Re: Latest on Newport Tower dig

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:03:38 GMT, "IE_Json"
<inger_e.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:kn7pm2l03vse6kciiujsrku89rr8rosbqh@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:17:03 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:lksnm21a7o2du0fkdnef2bpa78lsb13b9d@xxxxxxxxxx
On 27 Nov 2006 20:25:25 -0800, "Tom McDonald" <kiltmac@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:59:10 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <p.alaca@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

<snip>

This is nonsense Eric. If the tower is older then the
17th century, there must be older remains to be found
in an excavation, but they didn't. Therefore a garden
area away from the tower is irrelevant.

Of course it's not nonsense and your conclusion that the area is a
garden is premature.

See below.

If a team is going to carry out an archaeological examination of a
site one would expect that they would look where there were
indications of something to find.

Which is what they did. Folks have been yapping for years, decades,
that the tower needs to be investigated to rule theory a or theory b or
theory c in or out.

That work is now done, and there is nothing about the tower to suggest
that it pre-dates the Colonial period.

Let's get this straight. An area outside the tower has been explored
with ground penetrating radar and tests of electrical conductivity
have been made. On the basis of the results the team have excavated
and found - the remains of 19th century paths. After consulting old
maps they have reached the conclusion that it is these old paths which
have been detected by their measurements.

Now, what conclusions can you draw from that as to the builders of the
Newport Tower?

Same old, same old. Now I can understand why it is better to be away
from
here than to be here....

Well Eric, what conclusions can you draw if you one digs where you want
them
to, and finds "Norse remains"?

My conclusion would be that "the Norse may have been here, or someone who
had traded with them may have been here, or someone who had purchased
Norse
souvenirs may have been here." But if the first option, you can't
necessarily tell whether for a day, a week, a month or a year. And more
importantly, you can't tell whether or not the Norse, if they had been
there, actually built the tower.

On the other hand, if you want to know something about the tower, you
examine, and excavate around, the tower. And amazingly, the Norse whom
you
propose may have been in the area where ground penetrating radar shows
something you are hoping to receive for Christmas, somehow managed to
leave
nothing behind in the immediate vicinity of the tower.


Same old, same old. Setting up straw men and knocking them down. Thank
you for demonstrating why it is better for you to be away from here
than to be here.

You obviously haven't read much of the thread or you would have seen
where I wrote:

"I am quite specifically not arguing for the tower as being of Norse
construction and I for one would like the argument settled for
good. However leaving alone a longstanding conspicuous 'explore me'
cannot lead to finality."

But, if excavation of the mysterious rectangular area should turn up
norse remains it may go part of the way to explaining the presence of
a stone bearing runes embedded in the upper levels of the tower.

Eric,
if you have a good image please tell were to find it. Read about it but not
spoken out since I haven't been able to check an image myself.
Of course I could ask to have it done directly on the tower, but I don't
want to if there is an image out somewhere.


As far as I know there is not a photograph of this on the web. However
I do have a photocopy of an article describing the finding of the
runestone and this has a photograph of the runes. I will send you, and
anyone else who asks, copies by email.



Eric Stevens
.