“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.