Talk:Newport Tower (Rhode Island)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Many would argue very strongly that it isn't.Ghughesarch 09:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Middle Ages Icon
Middle Ages Portal
Newport Tower (Rhode Island) is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
Many would argue very strongly that it isn't.David Trochos (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Contradiction

Chesterton Windmill indicates that it is theory that these structures may be related, while this article claims that they are related. Desertsky85451 22:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Newport Tower has so much hoogly-googly surrounding its origins, it's no wonder it's considered "a theory" on this page. It would be nice if we could get a solid source for both pages stating absolutely that the Newport Tower is a copy of the Windmill, but I have no idea where I might even begin to find one.--TurabianNights 01:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I have modifed the page to make it clear that the link to the Newport tower is contested. The Norse theory seems to me very unlikely. Why would a small group of traders or explorers spend the time and effort to build an indefensible stone building they were unlikely to ever visit again? David J James 6 September 2006.

[edit] Verrazzano, Mercator etc etc

I can't find any primary source evidence that Verrazzano said anything at all about a "Norman Villa" in his written reports of his voyages.

To describe a map by Mercator as "pre-Columbus" is nonsense as Mercator was born 20 years after Columbus' 1492 voyage.

Someone really needs to get a grip of the silly speculation and poor-quality sources cited in this article.

Ghughesarch 16:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] recent edits

Questions have been posed about the Colonial theory. Rather than add answers to the main page, which is poor in wiki format terms, I will attempt to answer them below, and hope the person who posed them might consider re-editing their contribution:

  1. Why would 17th century colonials choose to build a windmill of stone? The required excavation and cartage of one million pounds of stone up the hill would have made it far more costly than a traditional 17th century wooden mill, and yet not as able to withstand the stresses.
    a. That rather depends where the stone was quarried (presumably close at hand), and (by contrast) how much suitable-sized timber was readily available. As for not being able to withstand the stresses, there are no surviving 17th century wooden windmills anywhere in North America, whereas the survival of the tower of the Newport mill suggests the stone tower mill was more, not less, durable.
  2. Why would 17th century colonials build a windmill in an architectural style foreign to their sensibilities? And with no other examples anywhere in America? What master mason did this and nothing else?
    a. There is only one other windmill in the world with any degree of similarity to the Newport Tower, and that is Chesterton in Warwickshire, UK. The Newport Tower is an abbreviated, rather crude approximation of the same design, entirely consistent with being built by someone who had seen the Chesterton Mill (which stands about a mile from the principle early route across central England between the south-west and the midlands) a few years earlier and decided to building something similar based on their memory of Chesterton. Note, similar, not identical.
    It is a crude attempt at a classical building and is entirely consistent with the architectural sensibilities of mid-seventeenth century England.
  3. Why would a windmill be designed with the odd offset columns which further reduce structural strength?
    a. Do they reduce structural strength to such an extent that the tower has fallen down? Evidently not, so the question is spurious.
  4. Why would a windmill have a fireplace anywhere in it (since milling fumes are highly flammable) and especially on the second floor?
    a. Lots of English windmills have fireplaces. Milling “fumes”, by which you mean flour dust, are not generally highly flammable in the context of small-scale traditional milling – it becomes so where modern high-speed production methods (post c.1800) are concerned, where the concentration of dust suspended in the air is fair greater than in a traditional mill.
  5. In a document that dates to within a few decades of when the tower was allegedly built by Arnold, it is referred to as "the old stone mill." Why would a recently built (with great effort and cost) mill be referred to as old?
    a. “old” in this context could easily refer to condition – i.e. it had been a mill but was now disused – rather than age.
  6. The 1770 painting by Gilbert Stuart of the mill was done, presumably true to life at the time, only 100 years after the tower was allegedly built. The painting shows the tower as identical to today with no suggestion of the debris one would expect to find around an abandoned mill.
    a. That presupposes that nobody tidied up in the 1700s. In any case, I would not expect to find “debris” of any significance lying around a disused mill for any length of time – anything that was reusable (even as firewood) would have been carted away.

These are examples of the many questions that remain to be answered in order for the Arnold theory to prevail. To accept the contention that it must have been colonial unless it can be proven otherwise is bad science.

a. To accept the idea that any of these questions remotely challenges the Arnold theory is wishful thinking. The only archaeological evidence for any activity, at all, round the tower is Colonial. While absence of evidence is not (always) evidence of absence, the total failure of successive excavators to find anything else points entirely to the Arnold theory.

Ghughesarch 13:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • You try to suggest possible answers, but ..
  • well for instance, "stone presumably quarried nearby". Well, do you know if it was quarried nearby? The answer I think must be known, if it has been excavated and so forth. Is the stone the same as that surrounding the mill, or not? If you don't know this simple fact, you may be sending us in the wrong direction by even suggesting an answer. What you can suggest is questions.
  • You take the existance of the structure and your assumption that it was a mill as evidence that it could have survivied as a mill against the torques of the wind... do you not see a circular dependency in this argument?
  • Furthermore, that it has survived does not correlate with that someone would plan it the way it is, and expect it to survive. We do not build structures based on blind luck, and I think the habit had already fallen by the wayside by the time elaborate structures such as this were being constructed.
  • You mention a lack of evidence that it was not built by Arnold, but you several excavations presumably failed to find any physical evidence that answers the question of what it is, or we would not be having this discussion. It is just as faulty to assume in the absence of evidence that it was not a mill, that it must be the mill mentioned by Arnold.
  • Now I would like to add to the list of unanswered (and probably easily answered if someone who has visited or knows much about historical buildings of this type or era it can correspond) questions: is the mill in a good location for wind? If so, then I think it's probably a windmill -- the amount of wind in this case should give little else to consider. If not, why spend the effort to build one? Why is this most obvious of facts not mentioned on the article page? -- Halfunits 12:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. 1. The stone is local. 2. and 3. Both your questions assume that a single statement by me is to be taken in isolation and not as part of an overall argument. 4. Every archaeological excavation has found evidence of significant activity, including construction work, at the site in the seventeenth century, and nothing at all earlier. 5. It is in a good location for wind (and there is no serious dispute with the fact that it was used as a windmill at some stage during its life - just disagreement about whether it was built as such). Ghughesarch 09:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] and more recent edits

"Running counter to the Arnoldist theory is the fact that there is no other stone windmill from the 17th century anywhere in North America. Also, the enormous tonage of stone that would have had to be carried uphill to the site, and the advanced stonemason work involved makes it doubtful that such an economic and technological undertaking would have been feasible for a mere windmill which could much more easily made of wood."

I won't remove the above at present, but this statement presupposes that the stone had to be carted a considerable distance to the site rather than being local field stone (and in any case, that argument could be used against construction of any masonry windmill anywhere in the world). There's nothing specially "advanced" about the stonemasonry - indeed, I'm not sure why the masonry being "advanced" helps any of the alternative "explanations" either. Not only is there no other 17th century stone windmill in America, there is no 17th century windmill of any sort in America. Just because they no longer exist, it doesn't mean they never did. The (probably) wooden windmill which predated the Newport Tower had been destroyed in a storm IIRC. Building something more substantial to avoid a repeat is entirely logical. Ghughesarch 16:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Suggest split article?

edits and reverts are getting ridiculous. May I suggest that this page becomes purely for verifiable facts about the tower, and a separate page is started for the deluded to post nonsense about so-called alternative theories? Ghughesarch 19:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Some discussion on this article would obviously be useful but may not be fruitful unless it rejects calling others deluded. Best approach might be an introductory section that is not judgemental re the controversy and presents the little that is actually known and agreed about the tower. Then two following sections, one for a colonial theory and one for a pre-colonial theory. It would be not only informative but very interesting for the reader to have it presented this way. Other very controversial wiki articles are presented in a similar manner. The goal should be to serve the reader, not to make the article a forum for heated exchange. The only real delusion here is that the debate can be won or lost via a wiki article. Anyone that passionate should write their own book.


Well, sorry, but if someone is going to insist that the "alternative" theories described in the article are remotely possible, despite there not being a shred of evidence for any of them, I can think of no better word than "deluded". Ghughesarch 08:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Suggest revision

In a spirit of compromise, may I put forward the following as a suggested revision to the article. It separates each theory and presents argument, counterargument and response. Ghughesarch 10:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You may editorialize and conjecture all you want but I will continue to object to it being presented as fact or even best evidence. The right way to do this is to have the article organized as follows: (caps indicate section headers)

  1. DESCRIPTIVE FACTS: LOCATION, DIMENSIONS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCONCLUSIVE DISPUTE
  2. PRESENTATION OF COLONIAL THEORY
  3. PRESENTATION OF PRE-COLONIAL THEORY
  4. RESPONSE TO COLONIAL THEORY
  5. RESPONSE TO PRE-COLONIAL THEORY
  6. CITATIONS AND LINKS

I believe this accomplished the wiki goal of balance, is in line with how other controversial subjects have been resolved, and gives the reader the basis to decide for themselves and pursue further study.


does the article on the Moon allow space for the presentation of the theory that it's made of green cheese? or does it only allow theories that are supported by the evidence? - it mentions the cheese hypothesis on a separate page about the mythology of the moon. So it follows that the Newport Tower article should only present factual information (ie. all the evidence shows that it was built as a mill in the seventeenth century, and all other theories are based entirely on fanciful speculation with no evidential basis) and restrict other theorising to a separate page. Ghughesarch 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If the cheese theory was notable, then it would need its own article. (In fact we already have WP:CHEESE.)
What makes this tower notable, is just the Normanist theory. If there was proof that Benedict Arnold had built the tower (and it would represent colonial era style and construction methods), then the tower would be non-notable, and material for WP:SPEEDY. -- Petri Krohn 04:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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.

[edit] 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 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.

The chamber is penetrated by a window. Directly opposite the window is a fireplace backed with grey stone and flanked by nooks. 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.

[edit] 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. No undisputed seventeenth century stone windmills now survive in North America, nor is there any evidence than any ever existed. But this does not preclude the possibility, nor does it militate against the Newport Tower having been built as a windmill. Arnold's will is clear in its reference to a stone windmill. Another 17th century reference refers to "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.

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..

In 1990, radiocarbon dating tests of the tower's mortar supported a construction date between 1635 and 1698.

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 will take 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pupster21 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Alternative hypotheses

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. . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pupster21 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] NPOV Dispute 'Objections to the Arnoldist Theory'

I'm tagging this section as an NPOV issue, it seems to be more of a debate than an actual article section. It should be noted that others have also pointed out the possibility of original research in this section. I personally am not well versed in the topic at hand, and as such don't feel that editing the article myself is in Wikipedia's best interests.Daemon Lotos 00:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reading of this article, I am also tagging the 'Alternative Hypotheses' section. Someone more familiar with the subject matter may want to tag the entire article.Daemon Lotos 00:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
After re-tagging the section, I read back through the history. It seems that the bulk of the problems with this article (Which I'm not not entirely sure are NPOV, possibly NOR in origin, with some NPOV sprinkled on top.) developed in an Edit War between Ghughesarch and IP: 70.63.13.224. While this doesn't exactly help fix it, it may give someone with more familiarity with the material, an idea of where the problems began.Daemon Lotos 06:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
An edit war would explain the point-counterpoint format of the latter half of this article. There is a lot of good science in this article, and it was very informative, but it's a problem when an article will submit conjecture, and then submit a counterargument, which is subsequently countered. I believe this warrants a rewrite of the section, though as I am not very familiar with the topic myself, I will be unable to do it. Perhaps someone who doesn't have an axe to grind would like to help? Brash (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I doubt very much whether there is anybody really familiar with the debate who doesn't have an axe to grind. In the absence of contemporary documents about the building of the Tower, a great deal of other evidence has been put forward over the past couple of centuries. The story of the Newport Tower, in effect, is the story of the evidence, and the attempts by different theorists to discredit evidence (or rather, in most cases, "evidence") presented by other theorists. Without that, it's just a picturesque round ruin in a little park. David Trochos (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See also

[edit] References


[edit] External links


Coordinates: 41°29′08″N, 71°18′35″W

[edit] Original Research

I understand the difficulties with articles like this one, but the article is full of original research. The section "Objections to Arnoldist Theory" is particularly bad. I also think there is undue weight for those who dispute the 17th century origin. Makerowner 15:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a {{fact}} tag to the "tentative conclusion" section. As is, it looks to me like a conclusion drawn by a Wikipedia editor(s) and a bit of WP:OR. Nibios 02:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Astronomical alignments

In case anybody's wondering, I had to correct my own contribution on this topic, and I'm still not entirely sure it's right. I originally tried to explain a reported claim that

"a person standing on the former wooden first floor of the tower, at a point marked in the sill of the south window, would see through the west window a sunset over Windmill Hill in Jamestown only on June 21, the summer solstice"

- but when I read up on sunset at that latitude, I found the claim couldn't be true. This goes to the heart of the problem with nearly all theories about the Newport Tower- the more you investigate them, the more absolute untruths (I'll charitably blame them on wishful thinking rather than call them lies) you find. David Trochos (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

- but then I checked the measured drawing I'd been using to calculate the angles, and I found it probably wasn't accurate. The truth is out there- but we probably won't recognise it when we see it... David Trochos (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1675 "King Philip's War" reference

For example, the stuff about the mill being mentioned by M. Church in 1675 is just dumb. First, the guy was Benjamin Church (and his reminiscences of King Philip's War were written up by his son Thomas Church). Second, what he (and not any Indian scout) actually said to an over-cautious officer on the shore below Mount Hope at Bristol, RI, was that if he wanted his soldiers to be safe (rather than attacking the native HQ), he should take them to "yonder windmill" on the island: i.e. a windmill within sight, close to where they were standing; probably above Arnold Point, where a windmill is marked on later maps. I've therefore removed the reference from the article. David Trochos (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patriot-traitor?

I'm nothing if not pro-American, but this title of reference for Benedict Arnold (the younger one) betrays a distinct American bias. Those of us of United Empire Loyalist descent prefer to see Benedict Arnold as a man who all to late realised his true allegiance was to his King. Anyways, it's just a plainly unprofessional way to refer to a historical figure on a source clamouring for legitimacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.46.236 (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, on second thoughts you're probably right- but your replacement was less than ideal. I'll replace my replacement of your replacement. David Trochos (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)