Re: Science vs Scholarship and the Newport Tower

"David B." <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:Ilx6j.983$eU4.223@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Peter Alaca wrote:
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message ...

[...]
-----------------------------------------

On the basis of historical records and the archaeological findings by
Godfrey a hypothesis has been put forward that the Newport Tower is
an early colonial artifact dating from the 17th century.


Wrong.
The earliest archaeological findings
are from the 17th century. That is not evidence
for a 17th c dating of the NT, only that it is not
built before the 17th c.

I think we have here a case of two wrongs not making a right. Eric mentioned "historical records" as well as "archaeological findings". The archaeology (now strengthened by the discovery of "numerous ceramic, glass and metal artifacts from the late 17th century" in the latest digs) offers no evidence that the tower was built BEFORE the second half of the 17th century; the historical records offer evidence that a stone mill tower did exist there BY (but again, not BEFORE) the late 17th century. Taken together, they strongly imply that the Tower was built IN the second half of the 17th century; the hypothesis that Eric refers to.

No, unless the material is clearly related to the NT.
17th c material can also be found without a building
on the site.



However it seems likely that that hypothesis existed independently of the historical records and archaeology, for until the early 19th century there is no known discussion of possible pre-colonial origins for the Tower. Certainly, the "early colonial" hypothesis long predates the Godfrey excavations; Chesterton Mill was identified as a possible source for the design after a picture of it was published in the 1830s, and the mortar comparisons I mentioned a few days ago were made almost exactly 100 years before Godfrey's dig.

David B.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Science vs Scholarship and the Newport Tower
    ... On the basis of historical records and the archaeological findings by ... Eric mentioned "historical records" as well as "archaeological findings". ... The archaeology offers no evidence that the tower was built BEFORE the second half of the 17th century; the historical records offer evidence that a stone mill tower did exist there BY the late 17th century. ... Certainly, the "early colonial" hypothesis long predates the Godfrey excavations; Chesterton Mill was identified as a possible source for the design after a picture of it was published in the 1830s, and the mortar comparisons I mentioned a few days ago were made almost exactly 100 years before Godfrey's dig. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Science vs Scholarship and the Newport Tower
    ... On the basis of historical records and the archaeological findings ... Godfrey a hypothesis has been put forward that the Newport Tower is ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Science vs Scholarship and the Newport Tower
    ... The archaeology offers no evidence that the tower was built BEFORE the second half of the 17th century; the historical records offer evidence that a stone mill tower did exist there BY the late 17th century. ... The significant aspect of what I wrote was not so much the presence of 17th century material, but that such presence was combined with a complete absence of earlier material- which I'm sure the Chronognostic folks would have trumpeted to the world if they'd found a single scrap. ... Eric was writing about "archaeological findings" by Godfrey- who again placed more significance on absence than presence. ...
    (sci.archaeology)