Talk:Newport Tower (Rhode Island)/Archive 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Were is there any evidence that the building has been used as a mill? Then there should be milling records among Arnolds accounting records or any farmer using the mill, some of these records should still be in existence. If that is a fact a lot of the speculation would be solved.

What we have to ask ourself is the Tower ruin really likely to be a Mill. If you look at other stone mills such as Piont-Claire Wind mill 1708^[1] in Montreal from the same period, they don't have pillars. The pillars and Romanesque arcs do not make sense if it is an industrial building with the economy at the time in Newport. Someone with great excess of capital could build a Mill with arcs, but the early settlers where to poor and would have gone for simpler tower walls.--Hublitz (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, hardly any original records of Benedict Arnold (I) survive- but what does survive is his clear description of a stone windmill at the upper end of his mansion plot, beyond the family burying-ground. Either there was a stone windmill in addition to the Tower, or in the late 17th century the Tower was a windmill. As for the fancy architecture- he was a very successful import-export merchant, reputedly one of the richest men in America, and this structure was on the skyline of the view from his new mansion. David Trochos (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windmills of the time were built with specific plans and tools. The stone work was done with quarried stone. If you haven't gone to visit the Newport Tower in person you may not notice that none, not one, of those stones were cut. The stones were used as they were found (most likely by the shoreline) meaning that the workers were without proper masonry tools. This fits the Miguel Corte-Real theory as does the fact that Miguel's membership in the Order of Christ would have allowed him access to the Headquarters in Tomar where such a tower called a Charola built around 1162 exists even today. The Dighton Rock was found less than 20 miles form this Tower and the date on it is 1511. Miguel disappeared in 1502 thus leaving him and his crew of shipwrecked sailors 9 years to live in that area and build a a Temple modeled after that one on the Temple Mount where they could hide in safety as well as pray for a rescue. The Templars used this exact design over and over and the Order of Christ was the only survivor of the Templars allowed to exist outwardly into the XVI centuryOrdem de Cristo 152.16.7.193 (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Windmills of the time were built with specific plans and tools. The stone work was done with quarried stone." No they weren't, and no it wasn't (not necessarily).[1][2]. The Charola you mention is part of a much larger complex of monastic buildings, not a freestanding tower, and has zero to do with Newport. However, as David has said, this sort of discussion belongs on sci.archaeology, not here, as you can't substantiate anything you're claiming. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the Newport tower is a Octagon Architecture of some unexplained purpose or original design must be undisputed. These Octagons appeared in Europe and the middle-east from Byzantine architectural origin from year 314 to 1312, after the Pope Clement V disbanded the Templars the Octagon architecture is very rare. That the original Tomar center Octagon has resemblance is clear, and that convents original size is smaller than today. The Newport Tower has beam holders both on the inside and outside, and it is not unlikley have been part of a larger structure made of wooden beams. If we assume the tower was build in 8th to 14th century, then the excavations need to go as deep as 2 - 3m, as the surrounding would rise that in this timespan. To my knowledge the excavations that have taken place have not been of that dept.--Hublitz (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, it doesn't matter what you think (or what I think), this is not a page to discuss the Newport Tower and the article is not a place to try to prove what it is, only to report what reliable sources have said about it. What the Newport Tower was built for and when is disputed, and we are not trying to prove who is right and who is wrong. I'm sure you can find a forum where your views would be appropriate. dougweller (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Piont-Claire Wind mill 1708

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)[reply]

Yes there there are other stone mills in North America from the same time frame such as Point-Claire Wind mill 1708 build by the Sulpiciens.--Hublitz (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

DESCRIPTIVE FACTS: LOCATION, DIMENSIONS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCONCLUSIVE DISPUTE
PRESENTATION OF COLONIAL THEORY
PRESENTATION OF PRE-COLONIAL THEORY
RESPONSE TO COLONIAL THEORY
RESPONSE TO PRE-COLONIAL THEORY
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)[reply]

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 forWP:SPEEDY. -- Petri Krohn 04:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

This section is a very clear and obvious case of bias. I understand there are several theories as to the tower's origin. I also understand that the colonial time period theory may be the most logical explanation. There still remains no proof, one way or the other. To add this section of mostly legitimate arguments about the possible Norse (or other early European) origins and then immediately rebut them seems like a very un-encyclopedic thing to do. The rebuttals are legitiamte, but should be separate and in their own section.

The tower has always been one of my favorite things about RI. St. Brendan might have built it, as far as anyone really knows!

Please, someone clean up this section.

Phill Garringer 63.167.255.153 (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 betweenGhughesarch 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 by70.73.46.236 (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Problems

Hi all. Currently, the 'Alternative hypotheses' section seems to have a number of problems. It's kind of a mishmash of various things, fairly confusingly presented, and which seems to me to give undue weight to certain items. Clearly the section needs to stay in, as these kind of speculations are notable aspects of this article's subject, but I am considering going about a major revision to the writing style and format, which will probably involve trimming out a fair amount of stuff. Thoughts?ClovisPt (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are about to push through an Arnoldist POV. This article has no value without the "alternative" hypotheses, without it this pile of stones would hardly be notable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it would be notable as the earliest surviving remains of a windmill in north America, but some people just can't accept that that's all that the solid evidence says it is Ghughesarch (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption: Comparison to Norse architecture

This image caption is a false and POV presentation of the facts. I find the Hvalsey Church in Greenland highly similar to the Newport Tower, both in "size and appearance". It is exactly this similarity that makes me postulate that both structures were built by the same culture. Comparing the construction of Chesterton Windmill and the tower leads me to conclude that they were built by different cultures in different times. The superficial similarity in shape can in no way ofset the differences in materials and construction methods. It is like equating whales with fish!

I have been studing images of buildings from throughout the world, looking for any similarities to the Newport Tower. I was amazed to find the the structure most resembling the tower in construction was in fact Hvalsey Church. This similarity is greatest in the details of the vaulting. An example of the Norse construction is presented inthis image.

Of course similarity alone can not prove pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. It just makes the tower notable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utter rubbish, the Hvalsey Church (a rectangular building with a gabled, pitched roof) looks nothing like the Newport Tower (a circular building raised on arches), whereas anyone with eyes (which rather addresses the issue of verifiability, as both are physical objects with a large number of freely available images on the web) can see that it does look like Chesterton Mill. The "construction" argument is worse than useless as all that was available was fieldstone. Neither the Hvalsey church, nor the Newport Tower, nor Chesterton Mill have "vaulting", so there can't be a similarity on that score. (thanks for indenting my comment)Ghughesarch (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can find a source that convincingly refutes this statement: "Nothing in early Norse architecture is similar, in size or appearance, to the Newport Tower. However, this 17th Century windmill in Chesterton, England, shares many characteristics with the Newport Tower,"

then you will not succeed in pushing its date back before c.1670. Ghughesarch (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. The Newport Tower has very much in common with Norse architecture. In the time period from year 1000 to 1370 the Norse build Round Churches (Round church). Today 8 of these are still standing in Sweden out of 13 Known. In Dennmark 4 are still standing out of 50 Known (Österlars kyrka). In England there are 4 of these Round churches (The_Holy_Sepulchre,_Cambridge). One is in Orkney Islands. These where all inspired by the Rotunda in the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. It is believed that most of these where erected by returning Templars Knights from the Crusades. That Greenland had Templars is proven by records in the Vatican. All of them are the oldest stone structures to be found by Christian Norse. It would be interesting if there are any Round Churches on Island or Greenland.--Hublitz (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are some round medieval churches in Scandinavia- but they are all significantly larger than the Newport Tower, and I repeat, There Is No Evidence Of Any Larger Structure Attached To The Newport Tower. David Trochos (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the different Round Churches is not conform, some are larger and some are smaller. The Agnestads ruin of Round Church has an inner diameter of 7m, this is almost identical with the Newport tower. The proof of a larger structure are the pillars have beam holders.--Hublitz (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The beam holes are on the inside, not the outside, so are not evidence of a larger structure.Ghughesarch (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please everyone, stop using this page as a forum. If you have references, bring them here, if you are just speculating, go to sci.archaeology. dougweller (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Round church?

I finally found a photo of the internal structure of a Scandianvian round church. The central structure is a round tower with vaulted openings in the base. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the total dis-similarity to the Newport Tower...Ghughesarch (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghughesarch, realize that the Newport Tower, which I have examined up close several times, is made from found stone, uncut and unpolished, and the similatity was made as close as the resources allowed without the tools necessary to make it perfect. Also the Charola in Tomar was built as the center of the larger Templar Knights church, as many other such temples were built. Miguel Corte-real was a member of the Order of Christ and Miguel Corte-Real inscribed a stone 20 miles from this Tower.http://www.sacredsites.com/europe/denmark/bornholm.htm Colombo.bz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Colombo.bz, realize that exactly the same can be said about the tower's resemblance to Chesterton windmill, with the very significant added advantage that (unlike Miguel Corte-Real, who did not, according to any reputable source, "inscribe a stone 20 miles away", or any of the other "alternative" hypotheses) all the available documentary and archaeological evidence (not speculation) is that the tower is a seventeenth century windmill. Show the archeaological evidence for a larger structure, or for any activity around the tower before the 17th century, then you might have a case - but there is no such evidence so the theory you support is not supported by the facts. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghughesarch "the first rock writing in this region was by Cortereal in 1511" (Dighton Rock; A Study of the Written Rocks of New England. Edmund Burke Delabarre. New York: Walter Neale. 1928.) I suggest you take alook at the images here. Supporting facts are that Portuguese sailors erected a Padrão stone coat of arms pillars in their voyages or inscribed in stone. In 1482 Diogo Cão reached the estuary of the Zaire (Congo) and placed a pillar landmark there. Then explored 150 km upriver to the Ielala Falls where he carved similar inscriptions on that cliff face. A smaller image is here at thePortuguese Naval Museum. Portuguese sailors left behind many other calling cards such as the Pillar at Cape Cross from which that cape got its name. If that still doesn't convince you look at the interior of the London Temple Church never disputed that it was built by the Templar Knights. The lack of familiarity with the facts should not be used as a reason to deny the most plausible theory for the Tower. The Tower was built by a small crew of European marooned sailors who had no tools and who lived in the area for at least 9 years 1502-1511. It is a fact that João Vaz Corte Real sailed these regions late 1400s and that his son Gaspar Corte Real, a Member of the Order of Christ left on a mission to these areas under the reign of D. Manuel I and never returned. It is also a fact that Miguel Corte-Real, another Member of the Order of Christ, sailed out with 3 ships who slpit up upon reaching America to find his lost brother. Two of the three ships returned to Lisbon. Miguel Corte-Real's never returned. It should also be noted that D. Manuel I was the Templar Master in Portugal as had been Henry the Navigator. The Newport Tower could have easily had a surrounding octagonal wood structure not unlike the stone one theDome of the Rock has. Again you need to realize that marooned sailors would have had little tools to work with and had to do the best they could with the resources at hand. Furthermore the coat of arms inscribed on Dighton Rock is unmistakably Portuguese as are the crosses of the Order of Christ --the Knights Templar of Portugal. Colombo.bz (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo.bz - There's just too much that's plain wrong, and not supported by any reputable source in any of the above. You're now claiming that the Newport Tower had an external wooden structure, even though there's no evidience for it, and that therefore that makes it like a Portuguese charolla or the Temple Church, all of which have extensive stone surrounding structures. It's hopeless trying to discuss this with you as you are just wrong, but read carefully - There is no reputable evidence - archaeological or documentary - for the Newport Tower being anything other than a 17th century windmill, or that it was ever part of a larger building as it would have to have been had it been a round church. Everything else is total speculation. In any case Edmund Delabarre's speculation is that it was a Portuguese lighthouse, not a church, so you'll have to find evidence of an undisputed Portuguese lighthouse with features like those of the TowerGhughesarch (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghughesarch, I did not say the Tower HAD a a wooden structure, I said it COULD have had. It is so silly the windmill theory it kills me. Like the settlers would have taken the time to build a windmill with arches! Who were they trying to impress with this tricky architercture? And would they waste such effort on a windmill? I don~t know about you but I was born around windmills and I used to bring my corn to be ground in a windmill and I can tell you that out of the dozens of windmills I saw in my Island I never saw one with legs.

But the Newport Tower was built by Englishmen in the 17th century, so of course it isn't like 19th century mills in the Azores. See Chesterton Windmill for the comparison. Windmills were only introduced to the Azores in the 19th century[http://www.azores.com/azores/graciosa.php?attribute=11 Claims are made for windmills being introduced there in 1633, but that too is also too late for you. Ghughesarch (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I only proposed a solution to the problem by presenting the facts that best explain the tower: 1- It's architecture is the same as the Templar temples.

No it isn't, as the briefest glance at any Templar church showsGhughesarch (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2- Miguel Corte-Real was a templar.

reputable source for this speculation, pleaseGhughesarch (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3- Miguel Corte-Real set sail to these parts in 1502.

No, he set forth to find someone who was last seen in Newfoundland, 100s of miles northGhughesarch(talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4- The Dighton Rock 20 miles away has on it Miguel Cortereal 1511.

That's unsupported speculation about the Dighton Rock. Reputable source pleaseGhughesarch (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5- So much effort was made to center the pillars and to find just the right stones to create the arches which was wasted effort for a mere windmill. 6- The Tower was built with uncut stone unlike all the other buildings of the 17th century which used formed brick and cut stones.

No they weren't. see Stone ender Ghughesarch (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7- The fact that it is missing the outer part of the building simply means they didn't have time or the resources to do more. Keep in mind that these were sailors of a small caravel which would have numbered 20 or 30 men. They were not the force of 500 men King John II sent to Mina to build that Castle.

So you're saying a small crew with not much time or resources built something that you also say an established, settled and wealthy community couldn't have built? Ghughesarch (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8- It was normal for Portuguese sailors to leave behind their mark carved in stone. 9- There is no evidence that the tower was ever used as a windmill.

Yes there is, try reading the articleGhughesarch (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if they had indeed ever used it as a windmill does not imply that they CONSTRUCTED it as a windmill. They could have converted it to a windmill after finding it already there which even then would not be easy since the top or roof part would have needed to rotate 360º in order to find the wind. The windmill theory is very silly. No one would have wasted so much effort making a windmill with legs and arches in the wild frontier but if they did order a windmill made with legs they would then not have built this crude structure from loose stone, they would have taken the time to cut stone and build it as the other buildings of the time were built.

Newport in the late seventeenth century was not "the wild frontier", it was an established and fairly wealthy colony.Ghughesarch (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other building built with this loose stone technique in that area

See Stone enders again Ghughesarch (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but there are thousands of them in the Azores where Miguel Corte Real was born.Colombo.bz (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Piont-Claire Wind mill 1708

[1]