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).

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. 

“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).

“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.”

 

“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.