"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-Shakespeare Hamlet, Prince of Denmark - 1601 - Act I. - Scene 5
The origin The Newport Tower is in doubt. Samples taken in 1993 in a variety
of places in the Tower resulted in the C14 dating of the lime mortar. These
tests are good evidence that the tower was probably built in the middle of
the 17th century possibly 16th century.
Frederick J. Pohl initially argued for a date of 1355-1364 AD, this was
before his Henry theory. Philip Ainsworth Means, a reputable archaeologist
who believed in a long- term Norse settlement in North America with a major
church at Newport, thought that it eas built as a Watch Tower. William S
Godfrey, over two seasons, dug a trial ditch through the tower and virtually
the whole area inside the tower and its c surroundings, he concludes that
Colonial Governor B. Arnold built the Tower in the 17 Century.
Other experts think it was a windmill based on English design. Jim Whittal
is only one of two experts who favour the Henry theory. We can not choose
only those who agree with us.
In 1954, Arlington Mallery and two engineers undertook a controlled
excavation of a few of Godfrey's old trenches. They concluded that the
building had originally been built with a wooden structure surrounding it
and that the original construction was one of pillars resting directly on
the soil.
The majority of experts conclude that the Tower was Norse built. None of
the dates or tests point to Henry. I read such thing in Sinclair writing
that "legend says . but it can not be proven." Oral history is important but
the oral history must have some basis in fact. The Sinclair legends seem to
have arisen about 20 years ago, not long in legend terms, are the legends
obscuring the truth? Are these modern legends stultifying the real core of
brilliance that should shine from the proud and ancient name, Sinclair?
Sinclair