The federally-mandated archaeological investigation at the Sugar House site in Philadelphia must follow the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106. This is being overseen by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District with advice and consent from the Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (since June 2008).
Consulting Parties were selected to comply with 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]
From early 2007 through mid-2008 (eighteen months) the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District assigned NO qualified archaeologist, NO historian NOR cultural resources professional from within or outside the Corps.
James Boyer, a biologist with the 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.”
The Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission knew little about the diverse 334-year documented history of the Sugar House site. PHMC totally ignored Fort No. 1 built by the British Army during their occupation of Philadelphia in 1777. PHMC continues to ignore the historic significance of Batchelors’ Hall (ca. 1728-75, Philadelphia’s second-oldest learned society), Masters Tide Mill (c. 1715, built by the first person to be issued a patent in the Colonies), Kensington Bank (ca. 1826), Burtis & Keen’s Cotton Mill (ca. 1820), Kensington Screw Dock & Spemaceti Works (ca. 1830), Point Pleasant Foundry (ca. 1809), the 18th & 19th century shipyards of the Grice’s, Eyre’s, Bowers, Donaldsons, Clintons, Wilson and others, plus much more from the associated industries, residences and taverns.
To date, the PHMC has only recognized two elements with National Register potential: the Native Indian component (dating back to 1,500 BCE) and British Army Redoubt No. 1.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation joined the process in June 2008 and suggested that the Philadelphia Branch find an archeologist from elsewhere in the Corps of Engineers. Skipper Scott from Fort Worth, Texas, was selected and rendered a rushed judgement unsubstantiated by the “sufficient documentation” as required by 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].
Rather than proper oversight, Tom McCulloch of the ACHP wrote on Aug. 4, 2008:
“I have known both the Corps’ and State’s archaeologists for many years and I trust their judgment… I don’t believe the archaeologist the Philadelphia District has brought on board has had the time to prepare any further extended justification… Not every nook and cranny needs to be investigated…”
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].
Boyer is trying to wrap up these investigations but awaits the determination of the PHMC.
Doug Mooney, a Consulting Party, highly-qualified archaeologist and the President of the Philadelphia Archaeology Forum, wrote on Sept. 27, 2008:
“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.”
