Re: Spirit Pond, Maine

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 11/01/04 

Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:45:58 +1300

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 01:12:48 +0100, Erik Hammerstad
<egeha.is.all.you.need@start.no> wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:17:22 +0100, Erik Hammerstad
>> <egeha.is.all.you.need@start.no> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Michael Zalar wrote:
>>>
>>>>Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message news:<pjk0o01rc4r0jagd73s9l98qdon27i5gih@4ax.com>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 11:02:04 +0000 (UTC), kenney@cix.compulink.co.uk
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <k6ked.107085$dP1.403264@newsc.telia.net>,
>>>>>>ingernospam_e.johanssonx@telia.com (I.E. Johansson) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>To claim it to have been peer reviewed is giving
>>>>>>>most of those who read it a very low mark!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Peer reviewing does not mean a book is correct, it only means that
>>>>>>there are no obvious errors, ...
>>>>>
>>>>>But in this case there were a number of gross errors.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>... and or the arguments put forward are not
>>>>>>obviously false. On the other hand peer reviewed sources are far more
>>>>>>likely to be correct. On the other hand I would be surprised if you
>>>>>>can give the title of the book in question, let alone have read it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I dislike saying this, but I find you and Eric less credible than
>>>>>>Dispenser Hines.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have read the book and I identified most of the errors before
>>>>>Michael Zalar made his thoughts public. I would cite my original
>>>>>critical review but I see that Amazon has deleted it long since.
>>>>>
>>>>>I would be glad to hear your evidence if you think the criticism of
>>>>>Seaver's contribution re the KRS is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please be aware that in this current thread my criticism was not of
>>>>>the book in general but of the claim by Marcus that it was
>>>>>peer-reviewed.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Eric Stevens
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Regarding the Smithsonian Book, Vikings: The North Atlantic saga, a
>>>>few notes from Old Norse Net - a scholarly list that I subscribe to.
>>>>
>>>>"I have not yet seen it, but I heard a constant refrain from reputable
>>>>archaeologists at the Viking 2000 Symposium that there are a number of
>>>>errors in it, and that contributors had their submissions altered
>>>>substantially without consultation. Of course the editor himself was
>>>>there too (Bill Fitzhugh) and he had nothing but good to say about it.
>>>>I would go with the judgment of those I talked to other than him or
>>>>Birgitta Wallace. One person was quite blunt; she said that she and
>>>>three other European archaeologists were in Washington as consultants,
>>>>and could have been asked to do a read-through, but weren't asked. And
>>>>she would NEVER cite the paper she had submitted because it is
>>>>inaccurate
>>>>through no fault of her own."
>>>>http://lists.mun.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0009D&L=onn&P=R1358
>>>>
>>>>"I've discussed this with several of the contributors and can say that
>>>>some
>>>>corners were rounded in the editing. For scholars it would be best
>>>>to follow the recommendation of one I spoke to and confirm specific
>>>>facts
>>>>directly with the paper's author. It is useful as a popular
>>>>introduction."
>>>>http://lists.mun.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0009D&L=onn&P=R1404
>>>>
>>>>I believe there were several more articles in ONN regarding the book,
>>>>though the archives where such articles could be found are currently
>>>>inacessable. Trusting only to memory in this regard, I seem to recall
>>>>that one person noted the book was put together in a somewhat rushed
>>>>fashion in order to be ready for the Vikings exhibition that the
>>>>Smithonian put on.
>>>>
>>>
>>>To the last sentence, AFAIR the editors acknowledged that the book
>>>was rushed in their intro(?). And that also seems to be the main
>>>complaint in the ONN postings you refer to.
>>>
>>>As to the quality of the book, in "A Reader's Guide to the History
>>>of Newfoundland and Labrador to 1869", Olaf U. Janzen, professor
>>>of History, Sir Wilfred Grenfell College, Corner Brook, New
>>>Foundland, writes:
>>>
>>>"William Fitzhugh is also co-editor, with Elizabeth I. Ward, of
>>>Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga (Washington, DC: Smithsonian
>>>Institution Press, 2000), published to coincide with a Smithsonian
>>>Institution exhibition marking the millennium observation of the
>>>Norse arrival in North America. This superb collection of readable
>>>and engaging, yet scholarly, essays begins with an introductory
>>>essay by Fitzhugh, "Puffins, Ringed Pins, and Runestones: The
>>>Viking Passage to America," pp. 11-25. The whole collection is
>>>highly recommended; reference is made below to a number of the
>>>articles having particular relevance to the Norse experience in
>>>North America." From
>>>http://www.swgc.mun.ca/nfld_history/nfld_history_early_exploration.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> I note that his paens of praise say nothing about the KRS.
>>
>
>For obvious reasons, it has nothing to do with New Foundland nor
>Labrador - never mind that it neither has anything at all to do
>with history. How thick can you get anyway...;-)

I take it then you didn't cite Janzen in refutation of Micheal Zalar's
criticism of 'Vikings, The North Atlantic Saga" for the many errors in
the section dealing with the KRS.

Eric Stevens