals and organizations likely to have knowledge of, or concerns with, historic properties in the area, and identify issues relating to the undertaking’s potential effects on historic properties” [36 CFR § 800.4.a.3]

McKenna should study the reports done by his own consultants, A.D. Marble & Co., who repeatedly paraphrase Milano & Remer’s published research on Kensington.

Marble’s Phase IA Archaeological Survey Report (Daniel Bailey & Paul Schopp, March 2007) and Phase IB/II Archaeological Investigation (Judson Kratzer & Paul Schopp, Feb. 2008), repeatedly paraphrases Milano’s and Remer’s research on Kensington.

This starts back in March 2007 in the “Historic Cultural Context” (pp. 11-13) where Remer’s research is paraphrased on three separate occasions. Remer’s research is specifically cited again on pages 19 & 23. Marble provides three paragraphs of information on the Pennsylvania Sugar Company on page 33, the final two paragraphs include direct citations to Milano’s research.

Milano’s and Remer’s research continues in Marble’s Feb. 2008 report on pages 45, 60, 61, 89 & 90. Milano’s and Remer’s published works are appropriately included in the “References” section of both the March 2007 and Feb. 2008 reports.

On December 12, 2007, immediately upon seeing the glaring omission for British Army Fort No. 1 in Marble’s Sugar House research, Torben Jenk contacted Paul Schopp, the historian for A.D. Marble (Jenk and Schopp had collaborated previously on various industrial history tours). Schopp responded with:

“Unfortunately, I cannot respond due to my contractural obligations to my company’s client.”

Schopp has continued to ignore the wealth of information from these local historians, whether delivered in extensive reports or more importantly, by NOT asking for access to their extensive yet unpublished research.

“We found that map on our own” — Terrence McKenna, KEATING

As reported by Brain Rademaeker, Star Newspaper:

“The (fort) was not included in the Phase I report,” acknowledged [Terrence] McKenna [Keating Consulting LLC], referring to the report issued in October. Literally two days after the Phase I was issued, we came across the additional information. We found that map on our own, prior to the local people saying we missed it.”

On March 10, 2008, Torben Jenk, Ken Milano & Rich Remer wrote:

“That statement demonstrates the ineptitude of project management and research by the SugarHouse team, for even three months later they revealed no original maps for the British Revolutionary War Fort, nor any first-hand testimony of the survival of the fort — none. Can McKenna prove that he shared “that map” with Marble & Co? Were SugarHouse looking for, or hiding, that “additional information”?

“Just weeks after reading Marble & Co.’s Phase IB report, the ‘local people’ revealed five additional original 230-year old maps of the fort, dozens of first-hand documents of life along those defenses, and hundreds of other historic documents that reveal the history of the SugarHouse site.

“The Phase IB/II report reveals no original information on the British Fort—none that wasn’t shared on the ‘local people’ on their website or shared by email with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission.”