Dispute History

This website was created primarily for the open-minded reader curious about  the earliest Euro-American history. The dispute over the Newport Tower  has been raging for nearly two centuries, so our starting point must be to bring the reader up to speed on the broad outlines of the controversy and the polarization that has developed. There are a number of theories about who built the tower and why, some more viable than others. But we will limit ourselves to what we feel is the central question - is it  colonial or is it older?

Those who advance the theory that the Newport Tower was built by the colonial governor of Rhode Island, Benedict Arnold (grandfather of the  revolutionary traitor) have come to be known as the Arnoldists. They have found natural allies in the historians and archeologists who, in  knee-jerk fashion, automatically reject any and all evidence of  pre-Columbian European contact in North America. Their argument is  simply that the tower was not built by Indians and there was no-one  there before the colonials, so it had to have been built by the colonials. Their other great claim to scientific rigor in making this pronouncement is that in his will, Arnold made mention of “my stone  built windmill.” This conclusion is stamped as “case closed” despite the fact that there is virtually no evidence that Arnold built the Newport  Tower, or that it was built as a windmill, or even that it was ever used  as a windmill. Meanwhile, there is a wealth of evidence that the tower  stood long before the colonials arrived, that it could never have  functioned well as a windmill and that its architecture is entirely consistent with a much older structure.

What we will offer the reader is a guided tour through the history of the  dispute - through the archeology, the architecture and finally, the logic of whether or not this structure could have and would have been  built by 17th century colonials. We are not unbiased and we will not  pretend to be. There has been so much bias brought to bear in favor of the colonial theory over the last 150 years that the only way to provide the present day inquirer with any measure of balance is to unabashedly present the case against a colonial origin for the tower. We trust that the reader will avail himself of the many sources in support of the  colonial theory and draw his own conclusions.

It is recommended that the reader approach our site by taking each of the  major sections in order. Those sections are: 1) This, the dispute history, which will include the tower’s basic description and an overview of major studies done so far; 2) Archeology, which will examine in depth the various digs done over the years and the carbon dating of  materials; 3) The Tower Architecture, which will cover how the tower was built, what it took to build it, comparable structures around the world and its suitability to function as a windmill; 4) The Colonial Theory, which will discuss the social and economic reality of Newport in 1675, documentary and cartographical evidence regarding the tower, and the lack of evidence that it was successfully used as a windmill; and 5) Conclusions, which will invite the reader to consider a list of things one must believe in order to accept that the Newport Tower was built by colonials.

Location and Physical Description

Newport is located at the mouth of Narragansett Bay, about 60 miles southwest  of Cape Cod. The Newport Tower is in a small city park. It stands about  26 feet tall and its outer diameter is about 23 feet. The tower is not  perfectly round and this is an important point which will be discussed  later. Eight round pillars support the tower with arches between them. The outside of each pillar extends nearly a foot beyond the outside  wall. Inside there are post holes that held beams to support a floor.  There are also three windows and several peepholes. A fireplace is built in at the upper level with two flues.

The entire structure is a rough rubble stone construction that, if found in Europe, would immediately be assumed to be of medieval construction. But on the New England coast, it required an alternative and imaginative explanation. The tower was once covered in white stucco, both in and  out. it also had a top of some sort, and a recent dig shows evidence of  post holes about 8 feet from the outer wall that may have supported an  ambulatory or covered walkway around the tower.

A number of digs have been done which uncovered some tools from the  colonial period but nothing earlier. This, too, is leapt upon by the  colonial camp as evidence that the tower was built by colonials because  if it had been built earlier something would have been left behind. However, many sites are archeologically “sterile.” Especially sacred sites were cleansed by their builders of any rubble. And, there is much  evidence to suggest that the colonial tools were left behind when Arnold attempted to support the existing tower to withstand the stresses of a  windmill. The digs and their implications are covered in the next  section - Archeology.

webmaster@newporttower.org

[Home] [Dispute History] [Archeology] [Architecture] [Colonial Theory] [Conclusion] [Sitemap] [Untitled10]