1362-The Kensington Runestone, page 5

Han: Received an email from a gal I know who is more knowledgeable about New England Archaeology.

Besides laughting she did add a few points of why orthodoxy thinks the tower is just what the locals thought it was, a wind mill.

Well if it's such a consensus then there shouldn't be anyone in that field speaking out against the "orthodoxy". I guess we should trust "some gal you know" more than the scientists, chemists, and researchers who've contributed a counterpoint to the "orthodoxy".

Some Reservations about the Newport Tower C-14 Dates

This document raises serious question of the dating method.
Radiocarbon Dating of the Newport Tower

It's a short read, and should be read in it's entirety.

These are scientists who have reached conclusions the AMSc14 dating was flawed, as it was applied to the Newport Tower.

A. de Bethune - "On the Carbon-14 Analysis of Mortar from the Newport Tower: Theoretical Considerations," Journal of the Newport Historical Society, vol. 69, 1998.

His final conclusion: Tower already standing 1440-1480.

Alan Watchman, Data-Roche Watchman, Inc. in Quebec, Canada - detailed commentary on the Heinemeier and Jungner article in a private letter to James Whittall, 1996.

Watchman’s conclusion: Tower built around 1400.
Data-Roche Watchman does extensive carbon dating testing and contributes to Geoarchaeology.

Jim Guthrie - NEARA author and chemist, 2007. See citation above:

“The radiocarbon data reinforce conclusions from several other lines of evidence that the Newport Tower is pre-Colonial. However, they do not provide conclusive evidence of antiquity because the methods of mortar and plaster dating are not yet well developed and the sampling was insufficient for proper statistical analysis. Nevertheless, the data generated by Heinemeier and Jungner contain valuable information and we should be grateful for their pioneering attempt.”

He also states his belief that the samples were too few, compared to other uses of this dating method in S. Africa which used kilogram sized samples.

J. Huston McCulloch - "Some Reservations about the Newport Tower C-14 Dates", Midwestern Epigraphic Journal, Vol. 15, 2001 (source);

McCulloch's conclusion:

In the end HJ apparently use five dates - two dates on the questionable surface sample from the flue, the contradictory dates from the two preparations of sample 2 from pillar 7 (first fraction only), and the first fraction of sample 12, from pillar 6 - to date the Tower. These average to 222 BP ± 30, but they adjust this standard error upward by the above-mentioned 60% to obtain 48 years instead. The point estimate dendrocalibrates to 1665 AD, but also to approximately 1790, as well as 1940, by their Figure 2. The first branch of a 68% confidence interval (1 standard error) dendrocalibrates to 1651 - 1679 AD, while the first branch of a 95% confidence interval (2 standard errors) dendrocalibrates to 1635 AD - 1698 AD. Only the periods 1698 - 1720 and 1810 - 1920 lie outside the later branches of the 95% confidence interval.

Although HJ conclude from their results that the Newport Tower could not have been built before 1635, I regard this as inconclusive evidence against an earlier date for construction, for several reasons:

1. Two of the dates used were from a surface sample that may have represented a colonial or even later repair to an earlier structure.

2. The other samples used may have been biased by slow reaction and/or substitution from rainwater. The inappropriately excluded post-1945 date on one of the samples tested demonstrates that rainwater substitution is an important factor.

3. The Wanton-Lyman-Hazard House does nothing to demonstrate that the slow reaction and substitution biases are not a problem, because of the flatness of the dendrocalibration curve since 1665 AD on the one hand, and the fact that its sample was not exposed to the weather on the other hand.

4. The two Finnish churches do little to verify the Tower date, since the true dates of these churches are unknown, and since the samples were taken from the interior of the churches, where they were not exposed to the weather and potential carbonate substitution. Indeed, the fact that a few of the samples taken from them were still alkaline indicates that slow reaction may be a serious problem of mortar dating in general.

5. There are several inconsistencies in the results and unanswered questions that remain to be addressed.

To be sure, none of these considerations proves that the Newport Tower is any older than 1635. I am merely returning a provisional "Scotch verdict" of "not proven colonial."

Wolter, Scott, presentation to the NEARA, 2008. (source)

At a recent NEARA (New England Antiquities Research Association) conference held in Newport, RI (November 7-9, 2008), an announcement was made concerning the carbon-dating of mortar found during the Chronognostic Research Foundation's dig at the Newport Tower. Apparently a piece of shell (probably used to make the mortar) was found attached to the mortar. This sample was carbon-dated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and the date of 1450 plus or minus 30 years was obtained. We are awaiting the full report and more details, but obviously this is the kind of "hard science" needed to establish that the Tower predates Columbus.

The man who conducted the research, Jørgen Siemonsen, is not a trained scientist. He's a Danish business man and chairman of the Danish sponsored Committee for Research on Norse Activities in North America: AD 100 - 1500. What are his qualifications? So who is Jørgen Siemonsen? The History News Network calls him a "well known debunker of Viking frauds". He gives a series of lectures debunking myths of Vikings in America. Sounds like someone with an agenda. I could pull a Hanslune here and make an ad-hominem attack on the 1993 dating based on Siemonsen's lack of credentials or the fact he staked his career on disproving any Viking connections to it, but I prefer to evaluate evidence on it's own merit. The team who did the actual AMSc14 dating (HJ) were given samples to test. They were not part of the sample collection process (that was Siemonsen), and worked from what they were given. 30 samples were taken, 10 were tested, 7 rejected (reason?) and only 3 used to arrive at their conclusion the tower was built in 1680.

In other words, based on the research of those above, he took too few samples, took samples from the surface, or didn't understand the degree that contamination would affect even deep mortar. This speaks nothing of the fact the tower may have undergone extensive repairs, or rebuilds, during it's long history that would also introduce newer materials into an older structure.

Hans: >>>>From a excavation report "two possible wooden posts at the right distance from the columns to form an arcade (ambulatory)". <<<<<<

The ambulatory was suspected to be a part of the design of the tower, as Wolter presented. CRF then went looking for the evidence of the ambulatory and found it, two post remnants right where they would need to be to support the ambulatory. CRF did not randomly start digging, they were looking for evidence of this structure and found it.

Hans: Reconfirming something I noted. No sign of native american stone tools. Meaning it wasn't built in a time the NA were running around the area using stone tools, ie the colonial area when disease and war had greatly restricted their numbers AND changed their technology from stone to metal.

Your statement is confusing Hans. If there are no signs of Native American stone tools then they were never there in any numbers. Are you claiming they left (or were driven off) by Colonialists and took all their stone tools, buried in the ground, with them?

Unfortified. Norse experience and the experiences of later colonists showed that the NA could be down right hostile. Particularly after the colonists started being bad themselves. The Norse learned to fear the folk they collectively called the skrælingar, Innuits, Beothuks and other Indian tribes. The tower is unfortified (no wall or ditch) and itself is a death trap to a defender having no source of water and no defenses what-so-ever.

Again, your statement appears to confuse the issue, and you're also generalizing. There was also friendly relations between the early settlers and NA. The Vikings did have friendly contact with the M'ikmaq. They have a legend referring to them. Pritchard also notes the likelihood of their co-habitating with them during their forays into the Americas. You're applying the consensus they were always hostile. And we can't rule out any type of fortification, which most likely consisted of wooden palisades long gone, even the postal remnants noted by CRF were scarcely detectable.

The KSR and rune stones found in NE are gaining new found acceptance as authentic (the whole point of this thread). Unless you care to refute Wolter's scientific analysis. In fact, if you want to debunk Wolter then present one peer-reviewed paper (with links please) that refutes his finding. Even the runes, source of the contention the stone was a fabrication, have now been found in 14th c. artifacts and runes from Europe. The KSR is connected to the runes in New England, further attesting to its (and theirs) inter-connection. Or do you want to claim the rune stones must be forgeries because the Norse explorers didn't build fortifications in the area around them?

Well if it's such a consensus then there shouldn't be anyone in that field speaking out against the "orthodoxy".

Hans: ‘orthodoxy’ is general description of what you might call the opinion of archaeologists who do work in that area. Which of the sources you quote are members of this group?

I guess we should trust "some gal you know"

Hans: Nope just general information added to the pot on the Tower, observations from an expert.

more than the scientists, chemists, and researchers who've contributed a counterpoint to the "orthodoxy".

Hans: No, those were just observations, not comments from a peer reviewed paper. There comments are also not in peer review publications

A. de Bethune

Hans: I don’t know A. De Bethune, would you care to give us an idea of who he is and his experience with this type of work. Did he publish in a peer review publication?

Alan Watchman

Hans: So if he has such strong evidence why not publish it? Can you point to his publication in Geoarchaeology on this subject? What are his qualifications?

Jim Guthrie

Hans: Same comments as above – the advantage of AMS is that you can use small samples – kilogram size samples are not possible from the tower.

J. Huston McCulloch, Wolter, Scott

Hans: Same comments as above once we know their qualification we can go to looking at the entire documents they wrote and the context of the parts you quote.

So if these fine Gentleman are true scientists and have evidence to dismiss bad science why don’t they publish it?

The man who conducted the research, Jørgen Siemonsen, is not a trained scientist.

Hans???
From the Neara report – this is one of your own sources

www.neara.org...

Quote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In 1995 a Danish research team published a paper detailing their work on radiocarbon dating of the mortar in the Newport Tower (Heinemeier and Junger). This work was part of a larger effort to establish mortar dates on structures in Europe. The team was already experi-enced in mortar dating and all the intricacies of sample collection, storage, shipment, etc. They appear to have been both meticulous and thorough in their work, and here is what got done:

1. At various locations on the Tower they drilled 10 different holes, taking samples from different depths in the mortar.
2. They crushed and sieved the samples, keeping only the grains that were .0005 inch and smaller.
3. The samples were shipped to the Uni¬versity of Helsinki where they were prepared for AMS carbon dating. They were submerged in phosphoric acid in a vacuum. For each sample, the CO2 that boiled out in the first few minutes was collected and kept separate from the CO2 that came out for the remainder of the chemical reaction that continued.
4. The CO2 fractions were then sent to the University of Aarhus in Denmark where Accelerator Mass Spectrometry was performed.

They were not part of the sample collection process (that was Siemonsen), and worked from what they were given. 30 samples were taken, 10 were tested, 7 rejected (reason?) and only 3 used to arrive at their conclusion the tower was built in 1680.

Hans: The quote from your own source doesn't seem to agree with you.
I would suggest you read the link above it explains in detail how the samples were taken and shows on a graph which ones were kept and which ones were rejected-and the reason why

In other words, based on the research of those above, he took too few samples, took samples from the surface, or didn't understand the degree that contamination would affect even deep mortar.

Hans: If you would read the above you would find that the surface samples were rejected. Most of the one rejected either lacked enough material or were too modern

This speaks nothing of the fact the tower may have undergone extensive repairs, or rebuilds, during it's long history that would also introduce newer materials into an older structure.

Hans: Then if there were extensive repairs the comparative studies to older European structures are also invalid for the same reason. However the operative word is ‘may’.

The ambulatory was suspected to be a part of the design of the tower, as Wolter presented. CRF then went looking for the evidence of the ambulatory and found it,

Hans: Actually there own report states clearly that they didn’t find it, they found two ‘possible’ poles and in a third hole found nothing. Not quite enough to establish a structure. Its also been what, two years, so where is the rest of excavation?

two post remnants right where they would need to be to support the ambulatory.

Hans: If they are poles they could support anything else too, like the building scaffold. What was the diameter of the ‘possible’ poles?

CRF did not randomly start digging, they were looking for evidence of this structure and found it.

Hans: No they didn’t you need to carefully consider the word “possible” and the lack of a possible pole in their third excavation. I notice also that you are now accepting archaeological evidence while previously you rejected it. Again you'll need to take a firm stand, either archaeological evidence is used or not used. You cannot cherry pick.

Your statement is confusing Hans. If there are no signs of Native American stone tools then they were never there in any numbers.

Hans: No, they didn’t leave any which would have been the case if they’d had friendly or unfriendly relations with people at the tower. Or in the colonial area they would have had no stone tools having switched to metal

Again, your statement appears to confuse the issue, and you're also generalizing. There was also friendly relations between the early settlers and NA.

Hans: I seem to recall warfare and fortification

The Vikings did have friendly contact with the M'ikmaq.

Hans: Evidence for this? I find it interesting that you write that like its a known fact. It isn't

They have a legend referring to them. Pritchard also notes the likelihood of their co-habitating with them during their forays into the Americas.

Hans: Speculation is not evidence just speculation, evidence on which Pritchard based these claims?

You're applying the consensus they were always hostile.

Hans: So is the case the history of colonization is one of warfare - and the spread of massive death amongst NA when coming into contact with Europeans - any mention of that? What happened to the European unintentional bio war?

And we can't rule out any type of fortification, which most likely consisted of wooden palisades long gone, even the postal remnants noted by CRF were scarcely detectable.

Hans: Lines of heavy posts or that type of ground work leaves noticeable traces in the ground. I’m starting to suspect that the CRF found tree roots.

The KSR and rune stones found in NE are gaining new found acceptance as authentic (the whole point of this thread).

Hans: No there not, that is simply a fringe wish, nor does it have any effect on our discussion

Unless you care to refute Wolter's scientific analysis.

Hans: I’m unaware that he published a paper along with his commercial book. Could you please link to said paper please?

In fact, if you want to debunk Wolter then present one peer-reviewed paper (with links please) that refutes his finding.

Hans: As noted above where is the paper he wrote that one needs to debunk? Publicly released unscientific material doesn’t require a paper to debunk.

Or do you want to claim the rune stones must be forgeries because the Norse explorers didn't build fortifications in the area around them?

Hans: AFAIK these rune stones have not been found to be real- has something changed? Your going from the point that the runes are real, they aren’t accepted.