Arguments Against the Old Stone Mill
It had been assumed that because Arnold had been born near the Chesterton Windmill, he very likely could have gained his inspiration for the Newport Tower there, and tried to replicate the structure in America. However, Philip Ainsworth Means, who wrote a 1942 book on the tower titled “Newport Tower”, stated in this book that he learned from parish records and other sources that Arnold had not been born in the north-central part of England in Warwickshire, but in the southern county of Somerset, far from the Chesterton Windmill. Additionally, the Chesterton Windmill was not originally intended to be a windmill, but was originally designed as an observatory.
In 1632, Cromwellian governor Sir Edward Peyto had his Chesterton House built by famed 17th Century architect Inigo Jones. During this time, he also built a matching limestone-and-sandstone tower with six columns and four windows. During this part of the 17th Century, astronomy was becoming all the rage with people wealthy enough to practice in their backyards. However, the observatory’s life was short-lived as it was converted into a windmill in the 18th Century in response to a drought caused when the local watermill stopped working.
Through his research and at the end of his book, Means concluded that Arnold couldn’t possibly have commissioned the building of the tower. His conclusion was that the tower was built by the Norse of the 12th or 13th Century and was likely converted into a windmill by Arnold at a later date. However, Means did state, “The circular arcaded tower at Newport continues to be the most enigmatic and puzzling single building in the United States.”
American architect Suzanne O. Carlson raised her own arguments against the Arnold origin. Her first contention with Arnold as the builder or at least the commissioner of the tower is that all 17th Century colonial buildings were built using English measurements of feet, yards or inches. However, the Newport Tower does not have one dimension that conforms to the English standard of measurement.
Carlson also disagreed with the carbon dating done by the Danish researchers, stating that their dating was based on an experimental technique that measured carbon dioxide bubbles in the mortar. During the dating, the actual range of dates found fell between 1410 and 1970. The committee attributed the date to the 1600s, but Carlson claimed that it could have just as easily been from any date after 1409.
Finally, the tower was built with a very unusual type of mortar made of crushed shells. Carlson states that colonial builders always used a standard lime mortar in their buildings, making it unlikely that they would have built the tower.
Do you agree?