Elisabeth Ward

Editor, Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga

Smithsonian Institution

Dear Ms. Ward,

I recently received Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga and my impressions of the book are generally favorable - it appears to be an excellent discussion of the West Viking, those who pressed across the Atlantic Ocean from their Scandinavian homeland. That being said, I find I must dispute a number of points in Chapter 29 of the book, in particular the section dealing with the Kensington Runestone.

I am an independent researcher, and have been giving my attention to this disputed artifact for the past two years. In the course of my inquiry I have gone through thousands of unpublished documents from the Minnesota Historical Society, University of Minnesota, Vesterheim Museum, and Douglas County Historical Society among others. I have corresponded with other researchers both in North America, and in Scandinavia, as well as experts in related fields, such as geology, cartography, shipbuilding and the early location of the magnetic north. I have lectured on the subject, have an article currently undergoing peer review for Journal of the West, and have recently been asked to provide some background information for a documentary film which will cover the subject.

None of this, of course, makes me a better scholar than anyone else, nor should my opinions necessarily be held in higher regard than any other. It does show, however, that I have more than a passing familiarity with the subject matter and that I have a background which allows me to speak with some authority.

In regards to Chapter 29, I shall confine my analysis to such points as can be fairly shown to be in error, and provide reference to the sources that reveal these errors, with a bibliography to follow. I encourage you to double-check the references - most come from Blegen which should be easy enough to locate. Ultimately, the problems with the piece must be judged by the recorded facts, not with opinion or bias.

I hope to hear from you regarding the problems that I have encountered here. As you will see in my concluding remarks, I feel that both from the standpoint of quantity and severity these errors require a revision of the piece in any future edition. These errors reveal a very low level of scholarship, and I do not believe that as important an institution as the Smithsonian should long stand behind such shoddy research.

Yours,

Michael Zalar

179 E Thompson Ave #1

West St. Paul, MN 55118

m_zalar@hotmail.com

651-457-8860

PS Does the current Viking exhibition also include similar errors in regards to the Kensington stone? If so can this review be passed on to the curator so that appropriate changes might be considered. Thank you.