Talk:Newport Tower (Rhode Island)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Non Colonial Era Structure

Having spoken with Janet Barstad several times it is obvious that the Tower was not built during the colonial age as both the materials and design are completely out of sink with the other structures built in the days of Governor Arnold. The building material was wood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.247 (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say that she hadn't done her research, but either she is disagreeing with herself or something, as [1]:

"Barstad said Colonial records indicate there were about 75 masons in Massachusetts and Rhode Island in the late 1600s, and about 25 were stonemasons. The Old Stone Mill, which has a base of arches, is made of rough stones held together by mortar.

Jeremy Clark, an early settler of Newport, built a house on Thames Street around 1670, and it was not demolished until 1960, Barstad said. Before the large chimney was pulled down, it was photographed. The photo, which can be seen in the 1952 book "Architectural Heritage of Newport, R.I.," by Antoinette Downing and Vincent Scully, shows the base of the chimney with an archway over the hearth. The archway is similar to the archways of the Old Stone Mill, according to Barstad and Clements.

"The skills to do this work were available locally," Clements said. Barstad said the first "stone enders," homes with a large stone chimney and stone wall at one end of the house, were built in Rhode Island. "That's very provocative," she said."

If you need a source for the use of stone in construction, Barstad is one possibility -- but not a possibility for only building in wood, if that's what you are suggesting. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you attribute to Barstad something she is not saying. She stated that there were some stonemasons in the area at the time of Benedict Arnold, not that these masons had built the tower. Stonemasons, from the beginning of time, worked the stone. They quarried it, they cut it, they shaped it into what they needed it to be, they cut it to fit the building they were constructing, they did not simply pile them up as best they could into a building, as is the case of the Newport Tower. If the Newport Tower had been built by stonemasons prepared for the task, with tools of the stonemason trade, the tower would have been built with cut stones as was the case in all civilized settlements where the resources were there and the person paying for something so creative such as an 8-legged windmill would have required. the roughness of the construction is contradictory to a well planned and paid for job done by stonemasons with proper tools. Aside form this Barstad is not necessarily "free" to say all that she knows. The forces of egos and their schools of thought at work don't always allow the truth to be told but want instead only "their truth" to be the only one allowed.20:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.247 (talk)

Try looking at the images which accompany the Wikipedia article on stone enders, or at the buildings themselves. The idea that the Rhode Island stonemasons who built them "shaped it (the stone) into what they needed it to be, they cut it to fit the building they were constructing, they did not simply pile them up as best they could into a building" is simply not borne out by the buildings they were constructing at the same time as the newport tower in the late 1600s. Ghughesarch (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OR speculation about Norse colonization of the Americas

User:Hublitz posted this original research into the article:

However, the Varnhem Abbey church building from 1040 in Sweden has a round altar with 8 pillars very similar to the construction of the Newport tower. That the knowledge of this building style traveled from Sweden to Greenland and on to further south settlements under the bishop of Gardar as Gardar, Greenland in Greenland in the time frame from 1000 - 1450 is most likely. At tax research in Vatican notes from the time of 1300 the Diocese of Gardar payed taxes for 20000 souls, this is a significant larger number than the Greenland own population of 5000. The taxes were mostly payed in cow hides, and cows were not able to pasture in Greenland at least not in those numbers as it was too cold. These taxes were collected from settlements further south, possibly Newport. That the Norse exploration was as early as around year 1000 does not exclude the possibility that the Norse built the tower later as the expansion of settlements to 15,000 souls in the New World would have taken several hundred years. This would give the date of the tower to be somewhere between 1300-1400 and at these times the Norse Greenlanders definitively had the architectural knowledge to build a building as the Newport tower.

Interesting specultion. Are there any sources supporting any part of this speculation. If there are, then maybe some of this could have a place somewhere else on Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

"However, the Varnhem Abbey church building from 1040 in Sweden has a round altar with 8 pillars"

I think this exemplifies the problem with the whole "it's a Norse building" theory: Varnhem Abbey may (or may not - it's not referenced in the Wikipedia article) have such an altar, but it's very clear from the ilustration to that article that as a whole the abbey bears about as much resemblance to the Newport Tower as it does to any other completely unrelated building. Just because someone says something of the sort in a verifiable print source doesn't make it objectively true, and it remains the case that there is no archaeological evidence for anything on the Newport site before the mid - late seventeenth century. Even if there was a verifiable source for the speculation, it would remain only speculation, unsupported by any of the facts. Ghughesarch (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that all of these round churches and round church altarslocated within an area of influence have one common thread, the Order of Cister, born out of the territory of Dukes of Burgundy from which the order got its arms and in whose motherhouse some of the Dukes are buried. Both the Templars and the Kingdom of Portugal come out of the House of Burgundy. St. Bernard of Clairvuax initiator of the Templars, was cousin to Henry of Portugal, both of them nephews of the great Abbot of Cluny all descendants of King Hugh Capet and the Order of Christ was for all intents the Order of the Templars even using the same headquarters in Tomar. The Order of Cister regulated the Order of the Templars and the same 8-sided motif is still used on the Mosteiro dos Jerónimos in Lisbon, Portugal built by the then Templar Master, the same King D. Manuel I who sent Miguel CorteReal to America Colombo.bz (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating no doubt, as part of a different article (ie., on Cistercian influence), but still nothing to do with this article. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the surviving church at Varnhem Abbey is a later replacement (13th century with some later features) for the 1040 building. What it has resembling the Newport Tower is an apse (semicircular rather than circular), containing the altar, around which is a colonnade of arches on elegant round pillars.

As for the Gardar Diocese paying "taxes for 20,000 souls"- no. Church historian Luka Jelic estimated the tax in the early 14th century would be for about 1,000 households. David Trochos (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

According to Jelic the estimated tax was for 10000 souls, that if every house hold has 10 inhabitants is questionable. During the Norse era, multiple "families" lived in the same long house, working the same farm holding. This "grand family" played an important role in shaping Norse society and its laws and customs, and was the standard unit of society.

A household might be consisting of not only several husband-and-wife couples (with one member of each couple typically related by blood to one member of every other couple) and their children, but also the families of servants and bondsmen. During this time, the typical household size was probably ten to twenty people .According to Miller 1988, A Icelandic Household could be with uncertanty 15-16 people, we can assume that the size for Greenland, and Vinland would be the same . User:Hublitz

Too much extrapolation for an encyclopedia. David Trochos (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"What it has resembling the Newport Tower is an apse..."

Which was never a freestanding building in its own right like the Newport Tower, presumably?Ghughesarch (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope... David Trochos (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not likely that the Newport Tower originally was a freestanding building, rather a part of a larger building. The columns are off center and constructed to hold wooden hammer beams for a roof around the Tower. Science and Technology in Medieval European Life by Jeffrey R. Wigelsworth on Architecture of Medieval buildings User:Hublitz

If any strong indication of the former existence of such a larger building had been found, you'd have thought one of the various archaeologists would have mentioned it. Very loudly. David Trochos (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Has any Norman theorist produced a reconstruction of such a building? I remember seeing something, maybe in Suzanne Carlson's paper. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Hublitz The definition of a ruin is that it once was a larger building. The evidence that all the wooden parts of the Newport tower have lost over time, that would any archaeologist agree on. Romanesque cathedral architecture of the Norse in both Dublin, Normandy during the time 1000-1450 have many round crypts with similarity to the Newport tower. That at least Iceland and Greenland had communications with Norse settlements in Dublin and Normandy has been assured by Historical records, Sagas and lately with DNA research of the Icelandic population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hublitz (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

An ingenious definition of a ruin, but not actually right. The rest is circumstantial. David Trochos (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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. For religious and defense purpose. 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 Holy Sepulchre Cambridge. One is in Orkney Islands. About the other Norse territories I need to continue investigation. These where all inspired by the Rotunda in the Holy Sepulchrein Jerusalem. It is believed that most of these where erected by returning Knights Templarfrom the Crusades. That Greenland had Templar's can be proven by records in the Vatican. All of them are the oldest stone structures to be found by Christian Norse cultures. It would be interesting if there are any Round Churches on Island or Greenland. What we have to ask is if the Norse culture had the possibility to build a round church in New Port at the time when Vinland was in existence. At the time the Norse where one of the most traveled cultures in the world. It is proved that the homogeneous culture existed from todays Newfoundland, Greenland, Iceland, Ireland, Faroe Islands, Orkney Islands, England, Normandy France, Sicily Italy, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Ukraine, Poland, Germany and Denmark. Their architecture was Romanesque with influences from Byzantine culture. Next step would be to try to design how the Newport tower would have looked with its wooden structures. With that information we can start to look for proof of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hublitz (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, we can't. It's time to stop using this page as a discussion page for personal ideas about the tower. If you have references we can use which discuss the tower and add something new, please tell us about them. If you simply want to talk about the tower and who built it, please go to a web forum or Usenet (you will find that almost anything you have to say has been discussed on sci.archaeology, including the incorrect idea that the Newport Tower looks like a Templar church). But please, this page is purely to discuss improving the article which as a Wikipedia article is not meant to be a search for 'truth' or an essay, but to report what reliable sources have written about the Newport Tower (and note that they must actually discuss the Newport Tower, not subjects possibly related to it but without mentioning it). dougweller (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is what is stated in the section "Norse hypothesis" in the main page, that nothing in Norse Architecture is similar to the Newport Tower, this is completely wrong and misleading. In precolonial / medieval times the Newport tower is similar to Norse Architecture of Round Churches. That is what should be replaced with a more objective section. --Hublitz (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't referenced so I took it out. If an archaeologist has made the point, then it can go back in with a reference. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Image of location of Newport Tower - not NPOV

Looking at this over time, I've come to the conclusion that the labels make this a POV image, and that it should be removed until we can get a neutral one (if it is needed at all). dougweller (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. ClovisPt (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, what in the map was a POV? Is the Newport Tower not in Newport where the map depicted it? Was the Dighton Rock not in the Taunton river where the map depicted it? I know what your problem is it is the same one you have with all my edits. It goes against your POV.Colombo.bz (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A map showing where the Newport Tower is would be fine. A map suggesting that the Newport Tower relates to Dighton Rock and a skeleton not even mentioned here is not. And not only is it your map pushing your pov, you even used it to advertise your book [2] a clear COI. dougweller (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, the map shows the location of the Dighton Rock in relation to the Newport Tower. It is not my POV. It is a FACT. The Dighton Rock was found up Narraganset Bay which shows how silly the statement that "Miguel Corte-Real never sailed the Narraganset Bay" was. The Skeleton in Armor was found in Fall River it is also not my POV it is a FACT. That map was published on page 250 of my book in 2006. Again it is not my POV it is a piece of artwork published and copyrighted put here to help others see the FACTS. Your problem is that you and many others here don't like dealing with the FACTS. You love though, dealing with Fantasy and because of that you removed the map so that readers can't see that your POV is fantasy. Colombo.bz (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But the significance of these "finds", of disputed authenticity, in relation to the speculation you are pushing here, is not supported by reputable sources, therefore including a map showing them in relation to the Newport Tower, with which they have no proven connection, is not NPOV Ghughesarch (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The map is his map, it is POV, and his pushing his ideas through his map, etc is making me wonder about COI. dougweller (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Archives

I have moved most of the talk page into the archives. I've also added a template at the top pointing out that this is not a web forum to discuss the origins of the Newport Tower, and please recall that the article itself is not trying to prove any particular hypothesis but to report what reliable sources have said proportionately to their significance (a very rough summary of the way it should be). Please respect this and don't continue to use it as a soapbox whatever your views may be on it. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Researching What You Write

Under "Other hypotheses" Someone invented the following statement:

"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."
Apparently they are unaware that since 1430 at Cabo Espichel, South of Lisbon in Portugal existed a Lighthouse that was lit with numerous large candles. And that since the beginning of the XVI century it was common for lighthouses in Portugal to use large oil lamps. And that already by 1515, at Cape S. Vicente, existed a lighthouse with glass windows lit with 5 large oil lamps.
It is a pity that writers who don~t spend the time to review their facts are allowed to add their POV while those who strive to add facts are charged with adding their POV.Colombo.bz (talk)

So, provide sources for your statements. And then remove any reference to them from this article, as they are simply further examples of signalling beacons which do not rely on the relative positions of fireplaces and windows, and so also have nothing to do with the Newport Tower.Ghughesarch (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Typical ancient stonework skills on the Azores where Miguel CorteReal's father was Captain.

The info on Portuguese XV century lighthouses is found here: http://farois.bitxpress.pt/ Although in Portuguese you can click on: "Costa de Lisboa" and choose the "Guia" Lighthouse and the "Cabo Espichel" Lighthouse.
Keep in mind that the Newport Tower was not built as a Lighthouse nor was it built as a result of a planned voyage to build it. It was built as a necessity due to the sailors being stranded on those shores. It was also built by rumaging for stones and bringing them to the location and making them fit into the best position in the structure. The tower would have served as a multi-purpose structure. It was a religious chapel, a structure for protection from the weather, a fort for protection from the enemy, a piece of home built to resemble what they knew. The theory of a lighthouse to signal any passing-by ship is the weakest argument of all since to do that, the structure would need to be built on the Southernmost tip of the Island to flag passing ships. The location of the tower so far inland, where it is, would not be seen from the Atlantic. One should research the orientation of the Templar Structures especially in Scotland and at Bornholm Island http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bornholm . I find it interesting that having found the name MIGUEL CORTEREAL engraved on a stone 20 miles up Narragansett Bay, thus putting that Knight of the Templsr Order of Christ in the location of the tower, it is rejected out of hand to impose theories, like the Norse, where there is NO evidence to support them.Colombo.bz (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC).

Can we not have arguments here please. The original comment was ok, saying that something wasn't referenced. But the rest is just argument based based on speculation, not fact (including the Cortereal thing, which is still an interpretation of an inscription as having some of the letters as his name, nothing more - possible, yes, proven, no). dougweller (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that it necessarily has direct bearing on this discussion, but I've seen Dighton Rock in person and I can most definitely assure you that nowhere on Dighton Rock are the words MIGUEL CORTEREAL written.--Caliga10 (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

BIAS (continued from Talk:Kensington_Runestone#BIAS)

In response to acccusations of bias in this article, in Talk:Kensington_Runestone#BIAS I am continuing the thread here.

Stone enders: try "Newport Through its Architecture" by James L. Yarnall for a start. I don't understand what you mean about the astronomical alignments- what I am saying is simply true (and resulted, for example, in the incorporation of a solar gnomon in the Church of St. Sulpice, Paris, in the early 18th century- as featured in "The da Vinci Code"). Why would there be another windmill anywhere in the world with such alignments if Governor Arnold had them incorporated in his fancy windmill by special request, for his own amusement? As for analyses of the carbon dating- what they do is introduce a variety of "what ifs", and ultimately demonstrate nothing except the awkward fact that carbon dating of shell mortar is a rather futile exercise. David Trochos (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Does PastPresented: controversies (ref²⁸) Meet WP:RS?

I don't see how an anonymous self published website is a RS when Self-published sources (online and paper) states"

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable."

Except:

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Am I missing something? Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Does NEARA? We have a link to an article by NEARA's chairperson, which is more or less self-published and I see no reason to say it has a record of being accurate. But you raise a good question. I hadn't realised it was anonymous. Take a look at WP:PARITY which I think applies to this article. Dougweller (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would consider NEARA a fringe journal, but it has Officers, Committee Chairs, Directors-At-Large, and is somewhat cited on Google Scholar.[3] The NEARA citation (by Sue Carlson cited elsewhere as a historical architect) is well footnoted. PastPresented: controversies seems a large step below the NEARA citation to me. Reading this material is interesting, but I don't have a lot of experience in the level of documentation on this type of article. If the consensus is to keep these borderline sources I think they should be attributed somehow to let the reader know the level of review or acceptance the material has (without having to comb the references themselves) according to WP:YESPOV. I just found this second source about the tower which is descriptive and NPOV of the controversy in my opinion. Ward20 (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ouch - Farshores, "Worldwide Anomaly Reporting". Not a RS at all. UFOs, etc. You might want to look at Talk:Spirit Pond runestones. Carlson uses footnotes, but - well, this isn't the place to debate her accuracy really. Off-wiki I've commented as have others about her inaccuracies. Let's see what other editors have to say. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The article on Farshores was published by the Warren Times Gazette. I think both refs are borderline and material from better refs be used. Ward20 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is mostly about various far fetched theories that a tower called "The old mill", located at a place where documentation says there used to be a mill, and probably constructed at a time where we know a that mill was constructed, is in fact is anything but a mill. Any source that claims it's not a mill will be an unreliable source. That said, an anonymous webpage is a particularly bad source, so I agree that it should rem removed, we should at least know which madman is pushing the theories. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The webpage being discussed actually provides material which specifically undermines the fringe theories. It does refer to its sources, and happens to be the best currently available single-document roundup of the evidence debunking the wilder claims about what various early maps do and do not show. The alternative - which I would not advocate - would be to simply cut and paste the whole of that page into the article here. Without a link to the PastPresented site, we are left with a Wikipedia article which claims that the tower is shown on Mercator's map because a supposedly reliable (ie published) source say it is, when it manifestly is not. In line with WP:PARITY I believe it should stay. Ghughesarch (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Does Arlington Mallory meet WP:RS for the specific claim that he is being used to reference? that "Pre-Colonial maps by Gerardus Mercator and others are claimed to mark the tower's location" - the original paper in The American Anthropologist which has kindly now been linked makes no such claim in respect of Mercator, and a close reading of his paper shows that it provides no evidence for the actual depiction of the Newport Tower on any early map, merely a speculation of Mallory's that "John Smith...must have seen some structure there which indicated an English settlement and so marked the site on his map...a belief that was probably inspired by the Newport Tower then standing on the site" - so starting a circular argument which stems entirely from Mallory's own evident belief (regardless of the actual evidence) that the Tower existed pre-Arnold. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree the Mallory paper does not support the material in the article as written. I haven't found the other two sources cited in the footnote. Ward20 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that somebody who argues against fringe theories does so anonymously, but we have to have the same requirements on sources no matter if they are crazy or not. Cutting and pasting it would break WP:NOR. Maybe we can find some of the webpages references and use them directly? I also agree after checking the source about maps that the source doesn't actually support the claim. The other references are obviously taken from the book "Templars in America: From the Crusades to the New World" by Tim Wallace-Murphy and Marilyn Hopkins. They make references to The James Whittal Archive in exactly the same way. That means that whoever added that bit hasn't actually read the sources (s)he refers to. I don't buy that that kind of referencing is WP:RS in any way, which solves the problem. (That is to say, IMO we can remove the whole bullet point, we don't actually have anyone claiming that the tower is marked on the map, we only have someone claiming that someone claims this. Which is silly.) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a common fringe claim and I think is significant enough to be here and hopefully countered. Eg [4]. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, seems like like we keep both the claim and the reference, then. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3