 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / November 2007A question about archaeolgical sterility of sites with a religious connection.
Quite coincidentally, I've just received this email from Scott Wolter, which I am publishing with his permission. Scott's discussion with Mark Holley raises an interesting point about which I would like to hear from archaeologists with relevant experience. Begin quote ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I'm forwarding a portion of the text from my new book that is currently being reviewed. You're welcome to share this with your pals, just tell them where it came from. I'm sure they'll be glad to sharpen their spears for another chance to try to skewer me! There are a couple of additional interesting aspects related to the [Newport] Tower that came to light in September of 2007. I had an interesting conversation with a Ph.D. underwater archaeologist from Traverse City, Michigan, who had worked on standing stone sites on the Island of Mull, in Western Scotland. Dr. Mark Holley lamented how after spending years performing excavations at the standing stone sites, there was nothing to find. The only thing his crew did find were, "White quartz chips scattered everywhere throughout the site". He then said, "The reason these sites are devoid of artifacts, is because the people who built them considered these sites sacred, and kept them in pristine condition". When our conversation turned to the Newport Tower, and the likelihood that it served among other things as a religious altar to the builders, Mark smiled and said, "Well, if this is a religious site, in all likelihood it will be sterile archaeologically". Dr. Holley also commented on the fireplace in the Tower after viewing several photographs that I showed him. He said, "That is the same fireplace architecture as I've seen in medieval castles in Scotland". The archaeological dig performed by researchers Jan and Ron Barstad, in October of 2006, yielded nothing older than Colonial-aged artifacts. They are scheduled to perform another dig in October of 2007. In light of Dr. Holley's comments and experience, if they fail to find artifacts or evidence of a pre-Colonial date, that lack of evidence may be consistent with a medieval origin after all! Dr. Holley also said something else to me that I found very prophetic when we talked about the puzzling attitude of most archaeologists in North America. He said, "Archaeologist in North America look at the Atlantic Ocean as this vast, impenetrable barrier. Archaeologists in Scotland look at the Atlantic as a superhighway." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ End quote Is it indeed correct to say "if this is a religious site, in all likelihood it will be sterile archaeologically"? I would be interested to hear the comments of practicising archaeologists with relevant knowledge and experience. Eric Stevens > Quite coincidentally, I've just received this email from Scott > Wolter, [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > to hear the comments of practicising archaeologists with relevant > knowledge and experience. If it was a religious site, how would we know if the site was sterile?  Signaturep.a. >> Quite coincidentally, I've just received this email from Scott >> Wolter, [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > If it was a religious site, how would we know > if the site was sterile? BTW, Mark W Holley knws a lot about the Crannoghs of Islay, but I found no indication he ever was involved archaeological work on sacred sites or standing stones. >BTW, Mark W Holley knws a lot about the >Crannoghs of Islay, but I found no indication >he ever was involved archaeological work on >sacred sites or standing stones. Apparently he once was but switched to marine archaeology as he found it more interesting. Eric Stevens Eric Stevens a écrit dans le message <8fdmk3lntpgrp3i0bei18pvl0ciah4c20a@4ax.com>... >>BTW, Mark W Holley knws a lot about the >>Crannoghs of Islay, but I found no indication [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Eric Stevens Don't know the nature of the Towers mortar but here is a tidbit to look at. For the dating of lime mortar to have any meaning at all the lime binding material must be completely brunt (unlikely in homemade or crude mortars) and completely free of limestone or carbonate aggregates (highly unlikely) http://www.carbon14.pl/geo/pdf/geo_24/Geo24_15.pdf http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/carbon.htm JL > Don't know the nature of the Towers mortar but here is a tidbit to look at. > > For the dating of lime mortar to have any meaning at all the lime binding > material must be completely brunt > (unlikely in homemade or crude mortars) and completely free of limestone or > carbonate aggregates (highly unlikely) But the ancient carbon from the limestone would make it appear older, not younger. Taking the unburnt limestone into account, the Newport Tower could have been built no earlier than 1976. Or maybe somebody got resurrected in there (that causes a big burst of radiation that changes carbon dating). JS sprocket a écrit dans le message ... >> Don't know the nature of the Towers mortar but here is a tidbit to look at. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >JS You are correct. That is why I question the reported carbon 14 dating. If done as stated it would likely have returned a much older date than given if the sample was from the original mortar. I however have not seen any analysis of the sample taken or any actual results of the carbon 14 test or any indication of the procedure used. To have much validity it would have to have been conducted in a fashion similar to the one given in http://www.carbon14.pl/geo/pdf/geo_24/Geo24_15.pdf. JL > sprocket a écrit dans le message ... >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > JL The mortar used for the tower seems to have been made from sea-shells rather than limestone - apparently heaps of them were plentiful thanks to generations of natives and immigrants feasting on them. So the earliest date you'd expect to get using C14 would be the date the shell-fish got eaten. Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ Whiskers a écrit dans le message <20071127160833.1CEB.2.NOFFLE@ID-107770.user.individual.net>... >> sprocket a écrit dans le message ... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >-- Whiskers >-- ~~~~~~~~~~ Where do you get the idea that the mortar was made from sea-shells from organisms living in colonial times ? I believe the mortar was composed of sand , fine gravel and lime likely derived from fossiliferous limestone. Whether the sand was limey or not I don't know. The range of dates found was from around 1400 to 1970 from the actual results of the carbon 14 test . While I don't subscribe to the theory that the Norse built the Tower. I can not discount the possibility that it was of medieval origin. I just think that to be unlikely. JL JL > Whiskers a écrit dans le message > <20071127160833.1CEB.2.NOF...@ID-107770.user.individual.net>... [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > JL All of these mention shells being part of the composition of the mortar http://www.unexplainedearth.com/newport.php http://www.neara.org/CARLSON/newporttower.htm http://www.dightonrock.com/portuguese_tower_of_newport.htm http://www.phys.au.dk/ams/hale-jh-2003(jan17)datingancientmortar@.pdf > Whiskers a écrit dans le message > <20071127160833.1CEB.2.NOFFLE@ID-107770.user.individual.net>... >>> sprocket a écrit dans le message ... [...] >>> You are correct. That is why I question the reported carbon 14 dating. If >>> done as stated it would likely have returned a much older date than given if [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Where do you get the idea that the mortar was made from sea-shells from > organisms living in colonial times ? Where do you get the idea that I said anything about when the shell-fish were eaten? (It probably took centuries of shell-fish picnics to accumulate the number of shells that would have been required - but apparently there had been such picnics for centuries, so the shell-heaps were laying there waiting to be used). > I believe the mortar was composed > of sand , fine gravel and lime likely derived from fossiliferous limestone. > Whether the > sand was limey or not I don't know. <http://www.neara.org/CARLSON/newporttower.htm> [...] Here we have a partial materials list; just enough to get started: Stone: Good assortment of granite fieldstones, free from weathering cracks or other defects. About 450 tons. Lime: Good quality tabby lime from selected clam or other approved shell heaps. About 5 tons and one ton additional for the parging. Sand: Hauled and washed in good clear running fresh water and dried. About 38 tons and eight tons for the parging. Water: Clear fresh water: About 1750 gallons. Wood: Healthy chestnut or oak trees about five feet around and sixty feet tall: Four good trees. Pine for staging centering and miscellaneous carpentry three feet around: three tall trees: Sundry hardwoods for vessels and tools. [...] If limestone was used, there has to be a source nearby - one that was easier to exploit than heaps of old shells on the beach. If the local rocks are granite, then presumably the local sand is too. Notice that the description on that page of how the job was probably done, makes no mention or assumptions about /when/ it was done; it takes the building that is there now and finds the local resources that probably went into building it. In terms of European building techniques, all that can be said of the Newport Tower is that it probably isn't pre-Roman and looks as though it was built by someone familiar with mortared 'free-stone' buildings and simple arches. That would include any British 'jobbing builder' and probably a good few agricultural labourers any time from the tenth century up till now - and possibly earlier if it was built by 'Romans' or 'Egyptians' or 'Greeks'. > The range of dates found was from around 1400 to 1970 from the actual > results of the carbon 14 test . > While I don't subscribe to the theory that the > Norse built the Tower. I can not discount the possibility that it was of > medieval origin. I just think that to be unlikely. I too think a 'pre-colonial' date is very improbable. It's unfortunate that no timbers remain; they could be dated using both carbon-14 and dendrochronology. Of course, someone would be sure to insist that 17th century timbers had been installed in a much older structure ... Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ >> sprocket a écrit dans le message ... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >date you'd expect to get using C14 would be the date the shell-fish got >eaten. Nope. Even earlier than that. The date that the C in the shells entered the marine system in which the shells were formed. This 'reservoir' effect typically adds ~400 years to the actual age of the shells. Eric Stevens >>> sprocket a écrit dans le message ... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > 'reservoir' effect typically adds ~400 years to the actual age of the > shells. So passing through the animal's body doesn't re-set the C14 clock the way it does with eg teeth or bone? Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> sprocket a écrit dans le message ... >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >So passing through the animal's body doesn't re-set the C14 clock the way >it does with eg teeth or bone? It's basically dependent on the rate of radioactive decomposition. This is independent of chemistry. I don't see how/why the c14 clock should be reset with eg teeth or bone. Could you expand on this? Eric Stevens >>>>> sprocket a écrit dans le message ... [...] >>>>The mortar used for the tower seems to have been made from sea-shells >>>>rather than limestone - apparently heaps of them were plentiful thanks to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > This is independent of chemistry. I don't see how/why the c14 clock > should be reset with eg teeth or bone. Could you expand on this? The principal behind using carbon isotopes to estimate the date of death of a living organism, is that the proportion of the unstable C14 to the stable C12 will be set by the proportions of those two isotopes in the environment of the organism while alive; once dead, no more carbon of any sort will be absorbed from the environment and incorporated into the body. Meanwhile, the C14 will 'decay' at a steady rate into C12, thus reducing the proportion of C14 to C12 in the remains and creating a 'clock' from which the time of death can be estimated - if you assume or know what the proportion of C14 to C12 was in the organism's environment while it was alive. Trying to use the same measurement on artificially manufactured material is, I think, rather less useful. You might assume that the 'cooking' of the seashells to make lime will drive out all the organically-incorporated carbon and that any carbon in the finished mortar was absorbed from the atmosphere while the mortar was being made, but I think that is a very big assumption. If there are intact shell fragments in the mortar, then what you get from them will be a distorted-by-fire reading of the C14 in the shells used to make the mortar, and if you trust that then the date you get would be for 'some time between the death of the oyster and the making of the lime', which might be interpreted as providing a very broad range of dates for the 'probable' building of the tower. But of course, the oyster may have become a victim of human hunger many centuries before its shell was used to make lime. What you really have is an indication of how long people have been eating the local oysters, not when they started building stone towers. Not that I'm any sort of expert in 'carbon dating'. Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>> sprocket a écrit dans le message ... > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >proportion of C14 to C12 was in the organism's environment while it was >alive. All that is straight forward but how is the carbon clock reset with teeth or bone? >Trying to use the same measurement on artificially manufactured material >is, I think, rather less useful. You might assume that the 'cooking' of >the seashells to make lime will drive out all the organically-incorporated >carbon and that any carbon in the finished mortar was absorbed from the >atmosphere while the mortar was being made, but I think that is a very big >assumption. It's known that that is not true. The process for dating mortar entails freeing the carbon with a dilute acid which reacts s.l.o.w.l.y to produce CO2. The more accessible new CaCO3 in the porous mortar will be reached and react before the acid reaches the old CaCO3 buried in the dense structure of the unburned lime. By dating only the early fraction of the CO2 stream the intention is that one is primarily dating C which entered the mortar since the time that it was made. There are several problems with this including that the efficacy of the gas separation between old and new cannot be confirmed. Another problem is that it takes many years for atmospheric CO2 to penetrate mortar. Mortar samples taken from near the surface risk contamination with CO2 dissolved in rainwater and mortar at depth may have finally set by reacting with CO2 say 100 years after the mortar was placed. Both these sources of error cause the true age to be underestimated. >If there are intact shell fragments in the mortar, then what you get from >them will be a distorted-by-fire reading of the C14 in the shells used to >make the mortar, and if you trust that then the date you get would be for >'some time between the death of the oyster and the making of the lime', Oh no. The CO2 picked up by the oyster may have entered the marine cycle several centuries before it met the oyster. The exact time lag varies from place to place. >which might be interpreted as providing a very broad range of dates for the >'probable' building of the tower. But of course, the oyster may have >become a victim of human hunger many centuries before its shell was used to >make lime. That too. >What you really have is an indication of how long people have >been eating the local oysters, not when they started building stone towers. The theory is that the C you are dating is the C which entered the mortar once it was made. The reaction is CaO + CO2 -> CaCO3 CaO is burned lime CO2 is atmospheric carbon dioxide. CaCO3 is calcium carbonate - lime - which is what one started off with in the oyster shell or whatever. >Not that I'm any sort of expert in 'carbon dating'. Eric Stevens >>>>>>> sprocket a écrit dans le message ... >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > All that is straight forward but how is the carbon clock reset with > teeth or bone? The presence of C14 in the environment is the result of radiation from the sun acting on the atmosphere. Once the carbon has been absorbed by an organism, the sun's radiation ceases to turn stable C12 into unstable C14 so the C14 present in the organism's body will not be replaced as it decays. That is the starting of the C14 clock. I can see that the proportion of C14 to C12 in a marine environment may well differ from that in the air at the same time, but I think the same principle applies. Carbon in the sea and available for absorption by organisms is there either directly by solution from the air, or from other living organisms. >>Trying to use the same measurement on artificially manufactured material >>is, I think, rather less useful. You might assume that the 'cooking' of [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > set by reacting with CO2 say 100 years after the mortar was placed. > Both these sources of error cause the true age to be underestimated. The technique sounds like a 'pretty long shot' to me. >>If there are intact shell fragments in the mortar, then what you get from >>them will be a distorted-by-fire reading of the C14 in the shells used to [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> >>Not that I'm any sort of expert in 'carbon dating'. Such a theory would seem to call for extensive experiment to prove and tune the technique before it can give any useful results. There are too many variables and unknowns. Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ > The presence of C14 in the environment is the result of radiation from the > sun acting on the atmosphere. Once the carbon has been absorbed by an > organism, the sun's radiation ceases to turn stable C12 into unstable C14 > so the C14 present in the organism's body will not be replaced as it > decays. That is the starting of the C14 clock. It's actually atmospheric nitrogen 14 (ordinary nitrogen) that gets changed to carbon 14. This happens in the upper atmosphere, and the resulting carbon 14 difuses down to ground level. Plants incorporate it via photosynthesis. Oysters (say) eat the plants (plankton), and extract the carbon (all of it, 12 and 14 and any other isotopes if present) to do whatever they use carbon for- mostly respiration, some tissue or shell building. > I can see that the proportion of C14 to C12 in a marine environment may > well differ from that in the air at the same time, but I think the same > principle applies. Carbon in the sea and available for absorption by > organisms is there either directly by solution from the air, or from other > living organisms. >> CaO + CO2 -> CaCO3 >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > tune the technique before it can give any useful results. There are too > many variables and unknowns. The main argument is that if the shells are not totally cooked, some of the original carbon remains. In this case the reaction is 99CaO+CaC*O3 +100CO2 -> CaC*O3 + 99CaCO3 for lime with 1% unburnt source material. where the asterisk indicates carbon originating from the shells. The mortar contains both carbon from the atmosphere, and that from the shells. You can get a similar effect by using ancient wood or coal in the firing process, which could leave some of its carbon behind if not completely consumed. If the shells are from much older deposits, say ancient middens, they will contain a lower proportion of carbon 12, thus making the mortar appear older than it actually is. The problem is much exacerbated with lime made from limestone, which contains for practical purposes no carbon 12 at all. Note that there is no way readily available of accidentally increasiung the proportion of carbon 12- the error is always on the old side. The only way of getting a false newer dating is by using mortar which is not part of the original build. JS >> The presence of C14 in the environment is the result of radiation from the >> sun acting on the atmosphere. Once the carbon has been absorbed by an [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > do whatever they use carbon for- mostly respiration, some tissue or > shell building. Interesting; thanks :)) >> I can see that the proportion of C14 to C12 in a marine environment may >> well differ from that in the air at the same time, but I think the same [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > If the shells are from much older deposits, say ancient middens, they > will contain a lower proportion of carbon 12, Don't you mean a lower proportion of C14? > thus making the mortar > appear older than it actually is. The problem is much exacerbated with [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > JS Wouldn't rain containing dissolved CO2 introduce 'fresh' C14 into a structure exposed to the weather? Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ >> Don't know the nature of the Towers mortar but here is a tidbit to look at. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >resurrected in there (that causes a big burst of radiation that changes >carbon dating). Sea shells do have older carbon and this has to be separated from the newer carbon from the time of lime burning. The tests carried out by Heinemeir and Jungner (H&J) separated the old from the new carbon on the basis of the chemical reactivity of the two forms of calcium carbonate. The more dense fossil carbonate reacts more slowly with acid than does the relatively porous carbonate of the mortar. H&J dated both the first and the last parts of the gas stream obtained from the reaction of acid with the sample. The older part arriving later than from the new carbonate. The radiocarbon dates from the old fraction mainly fell in the 15th century while the newer fraction fell in the 17th. Then there is the question of calibration of these dates. It is likely the radiocarbon dates would yield different calibrated dates if done with todays calibration data. What effect this would have on the claimed dates is not known to me. Eric Stevens >Eric Stevens a écrit dans le message ><8fdmk3lntpgrp3i0bei18pvl0ciah4c20a@4ax.com>... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >http://www.carbon14.pl/geo/pdf/geo_24/Geo24_15.pdf I think they are dealing with the problem limestone in the mortar. This is a problem which isn't present in the mortar of the Newport Tower, although the related problem of unburned sea shells is present. >http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/carbon.htm > > JL Eric Stevens > Is it indeed correct to say "if this is a religious site, in all > likelihood it will be sterile archaeologically"? I would be interested > to hear the comments of practicising archaeologists with relevant > knowledge and experience. Hold on a minute. Even disregarding the inconvenient fact that some very well-known megalithic religious sites (Stonehenge, Callanish etc.) are far from "sterile archaeologically", there's the problem of the time and culture gap. By the Norse theory, the Newport Tower has to be a product of Scandinavian culture of the Middle Ages. Disregarding also the tendency of Scandinavians to build in wood unless (as in Greenland) it was not sensible to do so, you (and/or Scott Wolter) probably need to be checking the archaeological sterility of Scandinavian church sites, not Scottish megalithic ones. David B. >> Is it indeed correct to say "if this is a religious site, in all >> likelihood it will be sterile archaeologically"? I would be [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > David B. Yes, two very good points. It is amazing how they every time come up with an unproven and unprovable explanation for the absence of any evidence for their believe. The NT is build by medieval norse, no matter what. Signaturep.a. > >> Is it indeed correct to say "if this is a religious site, in all > >> likelihood it will be sterile archaeologically"? I would be [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > -- > p.a. May I point out that " Newport today is home to more original colonial wooden houses than any city in America." The wood was there. Colonial Newport Style Most people think of Newport as part of the gilded age of Victorian living; a place where Americas "royalty," its wealthiest families, built, lived and lavishly decorated their "summer cottages." Long before the gilded age, Newport was a thriving colonial seaport that in the early 1700's rivaled New York and Boston as a port. Reaping the rewards of the maritime trade, colonial Newport built a striking city of wooden houses close to harbor wharves. Newport today is home to more original colonial wooden houses than any city in America. http://www.melvillehouse.com/aboutus.html >> "David B" <tronospamc...@tesco.net> wrote in message >>> Even disregarding the inconvenient fact that some [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > May I point out that " Newport today is home to more original > colonial wooden houses than any city in America." The wood was there. Yup, absolutely. In short: Medieval Scandinavians tended to build in wood (including churches). Newport colonists tended to build in wood (but also made use of masonry in the "stone-ender" design). Early windmills tended to be made of wood. BUT the Newport Tower is referred to in the 1670s as a "stone-built wind miln", and it looks a lot like the stone-built windmill at Chesterton in England, designed under the influence of 17th century architect Inigo Jones. David B. >>> "David B" <tronospamc...@tesco.net> wrote in message >>>> Even disregarding the inconvenient fact that some [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > David B. Ah, but you can't rely on the people who built the thing to have understood what it was they'd built or when ;)) I've just taken a peek at the photo here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport_Tower_(Rhode_Island)>; if those squashed arches are /meant/ to be elliptical, that would be a pretty important discovery anywhere in 'the west' before the 17th century, I think. Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> "David B" <tronospamc...@tesco.net> wrote in message >>>>> Even disregarding the inconvenient fact that some [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >important discovery anywhere in 'the west' before the 17th century, I >think. I have the Hertz(?) - who else was it - drawing of the structure of the tower in my CAD system. I don't think the arches were meant to be elliptical. They all seem to be very irregularly formed semi-circles. Eric Stevens >>>>> "David B" <tronospamc...@tesco.net> wrote in message >>>>>> Even disregarding the inconvenient fact that some [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > the tower in my CAD system. I don't think the arches were meant to be > elliptical. They all seem to be very irregularly formed semi-circles. I order to align them with something? > On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:56:35 +0000, Whiskers > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > - Show quoted text - this to me is very interesting observations super highway there Energeticly there are no semi circles all peoples and a necleus atomicly speaking is pristeanly neutral thank you so much for your posting of in lightinging discussion. [...] >>I've just taken a peek at the photo here >><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport_Tower_(Rhode_Island)>; if those [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the tower in my CAD system. I don't think the arches were meant to be > elliptical. They all seem to be very irregularly formed semi-circles. Careful examination on site (by a stonemason, structural engineer, or architect) of the way the stones have been cut, is probably the best way to determine what shape of arch was intended and how competent the original mason was. Although it looks rather bucolic in its present ruined state, it's actually a rather sophisticated structure, and would have been pretty impressive when coated all over with a smooth 'render' as it seems it was in the 17th century. (Making a round stone tower stand up on a ring of arches, is no mean accomplishment - look at the leaning tower of Pisa for just one of the things that can go wrong, and that one doesn't even depend on the arches for its sole support!). Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >of Pisa for just one of the things that can go wrong, and that one doesn't >even depend on the arches for its sole support!). You have raised a very interesting point. It was normal for structures built of rubble masonry to be tidied up by plaster variously described as plaster, stucco or, as you have done it, render. It is also normal for the plaster to fall off and expose the masonry inside. A puzzling thing about the Newport tower is that there is a layer including fragments of fallen plaster but this layer is part of the fill for what appears to be the foundation trench. How could this have come about? Eric Stevens [...] > You have raised a very interesting point. It was normal for structures > built of rubble masonry to be tidied up by plaster variously described > as plaster, stucco or, as you have done it, render. Here in Britain, there are millions of houses and other buildings dating mostly from any time between the 17th century and the present, which are rendered or 'stuccoed' over rubble masonry or (these days) 'concrete blocks' or cheap bricks - or even as a last-ditch attempt to extend the life of rusty iron cladding or rotting planks. The practice dates back to the earliest times. The finishing of the render can be quite decorative, and some areas have local traditions of "pargetting" or other applied art - or the render can be made to look like expensive stone-work. Some of our towns have street after street of Victorian terraced houses covered or embellished with moulded and painted "stucco". Portland cement is often used as an exterior render these days. > It is also normal > for the plaster to fall off and expose the masonry inside. Indeed it is, particularly if maintenance is skimped or materials are less than ideal. > A puzzling thing about the Newport tower is that there is a layer > including fragments of fallen plaster but this layer is part of the > fill for what appears to be the foundation trench. How could this have > come about? Just guessing, of course, but (a) old render was buried on the spot to get rid of it after it fell or was stripped off the structure or (b) the fill in that trench came from a previous building, either on the same spot or elsewhere (in which case, where is the render that came off the tower and why is it no longer on site? [1]) or (c) the render fell off and was buried by the natural action of earth-worms and the natural accumulation of soil over time - which could be quite rapid in a wooded region if the site was abandoned (and is why older stuff tends to be buried deeper than newer stuff, of course, as I'm sure any archaeologist knows!). [1] Gardeners, land-scapers, house-keepers, groundsmen, and people cleaning things up to make the place fit to become a tourist attraction, are responsible for removing a huge amount of 'evidence' from old ruins. Re-cycling of useful materials also accounts for a lot of 'missing' stuff. Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Just guessing, of course, but (a) old render was buried on the spot to get >rid of it after it fell or was stripped off the structure Why should they be stripping off the the plaster at a time when the foundation trench was open? >or (b) the fill >in that trench came from a previous building, either on the same spot or >elsewhere (in which case, where is the render that came off the tower and >why is it no longer on site? [1]) or There is no other evidence of a previous building on the site. >(c) the render fell off and was buried >by the natural action of earth-worms and the natural accumulation of soil [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >are responsible for removing a huge amount of 'evidence' from old ruins. >Re-cycling of useful materials also accounts for a lot of 'missing' stuff. Eric Stevens [...] >>> A puzzling thing about the Newport tower is that there is a layer >>> including fragments of fallen plaster but this layer is part of the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > There is no other evidence of a previous building on the site. [...] Perhaps there was a fault in the first attempt at rendering and it had to be re-done before the building was even finished (still happens these days). Or perhaps the first attempt at building it started to exhibit instability or some other unacceptable fault necessitating partial demolition and re-building. Or perhaps the trench was not actually part of the foundations and was dug specifically to tidy away the fallen debris at some time, or the trench was open for some reason when the rendering fell and was filled in afterwards. Or perhaps the 'plaster' in the trench has nothing to do with the building because the fill for that trench came from somewhere else. Perhaps the construction of this building destroyed all evidence of any previous structure on that site apart from the old rendering that ended up in the foundations - explicable if the previous structure was made of wood and had collapsed, which would fit the 'replacing a wooden wind-mill' explanation (rendering of a wooden structure is not unknown, particularly if the wood shows signs of needing protection or it is desired to make it look like stone). If the construction and loss of the wooden structure happened within a short period of time and the stone replacement followed immediately on the same spot, archeaological dating methods probably wouldn't be able to distinguish between fragments of the two structures. I seem to be favouring the 17th century windmill explanation of the thing - site unseen and on the basis of a Wikipedia article and some of what I've read in this newsgroup recently and without benefit of any archaeological experience or training. <G> Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:03:31 +0000, Whiskers > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Eric Stevens Here is one of the many sites relating to the Tower: It seems straightforward to presume that plaster was not applied until the structure was completed. Therefore it has been hypothesized that plaster was deposited beneath the foundation during a later operation designed to stabilize the tower at a much later date. Since Colonial artifacts were found with the plaster, it has been suggested that the tower was merely reinforced during Colonial times and that its initial date of construction was actually much earlier. http://www.unexplainedearth.com/newport.php and http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:WVgE49xc8bEJ:www.americanscientist.org/templ ate/AssetDetail/assetid/17236/page/3+newport+tower+plaster&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&g l=us After arriving at Newport in 1993 and being feted by the pro-Viking party, Jungner drilled into the mortar between the stones in the columns of the tower, going deep so as to get past any recent mortar that might have been applied during tuck pointing. But the samples taken from the Newport Tower proved to be too small for conventional 14C dating. So Jungner sent them to the AMS laboratory in Aarhus, Denmark, where samples as small as one gram of prepared mortar powder could be dated, thanks to the fact that the AMS method requires less than one milligram of carbon. At Aarhus, one of us (Heinemeier), being director of that laboratory, first became involved in mortar dating. Although a physicist, Heinemeier was already engaged in archaeological pursuits, namely studies of the bones of Greenland Vikings. The samples from Newport Tower were crushed, sieved and then combined with acid, yielding carbon dioxide, which gave a date of about 1680. This finding provided additional scientific support for the late 17th- century date derived from the archaeological evidence. No Vikings at this site--the tower was a Colonial windmill after all. >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:03:31 +0000, Whiskers >> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >date of construction was actually much earlier. >http://www.unexplainedearth.com/newport.php I must go back to the section drawings of the site forming part of Godfrey's thesis. My recollection is that it is very difficult to arrive at any rational explanation for the location of the plaster fragments. >and > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >century date derived from the archaeological evidence. No Vikings at >this site--the tower was a Colonial windmill after all. Despit Wikipedia's known reputation for unreliability I can confirm the validity of the following quote. Most of these points were discussed in this news group in the late 1990s. There are a number of additional criticisms which have not been mention in the Wikipedia's article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport_Tower_(Rhode_Island) "In 1992, radiocarbon dating tests of the tower's 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.[11]" Eric Stevens > On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:31:59 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum > [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > > Eric Stevens Jungner? Heinemeier? Different group? >> <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:03:31 +0000, Whiskers [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > >Jungner? Heinemeier? Different group? They carried out a radiocarbon assessment of the age of the Newport Tower some years ago. Should you desire it, and if your email address is genuine I can send you a copy of their paper (English translation) as a PDF. Eric Stevens >> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:03:31 +0000, Whiskers >> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > date of construction was actually much earlier. > http://www.unexplainedearth.com/newport.php That article is interesting; certainly the balancing of a stone tower on a ring of arches seems an unlikely way to build a wind-mill - but there are European windmills with fire-places inside them, so the presence of a fireplace doesn't preclude the possibility of a windmill being what it was. One purpose in building arches is to save stone and thus work and weight, quite apart from any stylistic notions. The irregularity in the shape of the building may have arisen because of some weakness or subsidence that manifested itself in the original 'correctly' circular structure, necessitating a compromise in the placing of one or more columns and a partial re-build - perhaps the origin of the 'plaster' found buried in the ground at the tower's base. The small ledges at the spring of each arch look too small to support any kind of substantial outer structure, so invoking such a structure as obstructing the sails of a windmill doesn't work for me. Religious purpose also seems umlikely - and astronomical alignments may be irrelevant or coincidental. There are certainly easier ways of spotting equinoxes, solstices, lunar tracks, etc, if you want to do such things, than building eccentric stone structures. Some of the small 'random' openings may be associated with the machinery of the mill, not windows at all. > and > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > century date derived from the archaeological evidence. No Vikings at > this site--the tower was a Colonial windmill after all. Or not, according to taste, it seems! I've found these further links which shed still more light and as much confusion, but none of them convince me that anything other than 17th century is the right date. <http://sinclair.quarterman.org/archive/2002/03/msg00068.html> <http://www.ramtops.co.uk/newport.html> <http://www.chronognostic.org/over_touro_park.html> <http://www.neara.org/CARLSON/newporttower.htm> Apart from anything else, if such a substantial building were already present before the first British colonists began to settle in the area, why was no mention made of it even in passing? Surely it would have been an obvious land-mark and talking-point, even if there was nothing mysterious about it? That it seems to spring into history for the first time in a late 17th century will, is a strong indication that it simply wasn't there much before then. Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ ---- snip ----- >> Here is one of the many sites relating to the Tower: >> It seems straightforward to presume that plaster was not applied until [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >was. One purpose in building arches is to save stone and thus work and >weight, quite apart from any stylistic notions. But the use of arches requires supporting formwork for each arch until the main body of the tower is completed to above the arches. I don't think it saves any work. It merely complicates matters. And then there is the problem of the foundations. >The irregularity in the shape of the building may have arisen because of >some weakness or subsidence that manifested itself in the original [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >solstices, lunar tracks, etc, if you want to do such things, than building >eccentric stone structures. It has been suggested that the tower was meant to form the core of a norse round church, but many people agree that the small external ledges are too small for significant structural purposes and no one has ever found any evidence of an external structure. >Some of the small 'random' openings may be associated with the machinery >of the mill, not windows at all. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > ><http://sinclair.quarterman.org/archive/2002/03/msg00068.html> Bias vs bias. I like it. ><http://www.ramtops.co.uk/newport.html> Doug Weller is firmly of the opinion that the tower was built by Arnold as a windmill. ><http://www.chronognostic.org/over_touro_park.html> ><http://www.neara.org/CARLSON/newporttower.htm> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >late 17th century will, is a strong indication that it simply wasn't there >much before then. Equally puzzling, if the tower was built by the early settlers, why is there no mention of its construction in the early records? Especially in those early days, it's construction was not a task too trivial to be worth mentioning. Eric Stevens > ---- snip ----- > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >ledges are too small for significant structural purposes and no one >has ever found any evidence of an external structure. Correction - Mallory claimed that he had found appropriate post holes but _very_few_ people have accepted his claim. >>Some of the small 'random' openings may be associated with the machinery >>of the mill, not windows at all. [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > >Eric Stevens Eric Stevens >> ---- snip ----- >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>the main body of the tower is completed to above the arches. I don't >>think it saves any work. It merely complicates matters. Formwork can be re-used many times; and carrying stones up a hill isn't trivial so if you can manage not to need so many, I think it makes sense to use arches instead. >> And then there is the problem of the foundations. Problem? The tower still stands so any problem seems to have been dealt with. That's not to say that the original foundations may not have required improvement while the tower was being built or soon afterwards. Indeed, if the builders were strugging against both poor materials and their own ignorance, it would be surprising if remedial work and ammended designs weren't required. If the tower was built in the 17th century, it would be odd if 17th century stuff wasn't found in the foundations - likewise, if it was built in the 10th century it would be strange if 10th century stuff wasn't found in the foundations. >>>The irregularity in the shape of the building may have arisen because of >>>some weakness or subsidence that manifested itself in the original [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Correction - Mallory claimed that he had found appropriate post holes > but _very_few_ people have accepted his claim. [...] One of the problems with archaeology is that doing it destroys the evidence; if you find a post-hole and dig it out, who then can say what was originally there? I know the absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence - so not finding St Brendan's breviary doesn't mean he wasn't there; but finding it would be a strong argument supporting those who want to think he was there. The claimed 'runic graffitti' look rather dubious to me, in the photos I've seen, and people who claim to know about runes and have seen the ones claimed for Newport seem to be doubtful of their meaning or of their reality. The runic graffitti in ancient stone buildings in the British Isles, is indisputably deliberate carving; no feeble scratches, but deep grooves you can put your fingers into - if you know how to write and want to leave your mark on a place, do it properly! The same is true of what European tourists were carving on ancient monuments until very recently, when we seem to have lost our confidence and started to respect old ruins too much to deface them openly. (People used to hack off bits of Stonehenge as souvenirs or as 'magic' - even early archaeologists did!) Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ >>> ---- snip ----- >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >trivial so if you can manage not to need so many, I think it makes sense >to use arches instead. Arches need abutments if they are going to work. That means that the arches of the tower could not be constructed one at a time. Basically the whole circular structure has to rise as one course. That means eight sets of formwork. >>> And then there is the problem of the foundations. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >their own ignorance, it would be surprising if remedial work and ammended >designs weren't required. The problem of the foundations is that eight columns have less supporting area than does a completely circular wall. That means the bearing pressure is higher. Eight independent columns are less toleratnt of differential settlement than is a completely circular wall which is able to bridge across hard and soft spots. >If the tower was built in the 17th century, it would be odd if 17th >century stuff wasn't found in the foundations - likewise, if it was built [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >too much to deface them openly. (People used to hack off bits of >Stonehenge as souvenirs or as 'magic' - even early archaeologists did!) Eric Stevens >>>> ---- snip ----- >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > the whole circular structure has to rise as one course. That means > eight sets of formwork. Probably, although ingenuity might find alternative methods. But wood was plentiful, wasn't it, and much easier to move around and shape than stone? Eight sets of formwork could be re-used just as one set could, and if there were other stone buildings planned or recently built in the area then a supply of formwork for arches would be an asset. Or re-use the wood for something else when you don't need the formwork any more (possibly for the floor or roof structures or stairs in the building itself). The ledges and beam-sockets at the arch springs, would support the formwork without the need to have 'scaffolding' filling the whole space right down to the ground - just minimal uprights, if that. >>>> And then there is the problem of the foundations. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > toleratnt of differential settlement than is a completely circular > wall which is able to bridge across hard and soft spots. [...] So dig eight small holes somewhat deeper than you would have dug one very large ring-shaped hole - and if necessary, go back and reinforce or rebuild those foundations if they prove inadeqate as the structure goes up or is taken into use. (Which I think could explain the 'plaster' and 'footprint' in the 'foundation trench', mentioned elsewhere in this thread). 'Rule of thumb' buildings often have to be repaired or redesigned while they are going up or soon afterwards, I don't think it would be unusual even for a simple stone barn let alone a tower. Builders make mistakes <shrug>. Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> ---- snip ----- >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Probably, although ingenuity might find alternative methods. But wood was >plentiful, wasn't it, and much easier to move around and shape than stone? I don't think there stone shaping extended much beyond a few whacks with a large hammer. They seem to have just used whatever fit. >Eight sets of formwork could be re-used just as one set could, They wouldn't be reused unless they were building another tower. :-) >and if >there were other stone buildings planned or recently built in the area [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >formwork without the need to have 'scaffolding' filling the whole space >right down to the ground - just minimal uprights, if that. Oh, I dunno. The wall is (from memory) more than 2' thick and the arches would require full width support. >>>>> And then there is the problem of the foundations. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >So dig eight small holes somewhat deeper than you would have dug one very >large ring-shaped hole A problem with this argument is that they seem to have dug one deep very-large ring-shaped hole from the outset. > - and if necessary, go back and reinforce or rebuild >those foundations if they prove inadeqate as the structure goes up or is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >going up or soon afterwards, I don't think it would be unusual even for a >simple stone barn let alone a tower. Builders make mistakes <shrug>. One theory is that repairs were necessary at a relatively early stage in the life of the tower. Eric Stevens [...] >>>>>>>That article is interesting; certainly the balancing of a stone tower on a >>>>>>>ring of arches seems an unlikely way to build a wind-mill - but there are [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > They wouldn't be reused unless they were building another tower. :-) Arches are not found only in stone towers. Mansions have doors and windows and fire-places and all sorts of excuses for having an arch. Even garden walls sometimes have gates or alcoves with arches. And if formwork isn't required, the wood from it can be put to other uses. >>and if >>there were other stone buildings planned or recently built in the area [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Oh, I dunno. The wall is (from memory) more than 2' thick and the > arches would require full width support. But only until the wall has been built up to a level that can hold the arches in position by weight - the formwork doesn't have to support the full weight of the structure, only the weight of the arches and neighbouring masonry; and a wooden arch works just like a stone arch, passing the weight out to the sides and down the pillars or walls below. >>>>>> And then there is the problem of the foundations. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > A problem with this argument is that they seem to have dug one deep > very-large ring-shaped hole from the outset. <shrug> If correct, perhaps one of the first design changes was to go for arches instead of solid walls for the ground level. Or perhaps they were looking for the best spots to put the pillars. Or perhaps the ring trench was originally occupied by the foundations of the preceding wooden windmill which were removed completely before starting the new building. Or perhaps the ring trench was dug as part of the remedial works after the tower started to exhibit faults. >> - and if necessary, go back and reinforce or rebuild >>those foundations if they prove inadeqate as the structure goes up or is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > One theory is that repairs were necessary at a relatively early stage > in the life of the tower. Quite reasonable. Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 101 lines] > -- Whiskers > -- ~~~~~~~~~~ The place looks like a typical colonial edifice, I've been there, not round and seemingly built by eye from what was nearby. Those unsupported pillars are a dead giveaway. >The place looks like a typical colonial edifice, I've been there, not >round and seemingly built by eye from what was nearby. Those >unsupported pillars are a dead giveaway. Rough and crude it is, but not necessarily colonial. A number of people have argued from its general architecture and style that it is clearly medieval european. Eric Stevens >>The place looks like a typical colonial edifice, I've been there, not >>round and seemingly built by eye from what was nearby. Those [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >people have argued from its general architecture and style that it is >clearly medieval european. Yep. Or even Chinese, as it is claimed to look like a 13th century Chinese lighthouse. Of course, the claims don't all match, it is said to be Norse, Irish, Templar, Portuguese, etc. - all different architectural styles. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ >>>The place looks like a typical colonial edifice, I've been there, not >>>round and seemingly built by eye from what was nearby. Those [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >lighthouse. Of course, the claims don't all match, it is said to be Norse, >Irish, Templar, Portuguese, etc. - all different architectural styles. Doug, Its good to hear from you but I think you are stretching a bow. The only person I know of who has suggested a Chinese similarity is our or mate Gavin Menzies - may his boots rot in .... But Norse, Irish, Templar, Portuguese etc are all attempts at suggesting candidates for the role of the medieval european. I'm not arguing in favour of any of these but lets not set them up as sideshow clowns. Apart from the Norse, the Irish have a particular suggested claim because of their skill with the use of 'Tabby' mortar. You will know that they have been suggested as the builders in the role of captives of - was it the Portuguese? Eric Stevens > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:12:34 +0000, Doug Weller > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Eric Stevens I would suggest that a building built by amateurs (The pillar bases are a suggestion and the dimensions another) in the 17th Century might resemble anything done in the past. Given a specification for a mill, it's supposed to be in a round building, the Tower isn't round. If it is supposed to resemble/duplicate the Chesterton mill, the chances of the rotation system working are much smaller than in a round building. > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:12:34 +0000, Doug Weller > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - As I've said here before, *perfect* circularity is not a prerequisite for a working mill. All that is needed is sufficient space within the ellipse (or whatever) of the tower top to provide a 12" wide-ish circular timber track for the cap to run on, and enough approximation to circularity in the tower itself to stop the sails (inclined back around 10 degrees from the vertical) hitting. > > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:12:34 +0000, Doug Weller > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > to circularity in the tower itself to stop the sails (inclined back > around 10 degrees from the vertical) hitting. Can you cite any other mills from the assumed 17th Century period built like this? > > > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:12:34 +0000, Doug Weller > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes, Chesterton, 1632 (and no longer in any doubt as having been built as a windmill) if you want the * architectural * inspiration for it. If you want 17th century and earlier rubble stone tower mill construction (and for comparison, some ashlar examples of similar dates): Empacombe, Maker with Rame, Cornwall. c.1629 http://www.windmillworld.com/millid/1846.htm Portland, Dorset, in existence 1608 http://www.portlandbill.co.uk/windmills.htm http://pastscape.english-heritage.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=497583 http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk/details/default.aspx?pid=2&id=381890 Tidenham Gloucestershire, 16th century (despite the labelling of these photos, it is attested as a windmill in documentary sources) http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/167287 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/395077 Forton, Staffordshire, 16th or early 17th century, turned into a folly c.1780 http://www.windmillworld.com/millid/1263.htm Burton Dassett, Warwickshire, possibly 14th century http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/162830 In Canada: http://inventairenf.cieq.ulaval.ca/inventaire/oneLieu.do?refLieu=790&returnForwa rd=%2FoneTheme.do%3FrefTheme%3D19 Moulin de Grondines (1674) http://inventairenf.cieq.ulaval.ca/inventaire/oneLieu.do?refLieu=772&returnForwa rd=%2FoneTheme.do%3FrefTheme%3D19 Moulin de Vincelottes (1690) http://www.villagedesenneville.org/f/historique.html Fort Senneville (1686, burnt 1691) http://www.histoirequebec.qc.ca/publicat/v2n2_som.htm If you measure any of these accurately, I'm prepared to bet substantial sums that you will find that deviations from circularity of up to 5 per cent of diameter (the deviation at Newport) are not uncommon, and that as long as the wooden curb itself was circular (to within an inch or so) it doesn't matter that the structure supporting it may deviate by as much as 10% of the tower diameter, provided you can scribe a circle, say 12" thick, which would be contained between the lines of the inner and outer faces of the masonry wall. Can you cite any example of a building which was 1. undoubtedly the work of one of the "alternative" builders, 2. matches the Newport Tower at least as closely as the mill examples, and 3. exists in an archaeological and documentary vacuum in that only the structure itself survives with no other evidence that any of the "alternative" builders were ever active within 50 miles.? Gareth > > > > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:12:34 +0000, Doug Weller > [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > > - Show quoted text - And for really "structurally unsound" ( in engineer's terms, not in reality) tower mill building, you can't beat the French: http://www.ibretagne.net/FR/AFF/MEMOIRE/SOUS_THEME/MOULINS_A_VENT/1/ the "petit pied" type, almost unique to Brittany, with a much smaller ground floor and a corbelled-out first floor containing the millstones etc. > > > > > > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:12:34 +0000, Doug Weller > [quoted text clipped - 120 lines] > > - Show quoted text - More Breton windmills, much like those of south west England, and some of them displaying the same sort of "mysterious" features that are "unique" to the Newport Tower Here's one with a wall flue (photos 11, 12 and 15): http://www.bretagneweb.com/sujets/moulinsavent-h.htm And one with a curious niche, (photo 9 - ideal for an altar, or possibly aligned with the midsummer sunrise?): http://www.bretagneweb.com/sujets/moulinsavent-a.htm [...] > More Breton windmills, much like those of south west England, and some > of them displaying the same sort of "mysterious" features that are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.bretagneweb.com/sujets/moulinsavent-h.htm [...] Seems obvious to me: if the level above is going to have a rotating roof and a lot of spinning machinery in it, there isn't anywhere for a vertical flue to go, is there? So you let the smoke out 'sideways' - not entirely unlike the 'balanced flue' heaters and boilers currently in use in buildings with no chimneys, all over the UK if not the world. Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > -- Whiskers > -- ~~~~~~~~~~ Correct (though the anti-windmill people often still insist - wrongly - that windmills never have fireplaces at all). Here are some Scandinavian round churches. Can you see any similarities with the Newport Tower that are significantly better than the similarities between the Tower and Chesterton Windmill? http://home6.inet.tele.dk/cordua/rundkirker-uk.htm http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/or-chrch.htm Here's a reconstruction of Tonsberg church, being presented as "very similar" to the Newport Tower. http://www.lienet.no/newport.htm Note, in that last case, that (unlike the Newport Tower) the arcaded tower structure does not contain an upper floor, and that it forms - and importantly, always has formed - part of a bigger building. No trace of this bigger building survives at Newport, a remarkable, probably unique archaeological miracle - *if* the Newport Tower is anything to do with round churches. Which it very obviously isn't. >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Correct (though the anti-windmill people often still insist - wrongly > - that windmills never have fireplaces at all). You certainly wouldn't want any source of ignition inside a modern industrial flour mill or silo; the dust is notoriously prone to explosion. But an 'agricultural' windmill is a very different thing - and damp might be a bigger problem than explosive dust/air mixtures. > Here are some Scandinavian round churches. Can you see any > similarities with the Newport Tower that are significantly better than > the similarities between the Tower and Chesterton Windmill? <http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/moac/currentstudents/peter_cock/photos/chester ton_windmill/> Seems to scream for a comparison - and the fact that a round stone tower standing on arches was successfully used as a windmill from from the mid 17th century until 1910 at least shows that the concept is viable. > http://home6.inet.tele.dk/cordua/rundkirker-uk.htm > http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/or-chrch.htm Well, there are round bits in there - although I'd be equally happy with them being described as a variant of the 'Byzantine' style of church but with the knave and transepts never fully completed and the dome replaced by a conical roof. (The archetype for that would be Hagia Sofia in Istanbul - where the vast dome rests on only four columns). > Here's a reconstruction of Tonsberg church, being presented as "very > similar" to the Newport Tower. > > http://www.lienet.no/newport.htm That's all conjecture, but if you ignore the substantial parts of the ruins and only see the ring of pillar-bases then you can imagine a similarity. > Note, in that last case, that (unlike the Newport Tower) the arcaded > tower structure does not contain an upper floor, and that it forms - > and importantly, always has formed - part of a bigger building. No > trace of this bigger building survives at Newport, a remarkable, > probably unique archaeological miracle - *if* the Newport Tower is > anything to do with round churches. Which it very obviously isn't. Anything above knee-height in that 'reconstruction' is just guesswork. Obviously there is more scope for that with a building that has been 'razed to the ground' than with any of the similar buildings that are still complete ;)) This is what the Tønsberg ruin actually looks like <http://www.premontre.net/subpages/loci/imagines/imtonsborg/galtonsberg.htm> (about 3MB of pictures - could take a long time to load on a slow connection!). It takes a lot of imagination to make that look like the Newport tower - starting by ignoring most of what is there, before inventing anything that isn't. Signature-- ^^^^^^^^^^ -- Whiskers -- ~~~~~~~~~~ >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >probably unique archaeological miracle - *if* the Newport Tower is >anything to do with round churches. Which it very obviously isn't. Yes. This is what annoys me about some of these claims. When you look at them in detail (which I've done in the past), they are full of problems and are not better as inspirations than the Chesterfield windmill. Doug SignatureDoug Weller -- A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/ >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > probably unique archaeological miracle - *if* the Newport Tower is > anything to do with round churches. Which it very obviously isn't. Well, the Norse were very clever you know. Ask Inger. They removed any clue to the real purpose and age of the tower before they left, including the topsoil. Signaturep.a. In article <973e1cf6-d89d-4c2d-98b0-5d1e7240e551@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > Can you cite any other mills from the assumed 17th Century period > built like this? Not exactly the same. <http://www.windmillworld.com/world/barbados.htm> Also on that site some in Antigua. > <http://www.windmillworld.com/world/barbados.htm> Ooh brilliant... with evidence of a colonial building tradition of using arches to make the ground floor open. I've not seen this in the UK, apart from Chesterton. > > <http://www.windmillworld.com/world/barbados.htm> > > Ooh brilliant... with evidence of a colonial building tradition of using > arches to make the ground floor open. I've not seen this in the UK, > apart from Chesterton. Also a near conical shape to accommodate the the problems with the sails. The open ground floor was probably a means of controlling the heat, unless on a high place or near the sea tropical buildings tend to heat up. > > > <http://www.windmillworld.com/world/barbados.htm> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > unless on a high place or near the sea tropical buildings tend to heat > up. The West Indies windmills are an interesting bunch, and certainly are solid evidence, with considerable documentary and illustrative backup, of 17th century tower mill building in a British colonial context, but I feel their connection to Newport is rather less direct than the claims of Chesterton The arches in the Barbadian sugar cane mills are a feature largely specific to that purpose, to allow a constant feed of cane to the crushing rolls, which are in the base of the tower, whereas no-one is suggesting that the NT was a sugar cane mill and the continuous arcade (rather than a couple of arches) means that the mechanical arrangement must have been the same as at Chesterton, with the millstones above the level of the arcade http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/FB38E4B4600E4287802 571030039F71B On Nov 29, 1:23 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Also a near conical shape to accommodate the the problems with the > sails. I don't follow that at all. The closer to horizontal the windshaft is (and therefore the closer to vertical the plane of rotation of the sails is), the *more* problematic the conical tower shape would be. As the windshaft is always inclined so that the uppermost sail tip is further back than the bottommost one, I have never understood why the piffling little projection of the column tops, or the vertical sides ot the tower at Newport could possibly be considered to render it unusable as a windmill. >> > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:12:34 +0000, Doug Weller >> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > to circularity in the tower itself to stop the sails (inclined back > around 10 degrees from the vertical) hitting. Horizontal-axis arrangements are not the only way to get rotary power from the wind - although it would be very unlikely that any European would choose a vertical-axis windmill until fairly recently, although some of the earliest known Persian windmills (5th century AD) were of the vertical-axis type. There's a potted history of windmill design here <http://telosnet.com/wind/early.html> including a nice photo of a Dutch tower windmill in which the tower is polygonal and the track for the rollers for the 'cap' is clearly visible. I've heard of windmills of similar type with square towers. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message