300px|thumb|right|The Newport Tower. 

The '''Newport Tower''' (also known as: '''Round Tower''', '''Touro Tower''', '''Newport Stone Tower''', '''Old Stone Mill''', '''OSM''' and '''Mystery Tower''') is a round stone tower located in Touro Park in Newport, Rhode Island (USA).

The accepted explanation of its origin is that it was a mill built in the mid 17th century.  However, some historians, as well as amateur researchers, have claimed that it is several centuries older, thus being evidence of a pre-Columbian settlement in New England.

== Description ==
Touro Park is at the top of Mill Street, surrounded by a historical residential neighborhood on the hill above the waterfront tourist district.  The hill itself once furnished a view of the harbor and would have been visible to passing mariners in Narragansett Bay, but recent tree growth now obscures the view of the harbor from the top of the tower.

The Newport Tower is not exactly circular. From southeast to northwest the diameter reportedly measures 22 feet 2 inches, but when measured from east to west, the diameter lengthens to 23 feet 3 inches,<ref>Holand, Hjalmar R. "America 1355-1364" Duell, Sloan and Pearce (1946)</ref> although curiously, 19th century measurements of the interior gave an east-west dimension of 18 feet 4 inches, which was slightly shorter than the north-south measurement of 18 feet 9 inches,<ref>Rafn, C.C. [http://books.google.com/books?id=HQeHBsvIwG0C&dq=%22americas+opdagelse%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=JpbPP1kKZx&sig=Pz1zON0QX9-AWHys0TsFf08_tq8#PPT8,M1   "Americas Opdalgese i det Tiende Aarhundrede"] Copenhagen, Kvist (1841), via Google Books- accessed 2007-12-11</ref><ref name="habs">Mason, George C. [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/displayPhoto.pl?path=/pnp/habshaer/ri/ri0000/ri0078/photos&topImages=144480pr.jpg&topLinks=144480pv.jpg,144480pu.tif&title=2.%20%20Historic%20American%20Buildings%20Survey,%20drawings%20by%20George%20C.%20Mason%20Jr.,%20October%2010,%201878,%20Plans%20A-A,%20B-B,%204%20sections.%3cbr%3eHABS%20RI,3-NEWP,3-2&displayProfile=0 "Old Stone Mill at Newport, R.I." plans and sections], ''sadly not 100% accurate'' (10 Oct 1878), via Library of Congress- accessed 2007-12-11</ref> suggesting that the discrepancies may be due to the unevenness of the rubble masonry.  The tower has a height of 28 feet and an exterior width of 24 feet.  At one time the sides were coated with a smooth coating of white plaster, the remains of which can still be seen clinging to the outer walls.  It is supported by eight cylindrical columns that form stone arches, two of which are slightly broader than the other six.  Above the arches and inside the tower is evidence of a floor that once supported an interior chamber.  The walls are approximately 3 feet thick, and the diameter of the inner chamber is approximately 18 feet.  The chamber is penetrated by four windows on what used to be the main floor, and three very small ones at the upper level. Almost (but not quite directly) opposite the west window is a fireplace backed with grey stone and flanked by nooks.<ref name="habs"/><ref>[http://www.chronognostic.org/pdf/means_elevation.pdf "Unrolled" interior elevation of the Tower] ''about 1% missing at right end'', chronognostic.org- accessed 2007-12-11</ref>

A representation of the tower is featured prominently on the Seal and USS ''Newport''.
thumb|Nothing in early Norse architecture is similar, in size or appearance, to the Newport Tower.  However, this 17th Century windmill in Chesterton, England, shares many characteristics with the Newport Tower.

== Arnoldist theory ==

The prevailing explanation among historians for the origin of the structure is the "Arnoldist" explanation, namely that the tower was a mill constructed "from the ground up" in the middle or late 17th century by or for wealthy Benedict Arnold, great-grandfather of the Revolutionary War Benedict.  It is known that the location of the tower is at the upper end of the plot behind the now-demolished mansion built by Arnold, who moved into the area in 1661.  In 1677 Arnold mentions ''"my stone build Wind Mill"'' in his will: the site for his new burying-ground (which survives to this day) is between this mill and his mansion down near the harbour.  The phrase has therefore generally been accepted as referring to the Newport Tower, and is evidence the tower was once used as a windmill.

During the American Revolution, the tower was known to have been used by the Americans as a lookout, and by the British to store munitions.  A painting of the tower circa 1777 is here: [http://www.chronognostic.org/pdf/Tower_painting_1777x.pdf]

The mill theory is supported by the similarity of the tower's appearance to Chesterton Windmill, a 17th century mill in Warwickshire, England. There are several seventeenth century stone tower mills in North America<ref>Priamo, C ''Mills of Canada'', McGraw-Hill Ryerson 1976</ref>, which are similar in appearance to European examples of the same period (e.g. [http://inventairenf.cieq.ulaval.ca/inventaire/oneLieu.do?refLieu=790&returnForward=%2FoneTheme.do%3FrefTheme%3D19| Moulin de Grondines, Quebec (1674)]; [http://inventairenf.cieq.ulaval.ca/inventaire/oneLieu.do?refLieu=772&returnForward=%2FoneTheme.do%3FrefTheme%3D19| Moulin de Vincelotte, Quebec (1690)];  [http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/36761 early 17th century example 2 miles from Plymouth, Devon]).
 
Arnold's will is clear in its reference to a stone windmill. In  a document of 1741 it was described as "the old stone mill."  In this context, "old" is likely to refer to the mill having fallen into disuse, rather than any assumed antiquity of the structure.  In 1760 the Tower was used as a haymow, while in 1767 it was described as having been used as a powder store "some time past".  De Barres' plan of Newport, published in 1776, marks it as "Stone Wind Mill<ref>Buckland, J. S. P.  ''The Origins of the Tower Mill, with a note on Chesterton'' Proc. 11 Mills Research Conference, Mills Research Group [http://www.millsresearch.org.uk/](Essex, UK) 1994</ref>.

== Scientific investigation ==
=== Mortar comparisons, 1848 ===
In 1848, the Rev. Dr. Jackson of Newport collected samples of mortar from the mill and some of the oldest known structures in the town, including the very early Bull house (c1640), the Easton house (1642-3), other houses, and the tombs of Governor Arnold and his wife.  Under detailed examination, all proved to be of very similar composition, "composed of shell lime, sand, and gravel".<ref>Peterson, Edward [http://books.google.com/books?id=8HYFAAAAQAAJ&dq=peterson+%22history+of+rhode+island%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=a2d3ZWauEw&sig=IL2qyUtw6Y3hkw55cdQzLtCE3Yc#PPA171,M1 "History of Rhode Island and Newport"] New York, John S. Taylor (1853), via Google Books- accessed 2007-12-11</ref>

=== The Godfrey excavations ===

The city of Newport finally gave permission for a scientific investigation of the site by the Society for American Archaeology in 1948.  The investigation was directed by Hugh Henken of Harvard University, with the field work headed by William S. Godfrey.  As part of the investigation, a one-metre wide trench was dug from the tower's exterior through the interior.  The result, published in Godfrey's 1951 Ph.D. dissertation, concluded that all the artifacts discovered were from the 17th century, thus supporting the Arnoldist camp.

Godfrey's report, however, demonstrates his bias towards the "Arnoldist" theory from the first chapter: "...he [Benedict Arnold] purchased some of his Newport property, specifically the section on which he later built his house and the stone mill, the year before he moved...At some period before 1677 Arnold built the Old Stone Mill."<ref>Godfrey, ''Digging a Tower and Laying a Ghost'',p.5</ref>  The bulk of Godfrey's report is not concerned so much with the actual archeology of his digs, but rather by personal attacks on those who are proponents of opposing views referring to them as "crackpots", "pygmies", "zealots", or "the lunatic fringe"<ref>Godfrey, ''Digging a Tower and Laying a Ghost'',pp.22,24,28,37</ref>.  Godfrey admits in the final paragraph that, "This study has strayed far from 'pure' archeology."<ref>Godfrey, ''Digging a Tower and Laying a Ghost'',p.186</ref>  According to James P. Whittal, Jr. of the Early Sites Research Society, who worked on the tower for over twenty-five years, no artifacts recovered by Godfrey can lead to a firm conclusion as to the date or the origin of the structure.<ref>Whittal, "The Newport Stone Tower", ESRS 1995-6</ref>  

Interestingly, in Godfrey's report, he dismisses the Chesterton Mill theory,<ref>Godfrey, ''Digging a Tower and Laying a Ghost'',p.17,18</ref>  claiming that "On the other hand, there is very little probability that Benedict built his Tower as a mill...the tower mill form, as contrasted to the smock, post and composite forms, was not common in England until the beginning of the 18th century,...."<ref>Godfrey, ''Digging a Tower and Laying a Ghost'',p.177</ref> Though this reflects the orthodox view of the use of windmills (and the original purpose of Chesterton Windmill) prevailing at the time of Godfrey's report, as noted below this aspect of Godfrey's work has been overtaken by later research.

=== Carbon-14 dating ===

In 1992, mortar supported a construction date between 1635 and 1698.  However, the full range of results from the samples taken tested from between 1410 to 1930.  The procedures and results of the testing conducted by a team of researches from Denmark and Finland have been condemned by several scientists including analytical chemist James L. Guthrie, Dr. Alan Watchman of Data-Roche Watchman, Inc., and Professor Andre J. de Bethune, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Boston College and a close colleague of Professor Willard F. Libby, who originally devised carbon dating.  These objections are on several grounds including small number of samples tested, poor precision revealed by the only test run in duplicate, unwarranted assumption that all mortar and plaster on the tower would be of the same age despite known episodes of repair and reinforcement, and poor control procedure to account for absorption of modern carbon dioxide into the mortar.  Dr. Alan Watchman, a geological dating expert of Data-Roche Watchman, notes that taking consideration for diffusion of carbon dioxide would give a calibrated age for the more acid resistant carbon in the mortar to be closer to around 1400 A.D.<ref>Wallace-Murphy and Hopkins, "Templars in America" p. 154-156</ref>

=== The Chronognostic Research Foundation excavations and theory ===

From October 15 2006 to November 15 2006 and October and November 2007, the [http://www.chronognostic.org/ Chronognostic Research Foundation], an Arizona based research firm, provided the funds necessary for Gray & Pape, Inc., a cultural resource consulting firm, to conduct an archaeological investigation of the anomalies discovered in Touro Park during geophysical studies of the past three years. These anomalies were tested in the excavation plan created by Gray and Pape. Multiple levels of fill and the existence of earlier gravel paths from various decades in the 19th and 20th centuries were uncovered. While no artifacts or deposits relating to the building of the tower were found during these excavations, the project has uncovered numerous interesting aspects of the park during its existence, especially the change in landscape and what sorts of events were transpiring there. This is the first time in nearly 60 years that an archaeological excavation has taken place in Touro Park. The primary goal of this research project was to answer the question: Who built the Newport Tower? Press reports following the first digging season<ref>Flynn, Sean [http://www.newportdailynews.com/articles/2006/11/24/news/news4.txt "Touro Park dig comes up empty"] Newport Daily News (24 Nov 2006) ''subscription'',  accessed 2006-11-30</ref> clearly show that the earliest date of any one of the many artifacts excavated was 17th century.

At the end of the second digging season, in November 2007, Janet Barstad, president of the Chronognostic Foundation, surprised Newport city councillors by refocusing attention on the astronomical alignments (discussed below) as evidence for a medieval date of construction, on the basis that the archaeological excavations had not found anything conclusively related to the tower.<ref>[http://www.newportdailynews.com/articles/2007/11/20/news/news5.txt report of Barstad's speech] Newport Daily News (20 Nov 2007) ''subscription'', accessed 21 November 2007</ref> However, the key claim, that astronomical alignments in buildings to help calculate religious festival dates were effectively abandoned once almanacs started to be printed in the late Middle Ages<ref>[http://www.chronognostic.org/over_touro_park.html Chronognostic web page explaining the dating by astronomical alignments]- accessed 2007-12-20</ref> is untrue. Solar Easter calculators built into churches were particularly fashionable between about 1650 and 1750,<ref>Broad, William J. [http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/101999sci-astronomy-cathedrals.html "How the Church Aided <nowiki>'</nowiki>Heretical<nowiki>'</nowiki> Astronomy"] New York Times (19 October 1999)</ref> perhaps the best-known example today being the one installed in the church of St. Sulpice, Paris, in 1727.

== Alternative hypotheses ==

Supporters of alternative theories have devoted a great deal of energy to dismissing the evidence for a seventeenth century date of construction. 
350px|thumb|right|The Newport Tower, ''circa'' 1894 
===Early Norse theory===

The most popular alternative explanation for the existence of the tower, and the only one that has been seriously entertained by a handful of professional archaeologists, is that it was built by Norse explorations of North America, particularly in regard to the actual location of Vinland.

The idea of a Norse origin of the tower was first proposed in 1837 by Danish archaeologist Carl Christian Rafn in his book ''Antiquitates Americanæ'', which was partly based on his research of the inscriptions on the Dighton Rock near the mouth of the Taunton River. Rafn's popularization of the theory led to a flurry of interest and "proofs" of Norse settlement in the area <ref>[http://www.neara.org/CARLSON/newporttower.htm N.E.A.R.A. essay by S. Carlson]</ref>.

The Norse theory was also advocated by Phillip Ainsworth Means.  Means, an archaeologist whose speciality was neither mills nor colonial North America, but Latin America, attempted to compile all known evidence surrounding the tower to date in his (at the time) exhaustive 1942 book ''The Newport Tower''. Means, a supporter of the Norse theory, dismissed the theory that Arnold built the tower "from the ground up." 

Much of the evidence Means used to dismiss the Arnold / windmill theory has, however, since been shown to be mistaken. In particular, he was dismissive of the similarities with the Chesterton windmill in England because his correspondent, the English mill authority Rex Wailes, believed Chesterton to have been built as an observatory and only converted to a windmill long after Arnold's time. Subsequent research proves that Chesterton was, in fact, built as a windmill in 1632-3, the original building accounts, including payments for sailcloths, having been traced since Wailes' death in 1986.<ref>[http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/B4E46C93E89E769F802571020053A992 Warwickshire County Council]</ref>.  

The claim that Arnold was born in Leamington, Warwickshire, only a few miles from Chesterton, was based on a spelling problem- the correct place is Limington in Somerset, about 150 miles away. This is of little account as '''all''' the colonists would have to have come from somewhere out of reach of Chesterton for the mill there to have had no possible influence. Chesterton windmill stands, widely visible, within half a mile of one of the main southwest - northeast roads of early modern Britain (which also runs close to Limington) and it is entirely plausible that Arnold, or another colonist in a position to influence the design of his "stone built windmill", would have seen it.

Means asserted that fireplaces would not be present in a windmill because of the fire risk. This can be disproved by examining numerous windmills in England and continental Europe. <ref>Derek Ogden, "Fireplaces Are Common in Tower Windmills," 'Newport Daily News', 23-24 March 1996.</ref>. Several have fireplaces aligned with windows and it is not unusual to find a double flue exiting out of the wall, generally with the exits aligned parallel to the prevailing wind to improve the updraft on a relatively short flue (eg Upholland Windmill, Lancashire, where the fireplace is at second floor (Br Eng = First floor) level, and the doors and windows are aligned to the cardinal points of the compass, or Much Wenlock windmill, Shropshire, which has double flues of uncertain purpose rising from the middle floor level <ref>[http://www.muchwenlockguide.info/windmill-trust/wt-details.shtml Much Wenlock Windmill Trust]</ref>). A conventional chimney could not be used as it would foul the turning cap and sails of the windmill.

Detractors also claim:

*The archaeological excavations are inconclusive and prove only that the tower was used in the 17th century and not necessarily constructed at that time. 

:Though this must be accepted as a distant possibility, no excavation has found any evidence to support the idea that the Tower existed at an earlier date.  The absence of any pre-colonial artifacts at all, some argue, is strong evidence that the Tower is not pre-colonial as there could not have been a complete removal of all pre-colonial artifacts during the seventeenth century. 

*The colonial artifacts found were minimal with no evidence of, for example, a lime kiln which would have been necessary to make mortar.

:It is not necessarily the case that a lime kiln would have been on the same site as the Tower, while the extent of the excavations so far carried out cannot be said to have covered more than a tiny fraction of the area of seventeenth century Newport. 

* Removal of topsoil from the area, which is known to have occurred, removed artifacts which could provide evidence for earlier uses of the site.

:Nineteenth century landscaping (the cause of the removal of topsoil) could not have been thorough enough to remove all evidence of previous activity. It is a norm of archaeological stratification that early layers underly later ones, so that if only seventeenth century artifacts are found after a thorough excavation, there was likely no significant activity in the area before that date. 

*The builders did not have a settlement in the area and removed tools and materials to "cleanse" the site for religious reasons.

:Evidence for the dating of ritual sites throughout the world tends to rely on non-religious artifacts being left behind by their builders. In any case, none of the alternative theories postulates a sacred use of a sort for which ritual purification has any parallels (such site clearance is not known in European medieval contexts, for example).

*The radiocarbon dating is inconclusive because the mortar might have been added at a date much later than the tower's construction.

thumb|200px|Mühle in Newportthumb|200px|Mühle in Newport, InnenansichtDie '''Newport Mill''' (oder auch '''Newport Tower''') ist ein aus Bruchsteinen errichtetes Bauwerk im Touro Park in Newport im US-Bundesstaat Rhode Island. Das Gebäude hat zu zahlreichen, teilweise abstrusen Spekulationen über seine Erbauer Anlass gegeben.

== Baubeschreibung ==

Der Turm steht auf einer Anhöhe oberhalb des Hafens von Newport inmitten eines kleinen Parks an der mit historischen Gebäuden aus der Kolonialzeit bestandenen ''Bellevue Avenue''. Eine Informationstafel am Parkeingang enthält eine kurze Beschreibung mit dem Hinweis, dass es sich um eine historische Mühle aus dem 17. Jahrhundert handelt.

Heute sind nur noch die Außenmauern des Gebäudes erhalten. Der runde Turm ist aus weitgehend naturbelassenen und unbearbeiteten Bruchsteinen der näheren Umgebung errichtet. Er ist etwa 8,5 Meter hoch und misst außen ca. 7 Meter im Durchmesser, die Wände sind etwa einen Meter dick. Aus Aussparungen im Mauerwerk für eine Holzbalkendecke im Innern kann man schließen, dass das Gebäude ursprünglich zwei Stockwerke aufwies. Das untere Stockwerk ist mit acht offenen Rundbögen als Arkade ausgebildet. Sie wird von gemauerten, etwa 3,5 m hohen Rundsäulen gestützt. Darüber befand sich vormals eine offenbar aus Holz errichtete Balkenauflage mit einem ebenfalls hölzernen Fußboden. Reste davon sind nicht mehr erhalten. Im oberen Stockwerk befindet sich ein einfaches, rechteckiges Fenster. An der Innenwand sind ein offener Kamin sowie mehrere gemauerte Nischen zu erkennen. Das Fenster ist so ausgerichtet, dass man ursprünglich einen guten Überblick über die Narragansett Bay hatte, der heute jedoch durch hohe Bäume verdeckt ist.

== Die Spekulationen ==

Es gibt zahlreiche, mehr oder minder seriöse Spekulationen, wer das geheimnisvolle Bauwerk errichtet haben könnte. Nachfolgend werden einige davon – ohne deren Seriosität zu werten - kurz erwähnt:

=== Wikinger ===

Der dänische Archäologe und Østerlas Kirke auf Bornholm, der Rundkirche in Orphir auf Mainland (Orkney), der Temple Church in London u. a.

=== Iren ===

Der irische Mönch Brendan soll im 6. Jahrhundert mit zwölf Begleitern von Irland aus über verschiedene Inseln, die als Pri-Reis-Karte. Die Theorie wurde von Rundtürmen hin.

=== Portugiesen ===

Der Psychologe Edmund Burke Delabarre (1863 – 1945) von der Brown University in Providence (Rhode Island) kam aufgrund von Untersuchungen des Dighton Rock, einem im Taunton River bei Berkley (Massachusetts) aufgefundenen, 40 Tonnen schweren Fels mit mysteriösen Inschriften, zur der Ansicht, der Turm sei von dem portugiesischen Kapitän Miguel Corte-Real (1450 – 1502) als Beobachtungs- und Signalturm errichtet worden.

=== Chinesen ===

Der britische Schriftsteller und ehemalige U-Boot-Kapitän Admirälen Zhou Wen, Zhou Man und Hong Bao errichtet worden, die den amerikanischen Kontinent bereits vor Christoph Columbus entdeckt hätten.