Article first published online: 14 MAR 2006
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology
Volume 35, Issue 1, page 186, April 2006
How to Cite
(2006), Correction. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 35: 186. doi: 10.1111/j.1095-9270.2006.00098.x
- Issue published online: 14 MAR 2006
- Article first published online: 14 MAR 2006
The IJNA Editors apologise for the mis-spelling of Gabriele Hoffmann's name in the heading of the review of Die Kogge (Uwe Schnall and Gabriele Hoffmann (eds), 2003, Deutsches Schiffahrts Museums, Bremerhaven) in the last issue of IJNA, and once in the text. Also for some confusion over the spelling of the original publishers Kiedel & Schnall, and of the early identifiers of the wreck, Siegfried Fliedner and Rosemarie Pohl-Weber (both the latter unfortunately now dead). These slips should have been spotted at proof stage if not before.
Drs Hoffmann and Schnall wish to make the following comments. The reviewer writes that the article ‘Searching for Cogs’‘seems to be an excuse to show pictures that the editors could not find any other place for’. The article presents a research project on a scarcely-recognised source of historical information. It describes the difficult search for contemporary pictures of cogs, and the proposed analysis. The medieval pictures of cogs were selected to demonstrate the range of the search—as explained in the text. [Editors’ note: Hoffmann has now published more of these contemporary illustrations, in colour, in Schiffahrtsarchiv 27 (2005): 7–33, with commentary—an important resource].
The reviewer writes: ‘Is this a book to be recommended? Its editors ask in the preface that readers have tolerance and patience with it as it tries to span two different groups of readers, lay and learned’. And: ‘I hope that you (reader), having read it and exerted “your tolerance and patience”…’. We do not ask for tolerance and patience with the book itself. We ask lay readers for tolerance with professional annotations and bibliographies, and learned readers for patience with annotations which in some cases are very short.
The reviewer writes: ‘a number of reprinted articles … may convey a slightly musty impression of German ship archaeology as the reprints are not clearly presented as historical’. At the end of each of the reprinted articles—set separately in a different typeface—the reference to the original publication is clearly given, confirming that it is a reprint. The lifting of the cog in 1962–65 was a highly-successful rescue operation in a river with a tidal range of more than 4 m, a strong current and no visibility. Siegfried Fliedner, an art-historian and head of the department of medieval seafaring at Bremen State Museum of Cultural History, had the knowledge and courage to identify a deteriorating 23-m wreck as a cog, a ship until then only known from medieval town seals. Rosemarie Pohl-Weber was an ethnologist and prehistoric archaeologist. Both worked highly professionally on the ship-find, funded by national research foundations. Neither ever boasted of their deeds. We do not consider that reprinting such important early work can be described as giving a ‘slightly musty’ impression.