Discover

The 'Newport Tower' (also known as: 'Round Tower', 'Touro Tower', 'Newport Stone Tower', 'Old Stone Mill', 'OSM' and 'Mystery Tower') is a round stone tower located in Touro Park in Newport, Rhode Island (USA).
The accepted explanation of its origin is that it was a mill built in the mid 17th century. However, some historians, as well as amateur researchers, have claimed that it is several centuries older, thus being evidence of a pre-Columbian settlement in New England.

Contents

Description

Arnoldist theory

Alternative hypotheses

Early Norse theory

Other Objections to the Norse Theory

Other theories

Tentative Conclusion

See also

References

External links

Description

The tower is located on Mill Street, surrounded by a historical residential neighborhood on the hill above the waterfront tourist district. Often missed by passing tourists, it is not marked by a sign or historical plaque of any kind. The hill itself once furnished a view of the harbor and would have been visible to passing mariners in Narragansett Bay, but recent tree growth now obscures the view of the harbor from the top of the tower.
The Newport Tower was not built around a perfectly circular plan. From southeast to northwest the diameter measures 22 feet, 2 inches, but when measured from east to west, the diameter lengthens to 23 feet, 3 inches. ^[1] The tower has a height of 28 feet and an exterior width of 24 feet. It is supported by eight cylindrical columns that form stone arches, two of which are slightly broader than the other six. Above the arches and inside the tower is evidence of a floor that once supported an interior chamber. The walls are approximately 3 feet thick, and the diameter of the inner chamber is approximately 18 feet. At one time the sides were coated with a smooth coating of white plaster, the remains of which can still be seen clinging to the outer walls.
The chamber is penetrated by a window. Almost opposite the window is a fireplace backed with grey stone and flanked by nooks. (Click here to view a Historic American Engineering Record survey drawing of the tower, circa 1878. Note that the fireplace is not directly opposite the window.) The direction of the window is WSW across Narragansett Bay towards Pettaquamscutt Rock on the west side of the bay.
A representation of the tower is featured prominently on the Seal and unit patch of the former US Navy vessel, USS ''Newport''.

Arnoldist theory

The prevailing explanation among historians for the origin of the structure is the "Arnoldist" explanation, namely that the tower was a mill constructed "from the ground up" in the middle or late 17th century by or for Rhode Island colonial governor Benedict Arnold, great-grandfather of the patriot-traitor. It is known that Arnold, who moved into the area in 1661, once owned the land on which the tower stands.
A 1675 account of King Philip's War by M. Church stated that an Indian advised a captain to lead his men out of danger ''"to the windmill on Rhode Island."'' Two years later, in 1677 Arnold mentions ''"my stone build Wind Mill"'' in his will. This has generally been accepted as referring to the Newport Tower, and is evidence the tower was once used as a windmill.
During the American Revolution, the tower was known to have been used by the Americans as a lookout, and by the British to store munitions. A painting of the tower in 1777 is here: [1]
The mill theory is supported by the similarity of the tower's appearance to Chesterton Windmill, a 17th century mill in Warwickshire, England. There are several seventeenth century stone tower mills in North America^[2], which are similar in appearance to European examples of the same period (e.g. Moulin de Grondines, Quebec (1674); Moulin de Vincelotte, Quebec (1690); early 17th century example 2 miles from Plymouth, Devon).
Arnold's will is clear in its reference to a stone windmill. In a document of 1741 it was described as "the old stone mill." In this context, "old" is likely to refer to the mill having fallen into disuse, rather than any assumed antiquity of the structure. In 1760 the Tower was used as a haymow, while in 1767 it was described as having been used as a powder store "some time past". De Barres' plan of Newport, published in 1776, marks it as "Stone Wind Mill^[3].
The city of Newport finally gave permission for a scientific investigation of the site by the Society for American Archaeology in 1948. The investigation was directed by Hugh Henken of Harvard University, with the field work headed by William S. Godfrey. As part of the investigation, a one-metre wide trench was dug from the tower's exterior through the interior. The result, published in Godfrey's 1951 Ph.D. dissertation, concluded that all the artifacts discovered were from the 17th century, thus supporting the Arnoldist camp.
Godfrey's report, however, demonstrates his bias towards the "Arnoldist" theory from the first chapter: "...he [Benedict Arnold] purchased some of his Newport property, specifically the section on which he later built his house and the stone mill, the year before he moved...At some period before 1677 Arnold built the Old Stone Mill."^[4] The bulk of Godfrey's report is not concerned so much with the actual archeology of his digs, but rather by personal attacks on those who are proponents of opposing views referring to them as "crackpots", "pygmies", "zealots", or "the lunatic fringe"^[5]. Godfrey admits in the final paragraph that, "This study has strayed far from 'pure' archeology."^[6] According to James P. Whittal, Jr. of the Early Sites Research Society, who worked on the tower for over twenty-five years, no artifacts recovered by Godfrey can lead to a firm conclusion as to the date or the origin of the structure.^[7]
Interestingly, in Godfrey's report, he dismisses the Chesterton Mill theory.^[8] In addition he claims: "On the other hand, there is very little probability that Benedict built his Tower as a mill...the tower mill form, as contrasted to the smock, post and composite forms, was not common in England until the beginning of the 18th century,...."^[9] Though this reflects the orthodox view of the use of windmills (and the original purpose of Chesterton Windmill) prevailing at the time of Godfrey's report, as noted above this aspect of Godfrey's work has been overtaken by later research.
In 1992, radiocarbon dating tests of the tower's mortar supported a construction date between 1635 and 1698. However, the full range of results from the samples taken tested from between 1410 to 1930. The procedures and results of the testing conducted by a team of researches from Denmark and Finland have been condemned by several scientists including analytical chemist James L. Guthrie, Dr. Alan Watchman of Data-Roche Watchman, Inc., and Professor Andre J. de Bethune, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Boston College and a close colleague of Professor Willard F. Libby, who originally devised carbon dating. These objections are on several grounds including small number of samples tested, poor precision revealed by the only test run in duplicate, unwarranted assumption that all mortar and plaster on the tower would be of the same age despite known episodes of repair and reinforcement, and poor control procedure to account for absorption of modern carbon dioxide into the mortar. Dr. Alan Watchman, a geological dating expert of Data-Roche Watchman, notes that taking consideration for diffusion of carbon dioxide would give a calibrated age for the more acid resistant carbon in the mortar to be closer to around 1400 A.D.^[10]
From October 15, 2006 to November 15, 2006 the Chronognostic Foundation, an Arizona based research firm, led an archaeological excavation of sites discovered in Touro Park during their geophysical studies of the past three years. Possible building foundations and a rocky area near the Tower were investigated. This was the first time in nearly 60 years that an archaeological excavation took place in Touro Park. The primary goal of this research project was to answer the question: Who built the Newport Tower? Press reports following the dig suggest that nothing earlier than the 1600s was found. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the question remains unanswered, though there is still no evidence for a pre-seventeenth century date.

Alternative hypotheses

Supporters of alternative theories have devoted a great deal of energy to dismissing the evidence for a seventeenth century date of construction.
Part of the mystery of the Newport Tower though, is that there is some room for doubt on all claims of when and by whom and for what purpose it was built. There has been no shortage of alternative theories as to who built the Tower, and why, since the nineteenth century. Indeed, few other historic sites are the subject of such a fundamental level of disagreement.

Early Norse theory

The most popular alternative explanation for the existence of the tower, and the only one that has been seriously entertained by a handful of professional archaeologists, is that it was built by Viking explorers in the 10th or 11th centuries. This hypothesis is predicated on the uncertainty of the southward extent of the early Norse explorations of North America, particularly in regard to the actual location of Vinland. Images of Norse adventurers strike the romantic fancy more than the image of a seventeenth century miller working for an ancestor of one of the nation’s most reviled traitors.
The theory for a Norse origin of the tower was first proposed in 1837 by Danish archaeologist Carl Christian Rafn in his book ''Antiquitates Americanæ'', which was partly based on his research of the inscriptions on the Dighton Rock near the mouth of the Taunton River. Rafn's popularization of the theory led to a flurry of interest and "proofs" of Norse settlement in the area [3].
The Norse theory was also advocated by Phillip Ainsworth Means.
Means, an archaeologist whose speciality was neither mills nor colonial North America, but Latin America, attempted to compile all known evidence surrounding the tower to date in his (at the time) exhaustive 1942 book ''The Newport Tower''. Means, a supporter of the Norse theory, dismissed the theory that Arnold built the tower "from the ground up."
Much of the evidence Means used to dismiss the Arnold / windmill theory has, however, since been shown to be mistaken. In particular, he was dismissive of the similarities with the Chesterton windmill in England because his correspondent, the English mill authority Rex Wailes, believed Chesterton to have been built as an observatory and only converted to a windmill long after Arnold's time. Subsequent research proves that Chesterton was, in fact, built as a windmill in 1632-3, the original building accounts, including payments for sailcloths, having been traced since Wailes' death in 1986.[4].
There have also been disputes about whether Arnold was born in Leamington, Warwickshire, only a few miles from Chesterton, or in Somerset, about 150 miles away. Even if he was born in Somerset and not Warwickshire, this is of little account as all the colonists would have to have come from somewhere out of reach of Chesterton for the mill there to have had no possible influence. Chesterton windmill stands, widely visible, within half a mile of one of the main southwest - northeast roads of early modern Britain and it is entirely plausible that Arnold, or another colonist in a position to influence the design of his "stone built windmill", would have seen it.
Means asserted that fireplaces would not be present in a windmill because of the fire risk. This can be disproved by examining numerous windmills in England and continental Europe. ^[11]. Several have fireplaces aligned with windows and it is not unusual to find a double flue exiting out of the wall, generally with the exits aligned parallel to the prevailing wind to improve the updraft on a relatively short flue (eg Upholland Windmill, Lancashire, where the fireplace is at second floor (Br Eng = First floor) level, and the doors and windows are aligned to the cardinal points of the compass, or Much Wenlock windmill, Shropshire, which has double flues of uncertain purpose rising from the middle floor level [5]). A conventional chimney could not be used as it would foul the turning cap and sails of the windmill.
Detractors also claim:

★ The archaeological excavations are inconclusive and prove only that the tower was used in the 17th century and not necessarily constructed at that time.
:Though this must be accepted as a distant possibility, no excavation has found any evidence to support the idea that the Tower existed at an earlier date. The counter argument is that we know colonials had a large settlement at the location over many years and it is natural that there would be many artefacts, as there are artefacts of more recent settlements around all ancient sites.
:The absence of any pre-colonial artefacts at all, some argue, is strong evidence that the Tower is not pre-colonial as there could not have been a complete removal of all pre-colonial artefacts during the seventeenth century.

★ The colonial artefacts found were minimal with no evidence of, for example, a lime kiln which would have been necessary to make mortar.
:It is not necessarily the case that a lime kiln would have been on the same site as the Tower, while the extent of the excavations so far carried out cannot be said to have covered more than a tiny fraction of the area of seventeenth century Newport.

★ Removal of topsoil from the area, which is known to have occurred, removed artefacts which could provide evidence for earlier uses of the site.
:Nineteenth century landscaping (the cause of the removal of topsoil) could not have been thorough enough to remove all evidence of previous activity. It is a norm of archaeological stratification that early layers underly later ones, so that if only seventeenth century artefacts are found after a thorough excavation, there can have been no significant activity in the area before that date.

★ The builders did not have a settlement in the area and removed tools and materials to "cleanse" the site for religious reasons.
:Evidence for the dating of ritual sites throughout the world tends to rely on non-religious artefacts being left behind by their builders. In any case, none of the alternative theories postulates a sacred use of a sort for which ritual purification has any parallels (such site clearance is not known in European mediaeval contexts, for example).

★ The radiocarbon dating is inconclusive because the mortar might have been added at a date much later than the tower's construction.
:This is held by some supporters of the colonial theory as an example of the poor quality of “evidence” required by detractors, in that it does not accept a scientifically valid result and instead posits a “may be” to call the results into question without examining the radiocarbon test report (which makes it clear that the mortar samples were carefully selected from areas which had not been the subject of recorded repair work, and as likely as any sample to date from the original construction of the tower).

★ The area of New England in the vicinity of the tower contains numerous controversial archaeological sites which, if genuine, could support the theory of Pre-Columbian visitation to the area by Europeans, including Dighton Rock, Follins Pond, and America's Stonehenge. Also, see the articles on the Westford Knight and The Skeleton in Armor.
:This would presuppose that a connection must exist between these anomalous artefacts and the Newport Tower. The evidence for this, quite apart from the uncertain origins of the other sites, is non-existent.

★ Building a windmill of stone would have been economically illogical, especially in a tenuous new colony still much concerned with protecting itself from hostile Indians.
:In settled Europe, there are large numbers of stone tower mills, the earliest recorded being at Dover in 1294-5 (demolished in the 1780s). The closest in appearance is the Chesterton Mill, known to have been built as a windmill in 1632. The Newport Tower was built after a previous wooden post mill had been destroyed in a storm and a more substantial stone structure may have been built to replace it.

★ The offset pillars that weaken structural integrity from stresses such as a windmill. The supporting columns are of flawed design.
:The Chesterton windmill faced the same structural "problems", and worked from 1632 until about 1910. Although the Chesterton windmill is built of hard local limestone, with sandstone detailing. The tower is supported on six semicircular arches that are thicker and are superior in construction than the Newport Tower.

★ If Benedict Arnold had wanted a windmill, he could have built four or five more sound ones for the cost of this apparently failed one.
:The cost of building the Tower is not known, so the comparison must be suspect. In addition, the failure of the previous mill could have undermined confidence in the supposedly “sound” post mill design. A post mill would have been easier and more functional, though also more vulnerable to storm damage, fire, and attack

★ The construction of the Tower would be beyond the capabilities of the colonists. The Newport Tower required about a million pounds of stone to be built, all of it carried uphill from the water's edge. A skilled stone mason would have been needed and it is unlikely one was available in this tiny new colony.
:These objections assume that there is something difficult about building a relatively crude stone tower mill. The same objections would apply equally to any of the alternative hypotheses.
:Construction of similar towers had been going on in England for three hundred years. There is no evidence, one way or the other, as to stonemasons being present in Newport at the time. Also the English unit of measurment was different to the method of construction. Colonial houses were likely to have had stone fireplace and chimneys which someone must have been able to build. the quality of the stonework would not be beyond the capabilities of any jobbing builder at the time, as there is little that is technically accomplished about the tower.

★ The units of measure used would not have been known to English builders. Unlike other Colonial structures that were built using the English foot, the Newport Tower appears to have been based using an ancient Scottish unit of measurement known as a Scottish ell which is equivalent to three Norse feet. ^[12] This may give credence and validity to the Norse or Henry Sinclaire hypothesis.
: Several researchers have claimed to identify various different units of measurement in the Tower’s dimensions, among them feet and inches.

Other Objections to the Norse Theory

★ The single biggest objection to the Norse theory is that it is entirely speculative, and unsupported by any archaeological or documentary evidence which is not open to other interpretations.

★ Examples of buildings sometimes claimed as being similar to Newport Tower are, on inspection, not actually similar beyond being circular and of stone, characteristics shared by buildings of many dates and cultures.

★ Round churches are less common in Scandinavia than in many other parts of Europe. Their first appearance in Europe in generally held to be after the First Crusade, the inspiration having come from the rotunda of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. This took place after the date that Norse theorists propose for the Newport Tower.

★ Nothing in recorded early Norse architecture is as similar, in size and appearance, to the Newport Tower.

Other theories

★ Gavin Menzies, author of argues that the tower was built by the Chinese navigator Zheng He in 1421. ''See: 1421 theory''. According to Menzies, the tower's dimensions match several measurement units used in early Ming Dynasty China. Also the mortar between the tower's bricks was made with crushed shells, rather than the lime used by British colonists. He suggests that the tower was built for a colony of Chinese sailors and concubines from the junks of Zheng He voyages. Several European explorers, such as Giovanni de Verrazzano of Venice described some of the natives as having skin "the colour of brass... with long and black hair... they wear divers toys [jewlery] according to the usage of the people of the East..." The tower could have served as a lighthouse to guide future Chinese expeditions to the colony (this never happened, since the voyages were stopped and the fleets destroyed after the death of the Ming Dynasty emperor Zhu Di), or as an observatory to determine the longitude of the colony (it is located at the same latitude as Beijing), as its seemingly random windows framed certain astronomical events, such as the rising and setting of the sun at its solstice and equinox, and lunar eclipse, which can be used to determine longitude. The tower closely matches designs used in Chinese observatories and lighthouses elsewhere. All of this is detailed in Menzie's book ""
:The same objections as to lack of evidence, rehearsed above, apply here.

★ During the early 20th century, Edmund Delabarre's investigations of the Dighton rock led him to propose that the tower was constructed as a signaling beacon by Portuguese navigator Miguel Corte-Real, who Delabarre claims was shipwrecked in 1501 or 1502 while searching for his lost brother Gaspar in Narragansett Bay. More recently, questions have been asked about the design features of the tower, in particular the presence and location of the fireplace and window; these features are claimed by some to lend support to the idea that the tower was designed as a signalling beacon.
: Again, this theory is entirely speculative in terms of evidence that Miguel Corte-Real was anywhere near Narragansett Bay.
: Building the Tower would have taken time, and evidence of Portuguese settlement should have been found nearby. It has not.
:The idea of the Tower being used as a signalling beacon because of the relative locations of the fireplace and windows is unlikely because beacons and lighthouses before the eighteenth century were generally unsophisticated platforms for bonfires or other non-directional lights.

★ Another theory holds that it was constructed by the Scottish earl Henry Sinclair who is claimed by some to have visited Nova Scotia and New England in the year 1398 with a fleet under the command of Antonio Zeno. Believers in this theory often cite the Westford Knight as further evidence.
:The tower was not hastily thrown up. It was the product of design and specialized knowledge and skill. It is hard to believe that that the Sinclair expedition set sail with the equipment and tools that would have been needed with the intent of building such an elaborate structure. However unlike other Colonial structures that were built using the English foot, the Newport Tower appears to have been based using an ancient Scottish unit of measurement known as a Scottish ell which is equivalent to three Norse feet. ^[12]
:The same objections as to lack of evidence, rehearsed above, apply here.

★ Italian explorer Giovanni da Verrazzano reported that in 1524 he found a European structure which he named the Norman Villa. ^[14]
:It is far from clear to what Verrazzano had seen, nor is it certain that he saw it at the site of the Newport Tower. Certainly his description is not detailed enough to identify his “Norman Villa” as being a round tower on arches.[6]

★ Pre-Colonial maps by Gerardus Mercator and others are claimed to mark the tower's location.^[15]
:As with Verrazzano’s vague report, none of these maps are at a scale to provide conclusive evidence that Naragansett Bay is the location, nor do they show sufficient detail to imply, except to a viewer who wishes to be convinced of it, that the structures shown are intended to represent the Newport Tower. None of the cartographers credited with producing these maps actually visited the eastern seaboard, and they routinely use generic symbols for settlements and other features which bear no resemblance to the likely reality.[7]
The Tower is referred to in a legal document of 1632, the "Plowden Petition".
: It is not mentioned in the Petition.[8]

Tentative Conclusion

On the balance of probabilities, and based on all the evidence to date, by far the strongest and most credible explanation of the Tower’s origins is that it was built as a windmill in the seventeenth century. As of 2007, There is no conclusive evidence supporting any of the alternative theories.

See also

★ Hvalsey Church (Greenland), mediaval European structure located closest to the Newport Tower

★ Pseudoarchaeology

★ Oak Island

References

1. Holand, Hjalmar R. America 1355-1364 (Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946)
2. Priamo, C ''Mills of Canada'', McGraw-Hill Ryerson 1976
3. Buckland, J. S. P. ''The Origins of the Tower Mill, with a note on Chesterton'' Proc. 11 Mills Research Conference, Mills Research Group [2](Essex, UK) 1994
4. Godfrey, ''Digging a Tower and Laying a Ghost'',p.5
5. Godfrey, ''Digging a Tower and Laying a Ghost'',pp.22,24,28,37
6. Godfrey, ''Digging a Tower and Laying a Ghost'',p.186
7. Whittal, "The Newport Stone Tower", ESRS 1995-6
8. Godfrey, ''Digging a Tower and Laying a Ghost'',p.17,18
9. Godfrey, ''Digging a Tower and Laying a Ghost'',p.177
10. Wallace-Murphy and Hopkins, "Templars in America" p. 154-156
11. Derek Ogden, "Fireplaces Are Common in Tower Windmills," 'Newport Daily News', 23-24 March 1996.
12. Longo, Mark S. "The Rhode Island Tower ," Ancient American, Vol 9. #54
13. Longo, Mark S. "The Rhode Island Tower ," Ancient American, Vol 9. #54
14. Earl Siggurson, "The Newport Tower." ''American-Scandanavian Review.'' James Whittal Archive, Newport Tower file, 1971-1980.
15. Arlington Mallery, ''The American Anthropologist'', 60, (1958), pp. 149-150. See also the James Whittal Archive, Newport Tower file articles by Magnus Hrolf, 1991-2000 file and Frank Glynn, 1961-1970 file.

External links

★ About Newport

★ Redwood Library site on Newport Tower

★ New England Antiquities Research Association - Loose Threads in a Tapestry of Stone: The Architecture of Newport Tower

★ The Newport Tower, New England Antiquities Research Association monograph

★ Chronognostic Research Foundation

★ The Newport Tower: A Medieval Ruin In America

★ Detailed examination - and refutation - of claims about Verrazano and Mercator mentioning or illustrating the Tower