The C14 dating conducted by Siemonsen's in 1993 has a high potential for error. The results indicated possible construction dates from as early as
the 1400's to as late as the 20th century.
The Colonial origin was based on an averaging of these dates. This was one of the first attempts C14 dating porous mortar and the results seem too
The earlier excavations performed in the 1940's by Godfrey also indicated a colonial period plaster had been applied to the walls of the structure,
which could skew the C14 dating. That could also be the source of the fragmentary evidence found in or about the foundations. Was the structure simply
refurbished during Colonial times? If so, then it's logical the site would be heavily contaminated by Colonial artifacts.
Frederick J. Pohl writes in the The New England Quarterly
, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Dec., 1945), pp. 501-506, an article titled: "Was the Newport Tower
Standing in 1632?"part of which you can read online, a critique of the Colonial origin of the tower. He points out several flaws in the theory it was
built by Gov. Arnold, most notably the fact that building projects were so thoroughly documented during this time yet none indicate a stone windmill
A 2006-2007 excavation conducted by the Chronognostic Research Foundation
found indications of an ambulatory structure, in a project called
"Newport Tower Project Extension
" (May 30 - June 4, 2008, Steve
Voluckas, Field Director). Their conclusion: "The exploratory dig under the walkways produced indications of an unknown structure near or around the
Tower. Further studies will e required to determine the size and nature of this structure, and how it relates to the tower".
"The Hooked X - Key to the secret history of North America"
- by Scott F Wolter, and the History program connect the style of the tower to
the style of round churches in Gotland, the traditional home of the Cistercians and the Knights Templar. The ambulatories of these churches are
consistent with the stone tower. There are also other stylistic indicators this tower was not built to be a windmill:
You have the stone columns protruding from the face of the structure - most likely there to support rafters for an ambulatory.
You have a second floor fireplace (Means
, 1942) - grossly out of place in a windmill
(fire and grain dust do not mix)
You have indications of an altar and small alcoves that might have held reliquaries, also consistent with Catholic worship. Although forced to flee to
Scotland following the "Suppression Order" of the Pope, Knights Templars were still observant of the Catholic faith, and if the tower were built as
a church by Henry Sinclair, it only makes sense that it includes "Catholic" accouterments.
(Photos courtesy of Unexplainedearth.com
Further, according to Wolter and the History Channel program, the alignments were not haphazard, but consistent with Cistercians and the Knights
Templar observations. The theory proposed by Wolter (among others) is that Henry Sincliar of the Scottish Freemasons, built the structure and the
alignments are connected to the Sacred Feminine rituals (see "About Prince Henry Sinclair"
In particular was the alignment of the egg-shaped keystone with the winter solstice, and that this keystone, aligned with the arch opposite of it,
points the way to the Kensington Stone.
The CRF gives an excellent accounting of all the celestial and terrestrial alignments of the tower:
DISCOVERY OVER TOURO PARK
One major factor to their assessment the tower was built prior to 1457 is that the solstice alignments were needed to observe dates, yet after that
point, during the Colonial period, such observation towers were no longer needed with the advent of the printing press and printed almanacs.
The CRF too, concludes Arnold was most likely not
the tower's builder:
"Finally, the Tower is probably not 17th century, in which case it was not built by Governor Benedict Arnold. Arnold certainly owned the land on
which it stood, and he might have tried to make a windmill out of it, to replace Peter Easton’s windmill, which blew down in a hurricane in August,
1675. But Arnold and his contemporaries built almost exclusively in wood - their houses, churches, windmills, even their ironworks at Saugus,
Massachusetts, with its two massive iron forges. So Arnold probably did not build the Tower.
But he may have taken good care of his very odd building, just as Newporters have done ever since. And for that, we can thank him as well as Judah
Touro, and the Newport City Council: all have preserved the structure for study in the 21st century."
All the above are the conclusions of others, but one thing I gathered from the program is that you can't trust
C14 dating, at least with
porous (and easily contaminated) materials like mortar.
[edit on 27-9-2009 by Blackmarketeer]