388 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1953 



The following arguments have been advanced in support of the 

 idea that Governor Arnold built the tower in 1677 or shortly before 

 as a windmill: (1) Peter Easton's mill at Newport, built in 1663, 

 collapsed during a hurricane on August 28, 1675 ; therefore it is reason- 

 able that Newport Tower was put up in replacement. This, of course, 

 is a possibility. (2) Governor Arnold is assumed to have known the 

 famous architect Inigo Jones's round stone mill on pillars at Chester- 

 ton, Warwickshire, England, and to have built Newport Tower from 

 it. But now Philip A. Means has shown that Inigo Jones's tower at 

 Chesterton, built in 1632, was originally intended for an astronomical 

 observatory and was only later converted into a windmill ; with this 

 the argument is deprived of its weight. 



That the tower is known to have been used as a mill tells us nothing 

 of its original purpose. 



As a counterargument to the mill theory, reference has been made 

 to the dangerous open fireplace in the first-floor chamber. But if we 

 think of Newport Tower not as a mill alone but as a combination of 

 mill and watchtower, this objection may be rejected, the fireplace 

 in that case being used only when the building was used as a watch- 

 tower, not as a mill. The deciding argument against the windmill 

 theory, however, is the fact that the tower rests on pillars and arcades. 

 This would be an anomaly in the case of a windmill. 



Can the tower originally have been a watchtower^ maybe a fortified 

 one ? The argmnent against this last, as against the mill, is the pillars 

 and arcades; in a fortification they would be not only unnecessary 

 but a direct weakness. In a common nonfortified tower, however, 

 arcades would seem very natural. So that, disregarding the question 

 of defense, the watchtower theory is not unreasonable. 



May the tower originally have been a round church — or rather, the 

 central part of one? This would provide a natural explanation of 

 pillars and arcades. The eight pillars, placed in a circle and connected 

 by arches, form a design exactly like that of central ecclesiastical 

 buildings; moreover, the exact orientation according to the cardinal 

 points is of religious significance; again, the outward projecting 

 capstones of the pillars, the so-called "offsets," although credited with 

 static significance, may also have served as bases for a light, sloping 

 roof over an ambulatory. We do not know whether or not there was 

 such a structure (possibly with an apse) , the archeological excavations 

 having been insufficient on this point. The possibility has also been 

 suggested that an ambulatory was planned but never executed, that 

 the building was an unfinished emergency church. 



Is the character of the tower as a fortified huilding particularly 

 obvious ? No, this cannot be said about it, although it would certainly 

 be useful as a place of refuge in times of disturbance. Curiously 



