Herald of the times, and Rhode Islander. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1846-1849, 1847-06-10

other Colonies and from Europe, among them
was probably architects and builders in mason
ry, &c, who had built or seen similar stfuc-
lures in the old world, who might have been
employed 10 erect a structure here, similar 10
some one they had built or seen elsewherc) -
In answer 10 this, A" Antiquarian" says, in his
reply " As well might IL be assumed that he
was also the architect Of the numerous struc-
turcs OH the borders, the Sualculno "a branch
of the ST. Lawrence, &c.) or those more re-
mote, still in Nmmn, in Norway, all of which
from their similarity of design claim an archl-
tectpral affinity with the Newport Rum. =
Does the architectural affinity Of the sold
ruin" 20 the numerous structures on branch
ofthe St. Lawrence aud in Norway, NC. prove
that the old stone mill in Newport, was erect
ed by the Mortimer from Europe, or their OFF
spring from their settlements on the st. Law
renee Not at all There are numerous
buildings constructed of rough stone and NOR
tar on the Island of Martnico similarly con-
structcd 10 some in Europe, which have seen
plates of, which it is not known, at what period,
or by whom they were erected. There are
i,oo, on the Island Of ST Thomas, in the West
I1diss, built Of rough stone and mortar, one of
ihcm exactly similar in its architectural con.
s,ruction to the Old Stone Mill in Newport it
is some ten or twelve feet higher it is clrcu-
EA, and is supported upon eight arches resting
ON thick round columns, about ten feet high,
tise centre of the arches from the base Is about
twelve or thirteen feet, and the diameter of
the structure at the spring of the arches is
about twenty -four feet on the outside, and IL
or ~ feet inside. IL is not known by the in
hahrtants when or by whom they were built
the last mentioned stands on very high ground.
and is rcsorted To by the inhabitants and mas
tors OF vessels as iook-om place, or obserratory
from a suppositon that it was built by Pirates,
IL is called, " BInobedrdS CdStie." This in.
formation had from n near relation who in his
Voyages 10 s.. Thomas visited 1T frequently.
Does not this ruin also, claim from lis same
ness of construction, an architectural affinity
t. those bcfure alluded To and is IT not from
this circumstance as likely that it was erected
by the Northmen or their offspring ages ago.
ar that they erected in the llth century the
auchnt ruin at Newport And is IL not as ev-
dcn; from the similarity ofconstruction Of this
rnin ut -. Thomls's TO those before named
that the West Indies were also discovered and
inhabited by the Northmou long prior 10 the
discovery of them BY Columbus III liN2,ns that
they or their offspring ever visited this Island
prior to is occupation by the English, for there
IL nothing IN history or tradition to warrant
the assertion that they did. These questions
are merely propounded for Illustration. There
~ tradition among the inhabitants OF the
Elizabeth Islands and the continent adjacent,
before there was any English settlement on
this Continent, aud landed at the Fnoyard and
gave IL that name IN consequence of the album
dance of gr0pfs found growing there, and that
after staying there few months, they left the
Island and returned north with the intention of
coming back the next year but never returned,
and were supposed TO have been lost, as they
were never after heard OF, Uhis was probably
~ the llth century during soiourn of Bishop
Eric, in Vntland according 10 Norwegian His
tory, as referred 10 by the writer of the report
attributed To Prof Scrobein,) this tradition was
rife among the Indians on the Vineyard in 1920,
when the Island was visited by an inhabitant
of this town, WHO related il here, nnd IT has
come down 10 this time through hts descen-
Gants.
II is If very little consequence TO the pub
lie IN general. whether the old fabric in New
port was erected by the offspring of the North
men in the llth century, or by the English set
trrs or Gov Arnold in the 10th century do
not pretend that its being named in Gov.
Arnold's VIII, as herein stated is positive
proof that he built it, but it warrants very
strong presumption that he did. There are some
who are OF the opinion that il was built by the
first English settlers, as a place of resort and
defence against the Indians this is a rational
crnjccturc, because il IL constructed in the
best possible form for defence against an enemy
ofthat character If II had been built solid at the
base as high as it is elevated on pillars, it might
have been nBdermtned and hr0icR dorm, with
out the possibility of those within its wall pre-
venting it, or annoying the enemy from the
two windows by which the walls are pierced on
opposite sides; which it would be impossible to
effect the floor above the pillars were perfora-
ted with loophoCs tor musketry. ! state this
~ answer 10 an observation made by your cor
Gsi>ond, M in his editorial remark. II 1t had
srrn erected for that purpose, being public
work there would have been some history, or
Tradition, of it's origin and design One of the
strongest arguments that can be adduccd, as
evidence that it was not erected previous to the
occupation OF the Island by The first English set !
tiers, is, lat there is no rccord, or radit'0n of
its having been found standing when they first
came TO the island, and settled on it soon after,
III 1893. This difficulty, however, has been IN
grninusly obvlalcd, aud explained. In the
Scientific American, paper printed IN New
York, Of the daie Of November 27th, lSij,
there s a very correct representation of the
the sod Stone Tower at Newport, X. -
Atcr giving very enact description of this .
mysterious monument of antiquity, the author
says " what cNctes SO much curiosity concern
mg this tower, * the fact that no person lIv-
ing IN or about Newport knows amy thing of
It's origin, and no record is found IN history of
its beng seen or noticed by the early settlers
of the Island. While IT appears very Improba-
bic that a tower of this description should have
been erected by the aborgncs, or that II
should have been discovered By the early set
Tiers, without some note thereof being made by
the historian of those times" &c. Much
hpvng been written on the subject by anti
quarIans without approaching any definite con-
rusiun with regard to the author, or occasion
sf IFS construction, we shall dismiss the sub
jcct with the simple conjecture, that il is
fabric OF remote antiquity, intended tor tenn
pie Of PagaH rOrship, and erected by the pro-
cess of lirapiag up earth round the building as
it progressed thus furnishing facilities for
clcvlting the stone, as has been practiscd by
the Chinese, and other nations but that the
S ,chcm Builder having died, or faded before
tho building was complete, the earth was left
around the edIiicc, till becoming ovcrgrown
with trees, the building was so Tar concealed
from view as not To- attract the notice OF the
English settlers, until the land, being cleared,
was gradually washed away by storms of rain,
which, by process too slow to induce remark,
eventually brought the whole fabric to view
from its foundation" A very plausible con-
lecture, since the time elapsed from the first
Al