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).

“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.