Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Newport Mystery Tower

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The Newport Mystery Tower, known as the Viking Tower and Old Stone Mill, and made of unfinished stone and seashell mortar, stands a little over 24 feet tall, and was probably a bit taller. The tower is an oval and measures southeast to northwest at 22 feet, 2 inches in diameter, but measures east to west at 23 feet, 3 inches. The thirteen inch difference is considered important because of possible symbolic or numerological significance in the creation and purpose of the tower. Originally the tower was covered in white plaster, but this has been weathered away. Governor Benedict Arnold, grandfather of the Revolutionary war traitor, may have built the tower in the 17th century. He never claimed to have built it, but he called it “his”. This could mean it belonged to him or that he had a special relationship with it as well. The mortar has been carbon dated to the early 17th century, but this is an average of particle dates ranging from the 15th to 20th centuries. The purpose of the tower is unknown. There are eight stone columns supporting the top of the tower, each sticking out a little bit to one side. There is documentation that the structure was once a windmill, but the architectural features seem to contradict this theory. In the second story of the tower there is a fireplace, which is very unusual. There are also questions as to where the required labor to built the tower came from. There may be evidence of an altar inside the tower, hinting at ritual use, but this is also unclear. On the west side of the tower is a runic inscription reading the numbers “1010” which could be a date, address, or anything. The use of runes, however, is very odd as well. More rockart has been claimed to be on the tower, but there is a possibility of coincidence and accident. Radar detection has been used to find some strange formations in the ground which supports the tower, but nothing has been conclusive. Clearly the tower is quite a mystery to exist in America.



Reference Source: Haughton, Brian. "The Newport Mystery Tower." Hidden History. Illustrated ed. N.p.: Career Press, 2007.

Research by RavenShadow13, 2009

[edit on 2/2/2009 by ravenshadow13]




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Nice. We know runes were used by Scandinavians. So we can consider the possibility of the Vikings having made it that far (Rhode Island), and not only to Canada.


It is commonly considered to have been a windmill built in the mid 17th century. However, the tower has received attention due to speculation that it is actually several centuries older and represents evidence of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact.


Source

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I think so, too. Either that or it has some underground group affiliation from some of the first people to come to America. I wanted to see what you all had to say, I decided to start posting the cool stuff I found in my research last year. My conclusion was either that there was a population of European descent that came to America and started a group in that area separate of others, or that it had something to do with an underground group that was part of the general population of the area at the time. The thing that fascinates me most is the fireplace. And, you know, the style of architecture isn't really typical of anything that would make any sense, except maybe Scottish or Irish descent.

It doesn't look like a windmill, and I don't know why Benedict Arnold would have built it. Very curious.

Yeah, in the research I posted I said that the particles have been carbon dated from 15th to 20th centuries. It's kind of open to debate, I guess.

[edit on 2/2/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
From same source:


The Norse theory is regarded today as speculative and unsupported by archaeological or documentary evidence.


...but if the runes are genuine, than that Wikipedia entry is false.

_________________________


(yes, I have been interested in pre-Columbian transatlantic contact)

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Skyfloating]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Well, Wikipedia isn't always right


Other groups have been known to use Runes. Pagans, Druids, Masons maybe, New Age religions, and all the "Light" or "White" "Brotherhood" type groups, there are a few of those. I think Satanists may occasionally use them, as well. Plus it could be Runic poetry inscribed, if the person who built the tower was creative/witty like that.

But what did the tower do? Was it a house? A shrine? I have no idea what it is. I've heard that it was a mill, but it seems like a pretty fancy mill to me.

Sky, I'm not saying you're wrong in terms of the transatlantic stuff. I think it is just as probable as anything else.



[edit on 2/2/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

Other groups have been known to use Runes. Pagans, Druids, Masons maybe, New Age religions, and all the "Light" or "White" "Brotherhood" type groups, there are a few of those. I think Satanists may occasionally use them, as well. Plus it could be Runic poetry inscribed, if the person who built the tower was creative/witty like that.



I think if we knew whether the Runes are an inherent part of the building or later added to it would help a lot...



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Here's another good source.
www.nationmaster.com...(Rhode-Island)



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 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 waters edge. A skilled stone mason would have been needed and it is unlikely one was available in this tiny new colony.

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, although the houses are likely to have had stone fireplace and chimneys which someone must have been able to build.





Pre-Colonial maps by Gerardus Mercator and others are claimed to mark the tower's location.

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.


This site has a lot of theories, but nothing conclusive. It points out that the units of measurement for the tower would be different than feet and inches, so any numerology significance would be a bit off by our system.

This is the Chesterton mill. It does look similar! But it doesn't explain the runes or inscriptions, the plaster covering, or the fireplace, or the oval shape instead of circular... And the Chesterton mill is located in the UK, not in an early colony of America.




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Yep, that sure looks like a tower it could be inspired from. Not so sure if it was "beyond the means of the colonists to build such a tower" though.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
www.hurstwic.org...

This site has some information.




Some believe that the five runic markers read 'HNKRS' representing the old Norse word for stool, meaning the seat of a bishop's church


Some other sites say the runes were added later as a hoax.

www.unmuseum.org...



Four years after Mean's book came out two professors, P. Luvfold and M. Bjorndal, found what appeared to be a Swedish-Norwegian runic inscription on the west side of the tower, 14 feet above the ground. The inscription included a date: 1010. While this would seem to support the Norse theory, the number of years involved since the proposal of the theory in 1837 to the discovery of the rune makes it impossible to discount that the markings were part of a hoax perpetrated during the intervening century.


I think that we can break the mystery into a number of different questions.

1) Who built the tower and when was it built?
2) Why is there a fireplace? Common in windmills
3) Is there numerological significance to the dimensions of the tower?
4) Was it used as a mill, or built to resemble one? Yes
5) What was the original purpose of the tower?
6) Why is it constructed in an oval shape? It's not that oval, natural error
7) What to the runic marking say?
8) Who put the runic markings there, and when?
9) Were the runic markings part of a hoax?
10) Did Benedict Arnold have anything to do with the construction of the tower?
11) Did the Nordic?
12) Did someone else?

[edit on 2/2/2009 by ravenshadow13]

[edit on 2/2/2009 by ravenshadow13]

[edit on 2/2/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Ah the old tower.


Though there is logic behind this thinking, one can find numerous examples throughout Europe of fireplaces installed in mills. The type of fireplace installed in most of these windmills is also similar to the fireplace in the Newport Tower because the flu exits through the side wall, rather than the roof. Since the tops of most windmills were designed to turn so the blades could face the wind, running the flu straight up through the roof was not practical.



The link

Considering no Norse materials have been found in the vicinity of the tower and that L'anse aux Meadows gives us a good idea of what a Norse outpost would look like....




10) Did Benedict Arnold have anything to do with the construction of the tower?




Most historians accept that the tower is the remains of an old stone windmill built in colonial times by Benedict Arnold, grandfather of the Revolutionary War patriot/traitor with the same name. Arnold was governor of Rhode Island at the time and owned the land where the tower is located. Arnold mentions the structure in his will composed in 1677 referring to it as "my stone built Wind Mill." Later records show it was used as a lookout tower by the Americans and an armory by the British during the Revolution




[edit on 2/2/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Wow, great evidence. Thanks for explaining about the fireplace. I guess I never thought people would actually hang out in windmills.

About Benedict Arnold, maybe. It makes sense that he may have used it and it was on his land. It seems more logical than the Nordic thing, but there is really no strict evidence either way.

Still doesn't explain the runes. I'm thinking hoax, but what a weird thing to hoax with...

I assume the normal shape for windmills is oval, then. And it was probably constructed by the same people who built fireplaces for people in the colonies.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
I think that we can break the mystery into a number of different questions.

1) Who built the tower and when was it built?
2) Why is there a fireplace?
3) Is there numerological significance to the dimensions of the tower?
4) Was it used as a mill, or built to resemble one?
5) What was the original purpose of the tower?
6) Why is it constructed in an oval shape?
7) What to the runic marking say?
8) Who put the runic markings there, and when?
9) Were the runic markings part of a hoax?
10) Did Benedict Arnold have anything to do with the construction of the tower?
11) Did the Nordic?
12) Did someone else?


Pretty good job of breaking down this issue into a set of research problems. Funny thing, while it's generally pretty easy to debunk this sort of pre-Columbian 'relic', the Newport Tower seems to have a pretty ambiguous past. Here are a couple of interesting sites: The first, from Hall of Ma'at, which is a well-reasoned look at a lot of pseudo-archaeology: www.hallofmaat.com...

And the second, an architectural look at the structure: neara.org...

Frankly, I spend so much time being a poop with regard to questionable archaeology, it's fun to find a mystery. Starred and flagged!



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   
None of the links posted here lead to any pictures of the runes...which is a bit dissapointing considering that an image might shed light on how obvious a possible hoax is.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Oh Johnny, I'm so glad you enjoyed this mystery.
Basically I did this huge independent study last year and it was on anthropological mysteries and things, so expect a lot more threads in the future. I was going to submit it for research on here but it wasn't organized the right way and I didn't want to include everything (the whole thing is 86 pages). This way, each topic is more open to discussion, and it will make threads exclusively for topics that aren't on the site yet.

I'm really happy about it ^_^ Especially because my school didn't give me real credit for it. So now I can post it for the benefit of the people, since it was my own research, and because I know people will be interested.

Thanks for the star and flag!



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
\Most historians accept that the tower is the remains of an old stone windmill built in colonial times by Benedict Arnold\

Correct!

9) Were the runic markings part of a hoax?

I would say a delusion.

These runic markins turned out to be the Indian art of some magical meaning - petroglyphs.

In 1837 г. a scandinavian historian Carl Rafn (if i remember correctly), asked his american collegues to search the traces of early norvegian colonists on the north-american atlantic coast (he published four volumes of his book about vikings to Winland -America, before Columb)

The media announced, the people rushed to help...

The results followed. that territory turned out to be full of "finds". They found runic markins on the tower and the bones of one of the vikings...


These runic markins turned out to be the Indian art of some magical meaning - petroglyphs and the bones, judging by the ritual and the goods was Indian.
But it couldnt change the mood at that time
There was a poet, Longfellow, (The Song of Hiawatha) who wrote a poem «the sceleton in armor», where he turned this poor grave of an Indian into a grave of a brave viking, and New-port tower became the monument of eternal love of this poor young viking...
In the memory of public that tower stayed as vikings
) despite the preface of Longfellow - that he didnt mean any connection between the symbols he used...



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I thought that was weird, too.

I FOUND IT!!
www.unexplainedearth.com...



Check out that link for more pictures, it has them enhanced a bit, and it says:



There are a number of problems with this "rune" that is supposed to spell out IHC. During my inspection of the rock, I could find no trace of the supposed C. Furthermore, the I and H can only be read by selectively accepting and ignoring the markings on the rock.

Like other forms of rock art, there is no accurate way to date when these markings were carved into the stone. Certainly the first inscription existed by 1946, but there's no way to rule out a recent hoax. This all assumes that the markings are genuine inscriptions; a fact I'm not completely convinced of.



And it says



The most recent theory proposed to explain the Newport Tower's origins comes from the book "1421 – The Year China Discovered America." As the title suggests, the author Gavin Menzies theorizes that the tower was built by early Chinese explorers during the 15th century to serve as a lighthouse.

This startling revelation is based on a comparison of the Rhode Island tower to a similar structure used as a lighthouse in the port of Zaiton in Southern China. The towers do look alike; each built atop eight columns and once covered in smooth plaster. Other design elements such as the windows and fireplace are also similar.




[edit on 2/2/2009 by ravenshadow13]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Russi
 


I think that the Norwegian origin thing came from the runes, not from the poem. Benedict Arnold may have built it, but there is no 100% evidence to prove it, or anything else.

That's why it's called the mystery tower ^_^

I don't think they ever found Viking Bones there, obviously. If the carvings are of Native American origin, then it is a coincidence that they were found in a tower built by Benedict Arnold, hmm?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Nice find


I thought I would be wiser after looking at them, but...



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


Haha, yeah, pretty much. It's a mystery. We should all just stay open minded and accept it, IMO. I think that it's really interesting, especially the information about China.

Some of the stuff that I might post in different threads from the same research project is like 95% chance of being a hoax. This one is just a jumble of different factors.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 02:50 PM
link   
"i think that the Norwegian origin thing came from the runes, not from the poem. Benedict Arnold may have built it, but there is no 100% evidence to prove it, or anything else. '

it came from the four volumes that needed proof


There is 100% evidence and this evidence is in the colonial documents and they state that the tower was built in 1675 by the english governor of Rod island





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join