SS ——

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ul

LIBRARY
OF THE

MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY

THE ANGMAGSALIK ESKIMO

NOTES AND CORRECTIONS

TO VOL. XXXIX OF MEDDELELSER OM GRØNLAND

BY

THOMAS THOMSEN

SÆRTRYK AF MEDDELELSER OM GRØNLAND. LI, 701 =

MUS. COMP. ZOOL.
LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY

KØBENHAVN
BIANCO LUNOS BOGTRYKKERI
| 1916

JUN =4 1948

N the year 1884, Gustav Hom, then First Lieutenant in the Danish
Navy, landed in the Angmagsalik district for the purpose of wintering
among an Eskimo tribe, concerning which nothing was known in Europe
at that time. The event forms something of an epoch in the history
of Danish arctic investigation. The discovery of Angmagsalik opened
up a new and important field for research: the tribe in question, living
untouched by civilisation, had retamed much which the Eskimos of
Western Greenland had discarded during the course of close upon 200
years of Danish influence, and had, on the other hand, developed in
their isolation various peculiarities unknown to their kindred on the west.
There was much to do, and much was done, that winter in Ang-
magsalik: an extensive collection illustrative of native culture was brought
home in the following year, and the results of the winter’s work were
set forth in an exhaustive treatise!, cleverly and brightly written, and
illustrated with numerous plates, the appearance of which deservedly
aroused considerable remark.

Despite the care and acumen exhibited in gathermg together ae
original collection (now preserved in the National Museum at Copen-
hagen) the material nevertheless naturally needed to be augmented here
and there. Such supplementary material was also furnished, m consider-
able quantity, by С. RYDER, who stayed for some time at Angmagsalik
in September 1892, on his return from the expedition to Scoresby Sound?.

A further unique addition was made to the collection by G. Ам-
DRUP's Expedition, 1898—1900. At Nualik, north of Angmagsalik,
Lat. 67°15'5” N.) the travellers came upon a house with furnishings and
gear intact, while skeletal remains of the inmates scattered about out-
side seemed to suggest that the entire family had perished simultaneously
by some mischance, in all probability poison. On coming in to Angmag-
salik, Capt. AmpRupP showed some of the implements found to natives

1 С. Ногм: Ethnologisk Skizze af Angmagsalikerne. 1887. (Meddelelser om
Grønland vol. 10.)
2 Cf. Meddelelser om Grønland vol. 17, p. 138 fi.

382 THomAs THOMSEN.

there, who recognised the things as having belonged to a party which
had set out to the northward in 1882, and had never returned!.

These three collections together serve to illustrate the culture of
Angmagsalik at about the time of its discovery.

In 1894, a new stage in the development of the place was reached,
a Danish trading station and mission settlement being then established
there. Since that time, the trading interest has been superintended by
one man, Kolonibestyrer JoHAN PETERSEN, who had himself been one
of the members of the Нотм expedition. Keenly interested in ethno-
graphical work, Hr. Jonan PETERSEN has repeatedly rendered valuable
service to the National Museum, not only by procuring specified objects
which it was desirable to acquire, but also by personally tendering in-
dependent contributions. The Mission authorities also took an interest
in the work, and both Pastor С. RUTTEL and his successor, Kr. Rosıng,
have furnished material of great value, and hardly obtainable from
other quarters, such as for instance the collection of amulets given up
by newly baptised Eskimos; Pastor Rosine’s collection of these is
particularly valuable, on account of the detailed information with which
it is supplemented.

Finally, a small collection, the result of a winter’s stay in 1905—06,
was furnished by Cand. W. THALBITZER.

In this series of collections, together with such minor additions as
have been made from time to time, the National Museum possesses
a remarkably complete equipment illustrative of the material culture
of Angmagsalik from the time of its discovery in 1884 to the present
day; the finds relative to older times, however, are very few.

Since the publication of Houm’s work, no scientific treatise dealing
with this extensive collection has appeared. The task was one of con-
siderable magnitude, and the announcement of a forthcoming volume
on the subject, the cost of which was to be defrayed by the Carlsberg
Fund, naturally aroused no little mterest. The first portion of this work
has now appeared, forming Vol. 39 of Meddelelser om Grønland”, an
imposing volume, of no less than 755 pages, with illustrations amoun-
ting to 398 separate figures, the number of objects depicted being con-
siderable more.

The work is thus abundantly illustrated; on perusal, however, it
is at once evident that both the illustrations and the accompanying
text stand strongly in need of some explanatory supplement or guide.
The task of furnishing this last devolves, naturally enough, upon the
National Museum, being a matter of plain duty towards the gentlemen

1 Meddelelser om Grønland vol. 28, p. 310.

2 The Ammassalik Eskimo. Contributions to the Ethnology of the Hast
Greenland. Edited by Winu1am THALBITZER. First Part. (This work is
quoted in the following pages as Thalb. II.)

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 383

who have entrusted their collections to its care, as well as towards the
science of which such collections form the principal foundation. It will
be necessary, moreover, im the course of the work, to make various
additions concerning different portions of the subject-matter.

PLAN AND CONTENTS OF THE WORK.

At a cursory glance, it appears somewhat difficult to obtain a clear
idea as to the contents of the work. According to the Title Page,
the work should contain “the ethnological and anthropological results
of С. Horm's expedition in 1883—85 and С. Amprup’s expedition in
1898—1900”. The Preface states that the volume combines “the eth-
nographic results of three Danish expeditions to East Greenland”, namely,
in addition to the two already mentioned, “W. THALBITZER’S voyage
and wintermg at Ammassalik in 1905—06”. On examination of the
actual Contents we find, that the six first chapters (317 pages) consist
of an English translation of G. Hozws work already mentioned,
and the papers published in connection therewith in Vol. 10 of Medd.
om Grønland. The work has been partially revised, and augmented
with some new matter: to Horm's work, for instance, a description
of the journey has here been added, together with some new reproduc-
tions, while on the other hand, most of the illustrations pertaining to
the Horm collection have been removed from their place, and new
reproductions of the same objects included in Chapter VII.

The six first chapters are thus, in all essentials, a translation of
previously printed work of acknowledged value. The seventh and
last, which comprises the greater part of the book, is composed
of entirely new matter. The first chapters having dealt with Horw's
expedition, one might naturally expect the last to give the promised
ethnological and anthropological results of the AMmDRUP expedition, or,
trusting to the words of the Preface, one might even hope to find those
of THALBITZER’s as well; the title of Part VII, however, mentions only
the ethnographical collections made by С. Horm, G. Amprup and J. PE-
TERSEN. The anthropologist who had hoped to find there G. Amprup’s
anthropological results will thus be disappointed, while the ethnographer,
on the other hand, will be pleasantly surprised to find that the promised
number of collections has been increased by one, viz; JOHAN PETERSEN’S;
he will also, on perusing the part in question, find both the "Grønlandske
Administration’s” and W. THALBITZER’s collections represented.

The confusion which is thus apparent in the plan of the work as a
whole is, however, by no means inherent in the task entrusted to the
Editor, which was briefly and plainly this: to describe the Amprup

384 THOMAS THOMSEN.

ethnographical collection. The first part of this work was already done?;
all that remained was, practically speaking, to describe the find made
at Nualik already referred to. The unique quantity of material thus
obtained from a single house furnished an excellent basis for a valuable
piece of work on the culture of the Angmagsalik Eskimo at the time
immediately previous to the Danish occupation. This task, however,
interesting though it might seem in itself, failed to satisfy our Editor,
who “laid before the Commission .... a plan of wider scope, in accor-
dance with which the description of Amprup’s collection was to be
published jointly with an English edition of Horm’s Ethnological Sketch
of the Angmagsalik Eskimo, along with the anthropological papers which
had appeared in ,Meddelelser om Grønland” as the results of his famous
expedition, and with new illustrations of his collection”. And it is
beyond question that Hozw’s work, which was out of print, well deserved
to be issued in a new edition, calculated to reach a wider circle of readers,
and illustrated with modern reproductions on a larger scale, and more
generally representative of the collection, in place of the crude lithographs
which had served the purpose of the original work. With these two
widely different tasks before him, then: to describe a collection, and
to compile a new edition of a series of previously published papers, the
Editor set to work.

Still insatiate, however, as it would seem, he continued to drag
in new matter, which, gradually mounting up, threatened to submerge
the original plan altogether: Amprup’s interesting find, the principal
value of which lay in the fact of its forming а single whole, is cut up
into scattered illustrations, with no attempt at special and collective
treatment, while the new illustrations prepared for Horm’s work are
removed from their place in the same and strewn, together with those
of AMDRUP's and many other collections, throughout the mentioned
Part VII.

The inadvisability of such a method of treatment will easily be
realised. Horm's treatise appears no longer as an independent work,
but as an appendix to that which forms the subject of the present obser-
vations. Its unity even is destroyed, while the illustrations with which
it now appears have been drawn from different collections varying con-
siderably in point of time and place. And finally, the Editor has not
succeeded in dissociating the English translation from the original
Danish edition, to which, -albeit the work is no longer ordinarily pro-
curable, reference is not infrequently made for illustrations.

1 Ethnological description of the Amdrup Collection from East Greenland.
Cop. 1909 (Medd. om Grønland vol. 28). This part of the work will be
dealt with later on. It is referred to in the following pages as Thalb. I.

2 Cf. Thalb. II, р. I—II.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 385

TREATMENT OF THE MUSEUM MATERIAL.

Prior to the commencement of his task, the Author was acquainted
with the Museum “only as a general visitor” and found it “almost im-
possible .... to see what is placed at the back” of the cases!. Later
on, however, his interest in Museums increased: “I began to take more
pleasure in the collections of Museums than before; the dead objects
assumed life and personality. From the silent cases I began to hear
the language and thoughts of the people”? Nevertheless, after having
photographed here as much as he pleased (“the work .... extended over
16 days”) he felt “no inducement to continue” his studies of the objects
removed from their cases for his examination. The reader will doubtless
be disposed to acquiesce in Mr. THALBITZER’s statement as to the “strength”
of the work having been “reduced” thereby®.

So completely, indeed, did the Author relinquish his studies at the
Museum, that he did not even make any enquiry as to the origin of
the objects which he had selected and photographed; had he but handed
im a list of the numbers, with a request for particulars of each, the result
would, as will subsequently be seen, have increased the value of the
work to no slight degree.

Mr. THALBITZER has himself, albeit somewhat tardily, realised to a
certain extent the disability thus involved. On the last page of the work,
under the heading of “Corrigenda”, he mentions that “in several of the
objects ... designated ... аз belonging to the Hom collection doubts may
be raised whether they really belong to this collection, or originate from
GRAAH’s journey, or have been added on later occasions, е. ©. sent by
J. PETERSEN from Ammassalik”. The Author feels some uncertainty in
this respect regarding ten illustrations in the text. “On the other hand”,
we read, “the nondescript objects shown in fig. 241 (p. 517) surely belong
to the Hom collection’ *.

Such an observation can scarcely fail to produce a discouraging
effect upon the reader, who is thus suddenly confronted with the pos-
sibility that certain objects are not from Angmagsalik at all, while others
may be of far later date than Horm's collection. To anyone in doubt
on such a matter, the self-evident course would surely be: to ask. And
the fact that the Author has not seen fit to adopt this obvious expedient
i; hardly calculated to inspire confidence. As it is, the Museum must

now take upon itself the task of correctly stating the origin of the objects
in question. |

1 THALB. II, рр. 328 and 325—26.

В ||. Gog 10 Geo

3 ТнАтв. II, р. 329. The fact that the Editor seeks to lay this lack of in-
terest on his part to the charge of the Museum should not be regarded as
of any great importance. As will be seen in the following, his work- else-
where is subject to the same inconstancy. -

= Ie Gy > 755:

LI. 25

386 THOMAS THOMSEN.

That Mr. THALBITZER regards the objects shown in Fig. 241 as
“surely” belonging to the Нотм collection is hardly to be wondered at,
since the implements in question are drawn in Plate XIX of Horw's
“Ethnologisk Skizze”. On the other hand, his doubt as regards Fig. 190
is unfounded, which is just as well, in view of the fact that Horm’s name
appears here, not only beneath the illustration, but also in the text.

Of the remainder, the greater part, viz; Figs. 172b, 314c, 314d,
315b, 315c, and 327b, belong to С. Ryper’s collection, Fig. 334 is from
that of Jonan PETERSEN, while Nos. 273 and 309 represent objects
brought in during the years 1849—54.

Doubts having thus arisen as to the correctness of the descriptions
given, the Museum authorities found it advisable to go through the whole
list of the objects stated as belonging to the Horm collection”, which
piece of work was amply justified by the results. It was found that
the Author ought, as a matter of fact, to have included in his “doubtful”
category a great deal more than the ten items to which he refers. True,
this would have involved the necessity of expanding the note in question
to an inconvenient length, since the items attributed to Нотм include,
in actual fact:

79 objects brought home by С. Ryper in 1892. This considerable
collection, numerically superior to Houm’s, can hardly have been un-
known to Mr. THALBITZER — RyYDER’s name is mentioned оп р. 325 —
he appears, however, to have disregarded it altogether save when bor-
rowing therefrom large quantities of material which he ascribes to the -
Hom collection.

44 objects collected at different times by JoHAN PETERSEN.

13 belonging to the proceeds of W. THALBITZER’s voyage in 1905—
06, making about one-eighth of that collection. And this moreover, despite
the fact that the Editor must be supposed to have had a certain ac-
quaintance with the objects in question, since he gives a list of them
on p. 752.

2 brought home by Pastor С. Ваттег, 1 anonymously con-
tributed in 1894; 10 dating from the years 1838—65 and 2 from
1881.

We thus find that no less than 151, or two-fifths of the total
number of objects attributed to Ногм, are in reality derived
from other collections.

Here and there, it is true, the Author is at some pains to be more
exact, in the figures marked “Нотм and later collections”.

This designation, however, certainly appears somewhat remarkable
when, as in Fig. 352, it applies to but a single object, this being, more-
over, from С. Ryper’s collection. It is equally misleading in the case

1 In a few instances it has proved impossible to identify the objects as shown
in the illustrations; possibly some of them may not be from the National
Museum at all.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 387

of Fig. 351, the three amulets there shown being all — as any ordinary
visitor to the Museum might see from the labels attached — brought
home by Pastor С. Rtrrer, together with those marked с, d, е and f
in Fig. 350.

Two pieces in the last-named figure, however, viz. a. and b. are
from Horm's collection. As regards a, we are informed in a note: “The
same object is seen in the illustration on p. 45”. There is no illustration
of this — or of anything else — on p. 45; we do find, however, in Fig. 45
on p. 117, a far better reproduction than the second edition on p. 632.
Fig. 350b was found by HoLm in a grave at Ungudlik in the Juliane-
haab district, and is thus outside the sphere of the work in question.

This action of the Author in calmly attributing to the Hom col-
lection some hundred and fifty objects cannot be passed over by the
Museum without comment, more particularly since the objects in question
are taken from the collections of others. The men who have entrusted
the results of their work to the care of the Museum would have good
grounds for complaint on seeing their best items reproduced im a publi-
cation as belonging to another?. The Museum authorities, it need hardly
be said, regard it as their duty towards research to afford anyone seeking
material for scientific work the fullest liberty to make requisite search
and selection of material; it is nevertheless an equally obvious duty to
watch over the interests of the collectors in such cases as the present.

Apart from this, however, energetic protest must also be made on
behalf of the science of ethnography itself, which forms part of the Mu-
seum’s sphere of work.

The name of G. Нотм is permanently connected with the discovery
of Ansmagsalik, and future research will very justifiably take the repro-
ductions of his collection as representative of the culture of Angmagsalik
in 1884, when the natives were first brought mto direct contact with

1 THALB. II, р. 633.

2 It is unfortunately hardly probable that even this correction will entirely
suffice to obviate the consequence of the inaccuracy. A characteristic in-
stance for the difficulty experienced in repairing an error once published is
furnished by the case of E. W. Nezsow’s “The Eskimo about Bering Strait”.
In the course of printing, the texts beneath two of the plates were un-
fortunately transposed. The author did what he could to prevent the
threatened confusion by inserting a slip in the work, with the necessary
correction, to be pasted under the figures in question. Nevertheless we find
that W. THALBITZER, in a work of popular character published in Sweden,
entitled "Grønlandske Sagn om Eskimoernes Fortid” (р. 56) reproduces one
of these plates with the erroneous text: “Eskimo from Alaska throwing a
bird dart” the man in the picture having a seal spear in his hand. Such
an error is naturally not likely to be further propagated by writers having
any knowledge of the difference between these two common weapons;
works are, however, frequently published by men having no very intimate
acquaintance with the subjects of which they treat, whereby mistakes are
circulated abroad.

25%

388 Tuomas THOMSEN.

the Danes. It is thus not a matter of slight moment that 60 of the objects
thus described were brought home subsequently to the foundation of
the Danish trading station there, not a few changes having taken place
since Houm’s day". A still graver fault, however, is the inclusion of
half a score of objects which do not originate from Angmagsalik at all,
but from the west coast, brought thither by natives from the east (all
with one exception being from the south-east coast) before the discovery
of Angmagsalik, for the most part as far back as 1839—65.

By way of example we may take Fig. 293 (p. 567) “Women’s inner
breeches”. None of these are from Horm’s time; a. was received from
JOHAN PETERSEN in 1908, b. from Ryper in 1892; both are, however,
characteristic pieces of Angmagsalik work, whereas с. and 4. were brought
over by way of the West Coast in 1865 and 1846 respectively, and may
easily be distinguished from the first two; d. especially is ornamented
with a pattern entirely foreign to the style of dress in Angmagsalik.

We need not, however, peer into the future for possible harmful
effects of our Author’s carelessness; the work itself already exhibits
instances of error arising from the incorrect designation of the objects
shown in the illustrations.

Thus in Fig. 392, (р. 667) the subjoined text ascribes to the Horm
collection a kind of wooden calendar, brought home in 1848 and then
described as originating from Eastern Greenland, not from Angmagsalik,
the very name of which was then unknown.

In the Danish edition of Horw's work? we find the following pas-
sage with regard to the reckoning of time then current m Angmagsalik:

“Division by weeks is of course unknown. HANSERAK made an
almanach of the kind used on the West coast, 1.e. made of wood and
having seven holes, in which a peg is placed for every day in the week.
We gave this almanach to Ilinguaki, in order that during the winter,
when he lived far from us, he might be able to know when it was our
Sunday. When we came to Ilinguakı next year, we found that he had
been using it constantly”.

The note in question is translated in W. THALBITZER'Ss English
edition, reference being made to Fig. 3923. Cand. THALBITZER must
therefore have regarded the almanack shown in fig. 392 as the one
made by HANSERAK for a special purpose.

Our examination of the material has been restricted to the objects
photographed in the Museum, and therefore does not include the illu-
strations from AMDRUP’s and JOHAN PETERSEN’s collections, which were
not deposited in the Museum until a later date. The examination revealed
a number of other faults and omissions, such as incorrect indication of
the scale of reproduction, query mark after the scale as given, inclusion

1 cf. the Editor’s own words 1. с. р. 387 and р. 579.
2 Medd. om Grønland, vol. 10, p. 141 footnote.
3 Tuas. II, р. 105.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 389

of models and toy weapons among real implements intended for use,
without any statement as to this being the case, and erroneous statements
as to the material of which the objects were made. To avoid wearying
the reader with unnecessary quotations, we may here once and for all
refer to the list given in the following (p. 426 ff.) of such mistakes as
have been discovered. Only such errors as demand more detailed treat-
ment will be specially dealt with here.

TREATMENT OF THE AUTHORITIES QUOTED.

If the extent to which the Author has had recourse to the Museum
is but slight, it must be admitted that the number of previously published
works called into requisition for the compilation of the volume in question
is by no means inconsiderable. The Author even devotes a separate
chapter to consideration of the older literature concerning the Eskimo
of Davis Straits. This is perhaps somewhat of a digression from the
actual object of the work, but will doubtless be welcomed by foreign
readers, to whom the unpublished part at least of such documents would
hardly be known. And for this very reason it is extremely likely that
the chapter in question will be frequently quoted. It may therefore
not be out of place to offer some remarks as to the four least known
works there referred to.

With regard to OLEARIUS, Mr. THALBITZER states? that “the three
Greenlanders brought to Copenhagen .. were sent to the king.... at
Gottorp”. In Note 2 on the same page, we read that “a contemporary
painting of the four Greenlanders going from Greenland via Thrond-
hjem, where the picture was painted, to Copenhagen, is found in the
National Museum of Copenhagen”.

This discrepancy in the figures, at which the reader naturally won-
ders, is due to the fact that one of the Greenlanders in question, the
only male of the party, died on the way from Norway, and thus never
reached Copenhagen at all. With regard to this note, it only remains
to add that the king was not at Gottorp, but at Flensborg, whence
he gave orders for the three Greenlanders to be sent to the Duke of
Gottorp, “weil selbige auch sonderlich belieben tragen zu sehen, was
Gott und die Natur an so fern abgelegenen Orten gibt und zeuget”.
The party had, moreover, travelled, not by way of Throndhjem, but
via Bergen, where the picture was painted — which fact, by the way,
the Author has himself referred to in an earlier part of the work®.

The next work quoted is De Poıncy’s report of Мтсотлз TUNES’

1 THALB. II, p. 682—85.
21. с. р. 682.
8 ]. с. р. 436.

390 Tuomas THOMSEN.

voyage to Davis Straits im 16561. We are informed by Mr. THALBITZER
that he “landed at 64°10’ N. lat., whether on Baffin Land or Green-
land is not clear’?. On consulting the original, however, we find that
he entered a fjord (riviére) at this latitude, and sailed thence north-
ward as far as the 72nd degree, “where les that land now to be
described”.

With regard to DE Poıncy’s description of the native dress, Cand.
THALBITZER regards his statement to the effect that the women do not
wear ear drops as “possibly .... due to lack of observation, for he says,
namely, that they wear neither bracelets nor necklaces nor ear-drops
but are decorated by tattoo-markings on the cheeks”. The suggestion
as to “lack of observation” appears somewhat peculiar, in view of the
fact that the passage quoted contains a distinct negation, together with
a number of positive observations. And when Mr. THALBITZER opines
that it is “hardly possible that the use of bracelets should be unknown
among them at the place and during the time of DE Poıncy’s obser-
vations”’ it should be remembered, that he has in the first place located
the “place” in question under a wrong latitude, nearly 8° too far south,
and further, that he does not even know on which side of Davis Straits
it lies. DE Poıncy expressly states that the Dutch mariner set out
in search of new trading grounds* in the northern lands, so that he is
hardly likely to have followed the usual route. The word “Observa-
tion” by the way, should naturally not be taken literally here: DE Poıncy,
as we know, did not see these things with his own eyes at all, but
received his information from the Dutch Captain®.

The next source drawn upon by Cand. THALBITZER is the Manu-
script of MATTHIAS SCHACHT, referred to in the “List of works consulted”
аз N. Kgl. 5. 4° 1965 (and А. М. 364 Fol. and А. М. 775, 4°) Kbhvn.
1789. He quotes from this work on p. 635, where we find, in Note 2:
“ScHAcHT, (1789, but his MS written before 1700, when he died), p. 263”.

In order to remove something of the difficulty which the reader
would otherwise encounter in seeking out the source in question, we
may at once observe that the information referred to will not be found
in the MS. N. Kgl. Saml. 4to 1965, this being a copy made at the close
of the 18th century, which breaks off abruptly m the middle of Chap. 22.
Equally fruitless would it be to consult the alternative MS, А. М. 775
4to, this copy likewise terminating in the same chapter.

1 In the list of works consulted, this is stated as in “chapter the 8th on
Davis Straits”. As a matter of fact, the chapter in question is the 18th.
THALB. II, р. 683.

DE Porncy even adds: “Mais pour tout ornement elles se font une taillade
en chaque joue”.

“Découvrir quelque nouveau commerce”.

The chapter in question has been previously translated into English; vide
Davin Mac ВлтснтЕ: The Eskimos of Davis Strait in 1656 (Scottish Geo-
graphical Magazine for June 1912).

to

co

an

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 391

There remains then no other source but the principal MS, A. M.
364 Fol. True, the entire text of the work in question consists of but
192 written pages, of which, again, only 169 are numbered, so that p. 263
does not exist; the quotation in question will, however, be found on
р. 166. It is unnecessary, by the way, to guess at the age of this MS,
as it is fully dated?. We may, on the other hand, hazard a guess
that it is the date of compilation of the MS. 1689 which has betrayed
Mr. THALBITZER into quoting the year 1789. MATTHIAS ScHAcHT, by
the way, gives, at the commencement of his work, a long list of
writers, which Mr. THALBITZER would have done well to make use
of, when attempting to give a synopsis of early works on the subject
of Greenland.

On pp. 635—36, the Editor quotes OLEARIUS and SCHACHT in evi-
dence of the use of wooden dolls as idols in western Greenland in the
17th century. Mr. THALBITZER here states as follows: “Some idols of
this kind were brought to Copenhagen probably by the Dannell expe-
dition in 1654”.

— The passage in OLEARIUS from which this is taken runs аз
follows:

“Was der Griinlander Religion anlanget, hat man nicht erfahren
können, wie es darumb beschaffen. Sie seynd ausser Zweyfel Heyden, ~
und Götzendiener, wie dann einen solchen Götzen, welcher in der
Strasse Davis vom Lande genommen, wir aus Paludanus Kunst Cammer
bekommen. Ist aus Holtz grob geschnitzet, einer halben Ellen lang,
mit Federn- und Haarfell bekleidet und mit klemen lenglichten Thier
Zahnen behenget” etc. 2.

This statement has been entirely misunderstood by Cand. THALBITZER
and needs explanation. OLEARIUS” “wir” refers to the “Kunstkammer”’ at
Gottorp, where he filled the office of librarian and antiquary. PALUDANUS
is the Dutch physician BERNHARDUS PALUDANUS, whose “Kunstkammer”
at Enckhuisen was celebrated in its time”. Не died in 1633, aged 83,
and the collection was subsequently sold by this heirs to Duke Frederik III
of Gottorp, forming the nucleus of the ducal Kunstkammer. It was
fetched by OLEARIUS in person in 16515.

OLEARIUS, then, speaks not of several objects, but of one. This
one was brought to Gottorp, not to Copenhagen, and brought, moreover,
not from Western Greenland by DANNELL in 1654, but from some place

1 As AM. 364 Fol. the MS. is cited also in P. Lauripsen: Bibliographia
Groenlandica (Medd. om Grgnl. vol. 13).

2 Dabam Carteminde Septimo Calend. Maji Anni post reparatam salutem
MDCLXXXIX. :

2 OLEARIUS р. 176 (cit. Tuaue. II, р. 683, Note 2).

4 GrERART BRANDT: Beschriewing en Lof der Stad Enkhuisen. Blad 25—29,
and A. I. VAN DER AA: Biographisch Wordenbook der Nederlanden.

5 OLEARIUS: Gottorfische Kunstkammer, introduction.

392 THOMAS THOMSEN.

near Davis Straits to Holland, at any rate before 1633, and probably
considerably earlier.

Failing, then, to find Cand. THALBITZER's Copenhagen idols in
OLEARIUS’ work, we may proceed to seek for them in that of ScHacur.
He however, evidently has his information from OLEARIUS and no other;
he gives a reproduction of the wooden figure from the Gottorp Museum,
and quotes the substance of ÖLEARIUS’ report, not, it is true, the place
quoted by Mr. THALBITZER, from the Persian journey, but that men-
tioned by SCHACHT himself; viz: Gottorfische Kunstkammer Tab. IV,
No. 5. The text here is as follows: “Num. 5. Ist ein Abgott der Nord-
lander bey der Straat Davis, umb welchen sie, wie die Grünländer, denen
ich es gezeigt, berichteten, herumb tantzen. Ist bekleidet mit rauchem
Schaaffell, Vogelfedern, und mit kleinen Zähnen von Fischen behangen.
Denn sie meynen, weil sie von den drey Elementen ihre Nahrung haben,
mussen selbige auch als Götter geehret werden; wie noch jetzo die Heyden
im Königreich Siam in Ostindien thun” etc. It will be noticed that
OLEARIUS has here improved upon the former simple statement, by
adding his theory of the three elements. ScHAcHT follows him faithfully
in this, and further declares the figure to be of Greenlandic origin, —
which is more than OLEARIUS directly states — and proceeds, on his
own account, to draw comparisons with Priapus and other phallic deities.
Cand. THALBITZER again, does not consider the phallic element suf-
ficiently pronounced in the figure in question, which mduces him to
“draw the conclusion that he” — i. e. ScHACHT — “speaks of another
similar wooden doll in the Gottorp Museum” that is to say, one other
than that which he shows in his illustration; a somewhat daring
hypothesis.

The next and last source is “The Royal Private-Museum, which was
for some time lodged at the Gottorp Castle” and “described by Jacopmus
in his Theatrum regium”’.

It should here be noted that the title of the work in question is
“Museum Regium’ and that the Royal Museum never was “lodged at
Gottorp”. The Duke Frederik just referred to had there laid the foun-
dation of his own collection; under his successors, however, relations
between the ducal house of Gottorp and the King grew more and more
strained, until finally, in 1721, the Gottorp estates in Slesvig were ap-
propriated by the Crown. The Gottorp collection was subsequently,
(abt. 1750) removed to Copenhagen and included in the Royal Museum’.

1 In David Murray’s “Museums, their history and their use”, Glasgow 1904,
Vol. 1, р. 96, we read: “The whole of the Gottorp collection ultimately
found its way to St. Petersburg, and was absorbed in the Imperial collec-
tion”. Upon what grounds this assertion is based I do not know: it is a
fact. however, that in 1743, an “‘Inventarium ueber die Kunst- uud Naturalien
Cammer des Schlosses Gottorff”, was drawn up at Gottorp Castle, the inven-
tory in question being a catalogue of the collection as transferred to Copen-
hagen, in the collections of which city many of the original specimens from
Gottorp may still be identified.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 393

It is presumably this last fact which Mr. THALBITZER must have
had in mind; he has merely, reversed the facts. This erroneous idea
is doubtless likewise responsible for his explanation as to the Copen-
hagen dolls.

These four sources, — and it is doubtful whether DE Porncy refers
to Greenland at all, while the Museum Regium is only one of the many
contemporary Museum Catalogues in which objects from Greenland are
included! — are, with the exception of the two well-known works of
MARTIN FROBISHER and Joun Davis, all that the Editor gives us regarding
the land east of Davis Straits. It is thus but a very scanty and casual
selection; he cannot be said to have mastered his subject to the full?.

Small as it is, however, this selection, and the manner in which
it has been treated will yet suffice to convince the reader that the short-
comings of the work as a whole can at any rate not be laid to the charge
of the National Museum, since the same faults are apparent in the sec-
tions compiled by Mr. THALBITZER from library and home studies.

What we have seen in the foregoing with regard to the Author’s
manner of dealing with his subject matter warrants a certain doubt as
to the results which may be arrived at by such methods. This element
of doubt is further increased by a closer study of the work.

To examine thoroughly, point by point, the whole of this loosely
written and not particularly readable book would prove wearying alike
to the critic and his readers, the more so, since the Author’s own con-
clusions regarding one and the same object vary at different parts of
the work. We must restrict ourselves to such brief consideration of
certain portions as may serve in some degree to guide those wishing to
make use of the book as a whole.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE HISTORY OF ANGMAGSALIK.

The earliest printed report in which the name Angmagsalik is men-
tioned dates from the visit of certain East Greenlanders to the nearest
Danish trading outpost Pamiagdluk, in 18603. The earliest mention of
the place by name is, however, somewhat prior to this, viz. 1849, when
the first objects were brought home from there.

These objects, a water vessel and dipper* were sent to the then
Ethnographical Museum by Kolonibestyrer О. У. KiELsen, with the fol-
lowing information: “These two objects, the like of which no Greenlander

1 Е. © Museum Wormianum, Gottorfische Kunstkammer etc. etc.

2 Any reader seeking a fuller selection may find the same in the Bibliographia
Groenlandica” above quoted. (Medd. om Стоп]. vol. 13.)

3 H. Rink: Danish Greenland. London 1877, р. 322; cf. THaus. II, р. 340—41.

4 Ethnographical collection of the National Museum. Nos L. c. 267—68.

394 THOMAS THOMSEN.

had ever seen, were brought to Julianehaab by a family from Angmar-
selik, a place on the East Coast, said to be situated considerably farther
to the north than Captain GRAAH's farthest point”. These two objects,
which are of interest as being the first ever brought home from Ang-
magsalik, are shown in W. THALBITZER’s work as Fig. 280c and 273,
both being there attributed, however, to the Ноты collection.

The water tub (Fig. 280c) is, it is true, larger than the other vessels
from the same locality preserved in the Museum, but is in the main of
the same shape as these. The dipper, however, (Fig. 273) merits closer
consideration, being an interesting item in itself, though its peculiarity
will hardly be realised at once from Mr. THALBITZER's description.

It is a bottle-shaped vessel, carved out of a lump of wood, but with
a separate bottom nailed on. The Editor describes it thus: “Besides
the drinking hole at the top of the neck there is a hole in the middle
of the side so that it can be half filled without being put quite down
into the water. This is very practical as the water-vessel is not always
quite filled, and it may be difficult owing to the melting pieces of ice
in it to let down the scoop or the bottle deep enough”.

The extremely practical nature of this arrangement is less obvious
when it is added, that the bottle is also furnished with a hole on the
opposite side, this last hole being bored some 5 cm. only above the bot-
tom. A thirsty man, attempting to drink from such a bottle, would
hardly appreciate the value of the holes, through one or other of which
the water would infallibly be spilt. From his photograph of the object,
Cand. THALBITZER would of course only have been able to see one of
these holes, and he had by that time evidently forgotten what he could
hardly have failed to see when holding the object in his hand for actual
inspection.

The Editor further says: “In Joan PETERSEN's collection there
were also a few water-scoops and mugs of the same peculiar forms (Mikee-
ki’s water-scoop etc., Nos 213—216)” The expression “Mikeeki’s water-
scoop etc.” is incomprehensible to the uninitiated, referrmg as it does
to the unpublished catalogue of a private collection which the Editor
was at that time endeavouring to dispose of abroad’’?. The collec-
tion has, however, since passed into the possession of the National
Museum, so that we are in a position to explain the Editor’s mea-
ning. No. 213 is, it is true, of the same type, the others, however,

1 THALB. II, р. 548.

2 The value of this collection could hardly have been unknown to the Editor,
since he mentions the name of the collector on the title-page of his work,
and gives illustrations of over 50 of the objects included. The owner of
the collection, however, could not be aware of its importance to the Danish
Museum; had he been so we may be sure, from his former services ren-
dered to the Museum, that he would first have offered the objects in
question to his own country. | ; |

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 395

214—16, are of a different although in itself typical form, which fact
the Editor has not seen fit to note (Fig. 1 in the present work)”.
From the dipper No. 213 the Editor might have gained some
idea as to the purpose of the two holes in the ancient bottle from
1849. They were intended, as a matter of fact, to receive a wooden
tube, the lower end of which fitted into the lower and smaller of the
two holes, the tube itself serving both as a handle and a sucking pipe.
Tts length was such as to permit of the bottle being entirely filled, the
air passing out through the tube while the vessel was fillmg. This Eskimo
drinking vessel certainly seems to reveal a higher degree of ingenuity
than the Tantalus arrangement suggested by Mr. THALBITZER's explana-
tion. The fact of this bottle’s having originally been furnished with a
sucking pipe of this nature is noted, by the way, in the Museum Register.

Fig. 1.

- In view of the interest attaching to this old-fashioned article, I ap-
proached Kolonibestyrer Хондм PETERSEN with the object of gaming
some further mformation as to his specimen. He informed me that it
had been made to order especially for his collection, on the model of a
type then obsolete. This fact is also noted in the Museum Register.

Mr. THALBITZER concludes his remarks with the following words:
“These objects (the wooden bottle etc.) show us some recent examples
of the Ammassalikers’ skill in converting pieces of material of different
shapes — here a round piece of wood — into useful objects which are
not typical, rather quite unique, but may however, serve for practical
purposes”. It should be observed, however, as we have seen from the
foregoing, in the first place, that the objects are not “recent examples”
of Angmagsalik work one of them being the oldest piece of work ever
brought home from there, and further, that they are, according to JOHAN
PETERSEN’s explanation, old and typical forms.

1 The name Mikeeki, however, does not occur anywhere in the English
catalogue of the collection lodged in the Museum.

396 THOMAS THOMSEN.

WHETTING IRONS.

Besides whetstones, iron is now also used at Angmagsalik for whet-
ting knives. Kolonibestyrer JOHAN PETERSEN states, according to W.
THALBITZER, that the iron is only used for sharpening women's knives,
whereas the men still whet their knives on stone. Thus the women in
this case stand for progress, since the whetting iron cannot be of very
ancient date in a place where iron Was so rare that pieces were often
hacked off from the women's knives to make needles. Some specimens
are, however, preserved in the National Museum, three of them shown
in W. THALBITZER’s work.

Two characteristic examples are shown in Fig. 190: “Drills or whet-
ting irons? (Horn coll.)” and are mentioned on pp. 479—80 under drills,
as follows: “The two, very finely worked wooden hafts (drills?) in fig. 190,
which were likewise! brought home by Ногм from Ammassalik, have
regulararing grooves either for ornament ог as bed for the drill line.
The one has a thin cylindrical iron point, the other a heavier point,
square in section (cf. fig. 202) with blunt end. The form of the shafts
of these sticks is extremely rare even at Ammassalik, but incisions carved
in the shaft to keep the string in position are known from other Eskimo.
regions (Baffin Land and Alaska)”. And in a footnote, the Editor refers
to “Boas (1901) р. 28; see figs. 36 and 37b, с. Мовоосн (1892) fig. 159”.

It is thus evident that the Author entertains some doubt as regards.
these objects, more especially in connection with the grooves in the
hafts; he reassures his readers, however, by reference to competent
authorities. One is therefore somewhat surprised to find, a little farther
on, the following remarks anent whetstones: “The two drill-like objects.
in fig. 190 are (according to Joan PETERSEN) whetting irons for women’s
knives whereas men’s knives are always sharpened on whetstones”’.

In the face of this, we must, it seems, relinquish altogether the
“drill” alternative, and accept, once and for all, the two formerly doubt-
ful implements brought back by Ногм as whetting irons. On the last
page of the book, however, (р. 755) we find the term “whetting irons”
again qualified by a parenthetic query “(drills?)” in addition to which,
the implements in question are here included among the objects con-
cerning which the Editor is in doubt as to whether they may possibly
have originated from GRAAH’s voyage, or have been sent over later by
JOHAN PETERSEN.

Despite JoHAN PETERSEN's negation, the Editor is still, as we see,
loth to relinquish his original idea: we can only suppose that he must.
have some strong grounds for retaining it.

Such grounds would hardly be furnished by the appearance of the
objects themselves, which exhibit but very slight resemblance to drills.
To the description given should, by the way, be added that the hafts
are over 2 cm. thick at the top, the one marked b. being perfectly flat

1 This refers to Fig. 191 of which, however, c. was brought home by Ryder.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 397

at the end, so that they are hardly suitable for use with the mouthpiece.
As regards the points, it should be noted that neither of them is sharp,
the “point” of a., for instance, being a flat surface 8mm square. With
regard to the reference to Fig. 202, however, as a drill "used for making
large holes” it should be noted that this implement is pointed.

It would seem then, that the Editor's opinion as regards the pur-
pose of these implements must rest on the fact of similar instruments
being found among other Eskimos. We may therefore
proceed to consult the authorities he quotes.

Boas’ Fig. 36 does not include a drill haft at
all. What Cand. THALBITZER has taken for a shaft
is, as a matter of fact, the drill bow itself. The text
on p. 28 simply states: “The shaft of the drill is
always thin in the middle, to prevent the strap of
the bow from sliding off (Fig. 37)”. Figs. 37b and c,
and Мовоосн Fig. 159 again, illustrate nothing more
than just this very feature. For greater convenience
of comparison, one of the two whetting irons in ques-
tion is shown in Fig. 2a of the present work, together
with the most characteristic of the drill shafts given
in the illustrations quoted.

The Editor need not, by the way, have remained
long in doubt either as to the origin of the imple-
ments concerned or as to their purpose; full mforma-
tion on both heads could have been obtamed on en-
quiry at the Museum; Horm has expressly noted
them, at time of delivery, as whetting ironst.

Another of Horm's whetting irons, a peculiar
piece of work, is shown in THALBITzER’s Fig. 218c
together with two other objects, together described
there as “whetting stones”. That the term is not
due to a printer’s error may be seen from the text,
where we are informed that “the stone” is “inserted
in a wooden haft carved like a dog (?)”. Fig. 2. 1/2.

The Editor might well be unable to see from his mg After О

å skimo of Baffin
photograph, that the “stone” was of iron, he must, Land and Hudson
however, when actually handling it in the Museum, Bay fig. 376).
have given the object but shght scrutmy. Nevertheless,

Museum studies apart, he might easily have ascertained the true facts
of the case from the book; the piece in question is shown in one of the
illustrations in the Danish edition of Hotm’s work? together with a
number of women’s knives, and there described as “a whetting iron for

1 They are two of the four described as “4 whetting irons” in the catalogue
of the collection as given in Medd. om Grgnland, vol 10, p. 353.
2 Medd. om Grønland, 10. Plate XIXh.

398 THOMAS THOMSEN.

sharpening knives”. He might even have read, what he himself had
written, in his own English edition of the same work, the following pas-
sage: “A whetting iron inserted in a handle of wood is used for grinding
knives with (Во. 218c)”7 — referring, it will be noted, to this very figure.

These two instances, then, the water vessel and the whetting irons,
serve to confirm the truth of the Editor’s own very apt remark, which
might well be taken as a motto for any ethnographical work based on
museum studies: “It is a good thing to have a photograph of an ethno-
graphic object, but still better to study it in the hand, view it from all
sides, and possibly make a sketch of it”.

IRON-BLADED CHISEL.

The whetting iron is ethnologically interesting as representing a
certain type of implement; the importance of various iron tools occa-
sionally found, on the other hand, lies in the fact of their illustrating
the manner in which odd scraps of iron accidentally acquired are utilised
by the finder to serve his own particular needs.

A specimen of such more occasional implements is the little iron
chisel, fastened to a handle by thongs, which is shown in THALBITZER’S
Fig. 189, but there erroneously described as a hammer.

The illustration in itself should suffice to show the maccuracy of
this. The position in which the blade is fixed to the handle alone renders
it impossible. The tool might with more excuse have been described
as an axe. The blade is, however, quite small and light, with a distinct
chisel edge at the one end, and evident marks of having been driven
by a hammer at the other. All this might have been discovered by mere
observation.

Here again, however, other sources of information were likewise
open to the Author had he cared to use them. The tool in question is,
in the first place, like the whetting iron just mentioned, shown in an
illustration of that very work of which Mr. THALBITZER's book is a new
and improved edition, and is there described as a chisel’. And in the
second place, Mr. THALBITZER would, as a linguist, have had excellent
opportunities of discovering, by actual inquiry among the Eskimo them-
selves, what was the true purpose of the implement. As to this, he remarks,
on p. 678: “The word ilageen which I have erroneously given for a hammer
like that seen in Fig. 189 means ,a wedge for splitting wood’, possibly
also a celt, a chisel”. And we are further told: “The Eskimo, who was
shown the illustration of a hammer in Hozw’s book, evidently considered

1 THALB. II, р. 35.
2 THALB. II, р. 327.
3 Medd. om Grønland, vol. 10. Plate XVIIIg.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 399

the head as a wedge or a celt, and told me its name, which I then erro-
neously took to be the name of the hammer as a whole”.

It should be noted, that the illustration in Horm's book shown to
the Eskimo was the very one here in question; the Eskimo then at once
gave the thing its right name, which was the same as that appended
to the illustration by Horm himself. This was an excellent test of the
Eskimo intelligence; unfortunately, however, Mr. THALBITZER declined
to be guided thereby.

It may be as well in this connection to call to mind the reasons
which persuaded Cand. THALBITZER in 1906 to publish the description
of the Amprup collection. After declaring that the work lay “outside
of the special line of study” which he “had hitherto pursued”, he
goes on to mention, among the objects which induced him to undertake
it, the followmg: “m my capacity of linguist I was sensible of the ad-
vantage of obtaining a better insight into the forms assumed by the
material culture of the East Greenlanders”....and concludes: “An exact
knowledge of the objects and their modifications will always come in
useful in studying a people’s linguistic designations of these objects’!

The last sentence is confirmed by the case of the chisel just referred
to. The linguist may easily be misled if he does not happen to know
the Danish name of the object which he wishes to have named in the
Eskimo tongue.

AN ESKIMO WORK OF ART.

Among the finest pieces of work in JoHAN PETERSEN’s collection
is a little double head, carved in wood (THALBITZER’s Fig. 356). The
one face shows, in a very realistic manner, the typical Eskimo features,
while the other reveals the large nose and numerous wrinkles typical
of the masks from East Greenland.

The Editor states that the object was found “in a grave in the Am-
massalik Fjord” and expresses the opinion that “1t may probably have
been a memorial image like those known from Alaska (NEeLson 1899
pp. 317—319)? belongmg to a grave and representing the deceased
sealer and his wife”.

With regard to the reference made to NELSon’s work, it should be
noted that the objects described by him on the pages quoted are either
large figures (the measurements given say 6—7 feet high, whereas the
present head is only 11 cm.) or large flat masks, placed side by side
on a palisade. The placing of such figures is, moreover, not an ordinary
burial custom, but is confined to memorials erected over persons who
had met their death elsewhere, and were thus precluded from receiving
the usual funeral rites.

1 Medd. om Grønl. vol. 28 р. 334. ? Ann. Rep. of the Bur. of Am. Ethnol. XVIII.

400 THOMAS THOMSEN.

If then, the object in question had been found in a grave, the refer-
ence to Nezson’s work would not apply. It was therefore thought desi-
rable to look up JoHAN PETERSEN’s own catalogue of the collection,
and see if perchance the object might have been found beside a grave.
The list in question, has, however, neither the one nor the other, but
states simply: “Carved head or double mask found by excavation (Ud-
gravning) of an old house in the Angmagsalik Fjord”.

In view of the new light thus cast upon the origin of this figure,
it will doubtless be best to leave the Editor’s theory alone, and content
ourselves with appreciating the object itself, as the finest piece of picture
work hitherto produced by East Greenland Eskimos.

WODDEN DOLLS.

A very considerable number of dolls, differmg greatly as to size
and manner of execution, have in course of time found their way to the
National Museum; as a matter of fact they may be counted in hundreds.
It is therefore but natural, that in a work like Cand. THALBITZER’s,
they should be accorded a chapter to themselves.

With regard to this section there is a good deal to be said.

Fig. 366, for instance, shows a number of small figures there described
as “Dolls carved in wood”. Here again, however, it must be observed,
albeit at the risk of wearying the reader with repetition, that the Editor’s
eye has been at fault with regard to the material: the dolls marked
l. and m. are carved in bone, and are identical with the two shown in
Plate XXVIII (left upper corner) in Horm’s original edition, and
in THALBITZER’S illustration on р. 115 of his English edition of the
same work.

The Author commences by observing that the dolls “must be con-
sidered in the main as toys but it is possible, that by the grown-up people
they were formerly given a significance beyond their capacity as play-
things”. And in support of this suggestion he quotes “RyDer (1895)
pp. 139—140; Свллн (1832) р. 101”.

The reader, wishing to consult the former of these two writers, may
look up the List of works consulted. He will there find: “С. RyDER:
Om den tidligere eskimoiske Bebyggelse af Scoresby Sound. М. о. Gron-
land, vol. 17, Kbhvn. 1895”. Ryper’s work on the subject referred to
commences, however, on p. 281; but the same volume of the Medd.
om Grønland contains another work of Вурвв’з, not quoted by the
Editor, viz: "Beretning om den ostgrenlandske Expedition 1891—92,”
in which we read, on p. 139—40:

Justitsraad Steinhauer supposed that there was some higher
religious significance attaching to the wooden small figures or dolls

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 401

brought home by Captain Holm in considerable numbers, (Medd. om
Grønland vol. 10, Plate XX VII) as also to the entirely similar ones found
on the West Coast during excavation of old Greenlandic graves and
sites of houses. True, the natives of Angmagsalik are wont to use,
inter alia, male and female figures as amulets, which are sewn into
the amulet straps worn by the men, or fixed in the hair-knot or fur
worn by the women (Medd. om Gronl. vol. 10, p. 118), such figures
being also, albeit in highly conventionalised form, utilised for the de-
coration of sewing-needle skins (Medd. om Grønl. vol. 10. Pl. XXVIII)
and for ornamenting various implements, im which cases there is
doubtless some fundamental idea as to the figures’ affording some
protection or advantage to the owner. Such figures are, however,
of an entirely different character to the wooden dolls first
mentioned), which are generally executed with greater attention
to detail and as a rule considerably larger than the amulets, the latter
bearmg but a suggestion of the human form. The wooden dolls are
now used by the natives of Angmagsalik only as toys for children,
and both Captain Holm’s expedition and we ourselves procured num-
bers of them by barter, every child having as a rule a little collection.
Another feature which further shows that no higher significance is
attached to them is the fact that the natives show not the slightest
unwillingness to part with them, whereas they are very loth, and in
most cases absolutely refuse, to give up their amulets, even for a con-
siderable price. In addition to the dolls carved in human form, the
children often had figures of animals carved in wood, representing
bears, foxes, dogs and seals. The wooden dolls were always kept
together with these figures and the other playthings, and were treated
in the same way, the whole stock being sometimes tied together with
a strip of sealhide. From this it would seem that the wooden
dolls are nothing but playthings”!.

And to avoid any possibility of misunderstanding, RYDER further adds:

“The fact of dolls having been found in graves on the West
coast proves nothing, it being a general custom among the
Eskimos to place in the grave some articles. belonging to
the deceased’”!.

It is difficult to understand how these words can be taken as evidence
in support of the theory as to a former religious significance attaching
to the dolls: we are therefore obliged to have recourse to the other writer
quoted, viz: Graau. He writes, with regard to some houses and graves
on Snedorffs Island, as follows: “In these there lay, together with the
usual hunting implements, two human images carved in wood, not un-
like those presented to Bering by the savages on the N.W. coast of Ame-

1 Spaced type by Tuomas THOMSEN.
и. 26

402 THOMAS THOMSEN.

rica, and which he took to be idols; it is probable, however, that
they were not considered on that coast as more or less than
in Greenland, where such dolls are only playthings for
children”?

This method of quoting — and we have previously encountered
some instances of the same thing in the foregomg — renders the book
somewhat difficult to read with advantage, as it involves the necessity
of having the sources quoted at hand, which, in the case of unpublished
works, is for readers abroad an impossibility.

It is not unusual, when at a loss for an explanation, to have recourse
to the religious idea; the Author has, however (p. 647) here employed
this expedient in such a manner as to preclude all reasonable discussion.
“Fig. 368a is a fairly large doll evidently representing a woman in the
sitting position without hair top, arms and nose but with nostrils and
inlaid eyes in the orbits; the mouth is distended like the mouth of a
person playing waajeertog and dark with blood. The doll probably
represents some supernatural being and must be considered as male”.

Something more in the way of explanation might well have been
vouchsafed this remarkable figure. The next one, on the other hand,
a perfectly new jointed doll (Fig. 368b) receives an unmerited share
of attention. On p. 647 we read: “Is this doll possibly a variety of East
Greenland origin? Among the Eskimo living outside Greenland this
kind of doll has not been found so far as I know”. The last sentence
is however, not to be taken as disposing of the question raised, for in
a note on p. 681 we find the subject taken up for discussion anew, in
the Addenda, included between the descriptive portion and the results.
We read here: “Wooden dolls with pliable jomts in arms and legs have
been mentioned from the Chukchee and Koryaks in north-eastern
Asia. There is reason consequently to believe that the same kind
of dolls found among the Ammassalikers is an Eskimo product of old
origin.

I cannot concur in this view, but should nevertheless be loth to
devote further space to the subject were it not that Mr. THALBITZER
himself attaches so great importance to it: “This — like many other
facts of a similar kind mentioned by me — shows how cautious we must
be in considering the apparently surprising agreement with modern
objects from our own shops as due to ‚European influence’. We have
probably here another proof that the Ammassalikers like all other East
Greenlanders have stuck tenaciously in their isolation to certain old
forms of implements, cult and luxury long after the same things have

1 Spaced type by Tomas THOMSEN.

2 The words “European influence” are set in inverted commas by Mr. THAL-
BITZER himself, presumably indicating his extreme contempt for such
a view. :

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 403

disappeared from the west coast and even from among the western
kinsmen on the opposite side of the Davis Straits”.

Why stop at the Koryaks? By a second spring like the first he
would reach Greece, and dolls with movable joints were known there,
as We are aware, in ancient times. Yet perhaps, after all, it would be
better to keep a little closer to the dolls of Greenland. There are over
170 of these from Angmagsalik in the Museum. Of these one only, to
wit, that brought back by THALBITZER himself in 1906, which is quite
new, has four pairs of movable joints. Seven others, likewise apparently
new, are jointed at the knees, to make them “sit down”; all the others
are perfectly rigid. Turning to Western Greenland, we find that not
one out of some sixty dolls found in old villages and graves has movable
joints; such are, however, found in a few figures of recent date, viz. a
group of bone figures representing a drum dance", and another group
of four dogs in a team.

It seems thus more natural to suggest “European influence”, either
as coming direct from Denmark, which is undoubtedly the case with
the jomted doll in question, or indirectly by way of the West Coast.
It should be borne in mind that the frequently mentioned isolation of
Angmagsalik is not to be taken too literally, or rather, that it is of recent
date, and artificially created, the foundation of the Danish trading
station having prevented the natives there from following their fellows
on the southern side of the station down to the colonies of the West
Coast. It was not until the close of the last, and beginning of the present
century that the southern portion of the East Coast was entirely for-
saken, and the isolation rendered complete. During the last century,
the products of the West Coast could still find their way up along the
East, and much may have reached Angmagsalik in this way.

Mr. THALBITZER himself, by the way, is in other parts of his work
not disposed to reject altogether the idea of such influence. He con-
siders, for instance, that the wooden objects shown in Fig. 241 are imi-
tations of an almanack such as that shown in Fig. 392. In this particular
instance, however, I am loth to accept the imitation theory, as the resem-
blance is not very great. The almanack has one hole for each day of
the week; of Mr. THALBITZER’s specimens the one has 9 holes of different
sizes, the other 23, — of which, however, 7 in the middle line — im addition
to which, no such almanack has been shown to have originated from
Angmagsalik, the object in question being, as we have seen, from a more
southerly part of the East Coast.

As regards the Koryak dolls, by the way, the appearance of these
is but vaguely described in the passage quoted from JOCHELSON (THALB.
p. 681, Note 2) and no illustration is given. Mr. THALBITZER, moreover,
in the same note, compares these with a toy bear from East Greenland

1 Labels of the National Museum: East Greenland No. 57.
26*

404 THOMAS THOMSEN.

in the Амовор collection. I do not know whether he bases this comparison
on personal acquaintance with JocHELson’s dolls; if so, then they are
not made with movable joints, for the bear in question has no movable
joints, its legs being merely pegged into their sockets (vide THALE. I,
p. 534, Fig. 105).

.

SHARK’S TOOTH KNIVES AND UMIAK CLEANERS.

With regard to the strange knives edged with shark’s teeth, Mr.
THALBITZER observes!: “Shark’s tooth knives (Fig. 187) for cutting hair
have been mentioned? on p. 32. Such knives seem also to have been
known in West Greenland in earlier times, for OLEARIUS mentions, that
his Greenlanders had some knives, which they called ekalugsaa, that is
they explained with this word, that the knives were made from sharks
(presumably the teeth of sharks) 6). The teeth are inserted into grooves
along both edges, like the small iron blades in the primitive knives we
know from northern West Greenland and Southampton Island (see
р. 489)”. Note 6 runs as follows: "OLEARIUS (1656), р. 174. Illustration
from southern East Greenland by Свллн (1832) Pl. VII”.

Glancing first at Fig. 187, we here find two knives shown, and stated
by the Author as belonging to the Ногм collection. This is true, however,
only as regards 187a, that marked b. being as a matter of fact the very
one brought home by GRAAH and mentioned by Mr. THALBITZER in
Note 6 as from southern East Greenland (to be precise, from Malingisek,
Lat. 62°20’ N.); it should be noted, however, that the knife will be found
shown in GrAAH’s book, not in PI. УП, but in Pl. VIII.

The reference to OLEARIUS is, like Mr. THALBITZER’s earlier quotation
of the same author’, not altogether correct. OLEARIUS says, in the
passage in question, “Ihre Messer seind von Backen Zåhnen eines Meer-
fisches, welchen sie Ekulugsua, Piso aber in historia naturali Brasiliæ
p- 180 und Jonstonius de piscib. p. 201 Piratia Pua auf Brasilianisch
nennen”.

The form “welchen” must necessarily refer to “Meerfisch” and not,
as Mr. THALBITZER’s seems to have read, to “Ihre Messer”. Properly
construed, the words of OLEARIUS tell us, clearly and distinctly enough,
that it is the fish, not the knife, which the Greenlanders called Ekulugsua.
He writes the work ekulugsua, not, as Mr. THALBITZER spells it, ekalugsaa,
and intends thereby to give the native name for the Greenland Shark
(ekalugssuak). Nor is it easy to understand why the Editor, if he had
read the passage in OLEARIUS, should find it necessary to advance the

1 Tuas. II, р. 476.
2 i.e. by Hou.
3 vide supra p. 389 ff.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 405

laboriously worded explanation: “that is they explained with this word,
that the knives were made from sharks (presumably the teeth of sharks)”
since OLEARIUS expressly states that they were made of “Backen Zähnen”.

With regard to the closing words of the description: “The teeth
are inserted into grooves along both edges, like the small iron blades
in the primitive knives we know from northern West Greenland and
Southampton Island (see p. 489)” it should be noted, 1) that shark’s
tooth knives may be single-edged, and 2) that the knives from South-
ampton Island, are made, not with iron blades, but with stonet, as
Mr. THALBITZER himself, moreover, correctly states in the passage
(p. 489) to which he refers.

We need not, by the way, hark back as far as the 17th century
in order to find mention of shark’s tooth knives from West Greenland.
In 1872, JAPETUS STEENSTRUP, in his treatise “Sur l’emploi du fer
meteorique par les Esquimaux du Groenland’’? gave an illustration of
a fragment of a shark’s tooth knife, found in a grave in North Green-
land. Graan’s statement: “This instrument is also said to have been
used in former times on the West Coast’? is of less weight, and may
possibly be based on his recollections of OLEARIUS.

On p. 677, Mr. THALBITZER again reverts — as he frequently does
in the case of other subjects dealt with — to the shark’s tooth knives,
and observes: “In the British Museum I have seen knives of a similar
kind but much longer from the Hawaiian Islands, Polynesia, designated
as fighting weapons armed with shark’s teeth””. Once more, it was
not necessary to go so far afield; the National Museum in Copenhagen
contains a whole series of similar large shark’s tooth weapons from the
Gilbert Islands. And in any case, it is not easy to see how the remark
bears upon the point in question. It merely tells us, as most ethno-
graphers already know, that sharks’ teeth are used for making sharp
instruments in some parts of the South Sea Islands. And the Editor
admits that the objects to which he refers are not tools, but weapons,
and differ considerably in point of size from the Greenland implements.
It might further be added that the edge also is different in the two cases,
the South Sea Islanders using single teeth, whereas in Greenland a whole
row of teeth, still imbedded in the jaw, is used. Nevertheless, since Mr.
THALBITZER inserts the remark in a special note, it must be presumed
that he considers it of some relevant importance, and finds some con-
nection between the small Greenland knives, edged with rows of
teeth, and the large Hawaiian weapons in which single teeth are

1 Franz Boas: The Eskimo of Baffin Land and Hudson Bay (Bulletin of
the American Museum of Natural History vol. XV) p. 384; Fig. 178, ‘Bone
knives with stone blades”.

2 Compte rendu du congres international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie
préhistoriques, 6me session, Bruxelles 1872, Pl. 25, fig. 1; cf. p. 248.

3 Undersggelsesrejse til Østkysten af Grønland. Kbh. 1832, p. 85.

406 THOMAS THOMSEN.

used, albeit Hawaii lies some 45° farther south and 100° to the west,
no intermediate station being named.

The Author makes frequent use of comparative methods. An in-
stance of this we have already seen in the case of the dolls", and another
is furnished by the Editor’s treatment of the umiak cleaner! The
object in question is an implement some 30cm. long, consisting of a
bear’s claw fixed to a haft; we know for a certainty that it is used for
cleaning umiaks*, and that is all we do know. Nevertheless the following
remarks are added: “It is not improbable, that this instrument is useful
in certain cases for more than simply cleaning the boat. Turner mentions
“boat-hooks” as belonging to the complete outfit of a kayak among the
Eskimo of Hudson Bay, used for all purposes of a boat hook and also
to retrieve a sunken animal’ (seal). It is possible that the Ammassalikers’
umiak cleaner is a transformed relict of this instrument”.

There does not seem, on the face of it, to be any very great pro-
bability that this little tool, used for cleaning, and belonging
to the umiak, should be a relict of a boat hook appertaining to
the kayak. And Turner’s description does not incline one the more
towards Mr. THALBITZER’s opinion.

TuRNER begins by stating the length as about 8 feet, whereupon
he describes the implement as follows: “The lower end of this has a
strong hook made of stout iron set into it. Along the inner edge
of the wooden shaft two or three notches are cut. The end near
the person has a V-shaped notch cut into it .... A weight is attached
to near the hook end to keep the shaft perpendicular in the water. A
line of sufficient length is attached to it”.

Clearly, the implement has in process of transformation, apart from
shrinking to an eight of its former size, and being relegated from the
kayak to the umiak, lost not a few of its originally characteristic fea-
tures. A series of intermediate stages, showing the transition, not only
in form, but also in purpose, would not be out of place.

True, Mr. THALBITZER here expresses himself but cautiously; “it is
possible” “it is not improbable”, yet the manner in which the term “boat
hooks” is placed as an alternative designation at the outset — the heading
runs: “Umiak cleaners (р. 43, cf. fig. 83) — or boat-hooks ?” — gives the
effect of something more than a casual suggestion, and the Author’s
belief in his hypothesis increases as the work goes on; thus on p. 728
we find, among the implements or forms of same peculiar to Angmag-

1 vide supra рр. 402—408.

2 THALB. II, p. 380, fig. 8. The reader will doubtless not be surprised to
learn that not both of the umiak cleaners shown in fig. 83 belong to
the Horm collection. 83a was brought over by Mr. THALBITZER him-
self in 1906. ;

3 Horm (Medd. om Grønland, vol. 10). Pl. XXVI, fig. b; cf. the text.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 407

salik, “boat hooks (,umiak cleaners’)”. It will be noticed that the term
“boat-hook” is here accorded the principal place, while “umiak cleaner”
is packed away in a parenthesis with inverted commas.

HARPOONS.

With regard to the East Greenland kayak harpoon, Mr. THALBITZER
writes, on p. 411:

“I may refer to С. Horm's description here р. 46 and to О.
Mason’s detailed description, which like his other studies on the
Aboriginal American Harpoons, is very instructive.

On only one point in Mason’s account is a correction necessary.
In his description of the East Greenland harpoon he states: ,The fore-
shaft! is in this specimen a cap of ivory, squared off on top, and the
middle left projecting for the socket on the base of the loose shaft’?
(1. с., р. 238)%. According to this the loose shaft would have a socket
on the basal surface, covering a corresponding projection on the top
of the foreshaft. The same explanation is repeated in describing a second
example from South Greenland and his illustration of this part of the
harpoon (fig. 49 in Mason) shows the same peculiar feature. It is pro-
bably based on some mistake. The condition in all the Greenland har-
poons, which I have seen, has always been that the tenon (or projection)
was on the base of the loose shaft and the socket on the flat top of the
foreshaft. There is some doubt, as to whether Mason has described
his own specimens correctly on this point. In the first place it is unusual,
that the two Greenland harpoons, he describes, should differ from the
+ Greenland type known elsewhere; in the second place, there is a contra-
diction in Masown’s description. On the same page, namely, where he
describes the foreshaft erroneously (p. 238) he explains, in full agreement
with the usual type of Greenland harpoon, that the loose shaft has a
‚flat surface at the base, with a projection in the middle, fitting into
a cavity on the front of the foreshaft’ and his drawing of this harpoon
(Pl. 4) is accurate and correct. It thus appears, that through forget-
fulness he has given an erroneous description of the ball-and-socket
joint which he had described correctly on referring to the loose shaft”.

And in a note, we read: “In Е. Nansen’s “Eskimoliv” (1891) р. 31
there is a drawing of the front end of a harpoon, which, though indistinctly,
shows the same error in confusing the loose shaft and foreshaft. NANSEN
is cited by Mason (1. с. р. 240)”.

1 By this Mason understands the bone part in the fore-end of the harpoon
shaft.

2 By loose shaft is meant the piece of bone between the shaft and the head.

3 О. T. Mason: Aboriginal American Harpoons. Washington 1902.

408 THomas THOMSEN.

For convenience of comparison, Mason’s two illustrations are here
shown in Fig. 3—4.

The Editor is right in saying, that Mason, after giving a perfectly
correct description of the loose shaft, and describing — likewise correctly
— the foreshaft in this specimen as having a projection,
incorrectly adds: “for the socket on the base of the loose
shaft”. Even the uninitiated reader will at once see from
the illustration that the description is incorrect only in
this one point (Fig. 3).

Had Mr. THALBITZER stopped at this, all would have
been well. Not content however, with challenging the
description of the East Greenland harpoon, he goes so
far as to include the South Greenland also (Fig. 4). In
lt, this case, however, Mason’s description will be found to

Fig. 3. be in entire agreement with his illustration,
(After О. T. which suggests the possibility of Mr. Тнат-
MASON: . BITZER's having misunderstood the passage,

Aboriginal the more so, since we are told that FRIDTJOF
American : Seen Е 5
Harpoons NANSEN gives a drawing which, though in-

pl. 4). distinctly, shows the same error in confusing

the loose shaft and the foreshaft”’.

Might it not now be worth while to look closer in-
to the matter, and see if possibly Mr. THALBITZER him-
self may be in error? It will soon be realised that the
main point lies in the sentence about the two Greenland
harpoons which are said to “differ from the Greenland
type known elsewhere”. “The Greenland type as known
to the Editor” would have been more correct. As a
matter of fact, Fig. 3 is from East Greenland, whereas
Fig. 4 is from the southern part of West Greenland,.
NANSEN’S specimen being presumably from the Godt-
haab district.

Mr. THALBITZER declares that all the Greenland
harpoons he has seen have always had “the tenon (or (After O. T.
projection).... on the base of the loose shaft and the Mason: Ab-
socket on the flat top of the foreshaft”. ce eee

Strange, that with all his journeyings in search of fig. 49).
information, — to Berlin (1904, 1907 and 1912) to
Vienna (1908) to Christiania (1908) to Stockholm (1908 and 1910),
London (1909) and Dublin (1909)! he should never have come
across harpoons of the other type. I do not know what the
Museums of these cities may have to show in this respect; I can,
however, refer Mr. THALBITZER to the series of 10 harpoons and 6

1 THALB. II, р. 328.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 409

lances preserved in the West Greenland section of the National Museum
at Copenhagen, which somehow appear to have escaped his attentiont,

‚А peculiar form of harpoon is used by sealers hunting in couples
on the ice. This weapon is called by Ногм the Ituartit harpoon?, which
term was generally accepted until Cand. THALBITZER in 1909 chose to
style it the "Ttuartin” harpoon. Here obviously the linguist must be
right, and those unversed in the Greenland tongue had perforce to recog-
nise the new name. In 1914, however, with the publication of Mr. THAL-
BITZERS work, complications arose. We here find, on р. 422, among
“Technical names”, the “ittuarteen, itciarteen harpoon”; the Editor does
not, however, restrict himself to these technical terms, but uses also
“ituartit harpoon” (р. 409; р. 412), “ice sealing harpoon (ittuarteq)”
(p. 421; p. 433) and “ittuartin” (p. 420). Disregarding the phonetic spel-
ling, and overlooking the difference between one “t” and “tt” as im-
material, we have still four different terms remaining. That all four
are current and correct we do not venture to doubt, since the linguist
uses them indiscriminately, and we may rest assured that there is some
valid linguistic reason for the fact that only two of them are included
under the heading “technical names”. The ordinary reader, however,
not bemg a linguist, comes to a standstill here, with the obvious query:
“What am I to call the thing?” I for my part have thought it safest
for the present to keep to the term originally given by Ногм: “Ituartit”.

In his paper published in 1909, Mr. THALBITZER haled forth from
the Stockholm Museum a couple of ordinary West Greenland tow-line
toggles, which he showed in illustration as points of ituartit harpoons?;
in 1914, however, (p. 433) he makes reparation for the error in the fol-
lowing words: “The whole form of the weapons, however, makes this

1 The young Danish ethnographer, Kar Влвкет SMITH, has already, in a
lecture delivered to “Det Grønlandske Selskab” referred to this point as
“one of the inaccuracies which have crept into the description of Kommandør
Horm's collection recently published by the linquist Witt. THALBITZER”.
Hr. BIRKET SMITH's studies in South Greenland, and among the collec-
tions in the National Museum, had shown him that Mr. THALBITZER was
but imperfectly acquainted with the Greenland harpoon. He was also
aware, moreover, that the East Greenland form was derived from the
original type, whereas that shown in fig. 4 is a variant which later made
its appearance on the West Coast. He did not, however, — as far as can be
judged from the text of the lecture as published in Det grønlandske Sel-
skabs Aarsskrift, 1912 — perceive that Mason’s illustration of the East
Greenland harpoon agreed with the form of all other East Greenland
harpoons, and that it was only in his description that any inaccuracy
existed. Since the above was written a correction has been made in the
text of the lecture as published (Det Gronlandske Selskabs Aarsskrift, 1914,
р. 62).

2 Medd. om Grønland, vol. 10, р. 78 and TuHats. II (i. e. Horm) p. 51.

3 THALB. I, p. 501. j

410 THOMAS THOMSEN.

explanation improbable” — which honest admission is in perfect accord
with the fact.

But Mr. THALBITZER does not stop here. He goes on to say
“it is curious to find a bone implement of precisely the same construc-
tion, a towing or drag toggle, which is also stated to be in the Stock-
holm Riksmuseum, namely in А. Е. NorDENSKIOLD’s collection from
Alaska, (the Vega Expedition)”. Once again, we are led by the lon-
gest way to no advantage. The new result is based on a single specimen
only, and the expression “stated to be” suggests that the Editor has
not even seen this one himself. Had he cared to look through the
West Greenland section of the National Museum, he would there have
found a number of such “curiosities” whereby the error might have been
avoided, and Mr. THALBITZER himself spared the necessity of making
the new admission: “The hinged toggle has thus obtained here quite
a different use from that we know in East Greenland, but the con-
struction of the head is also of quite a different form”.

The only point of similarity now remaining is thus the fact that
in both cases two pieces of bone are joined together by means of a peg
about which they can turn; this can, however, scarcely be regarded as
a sufficient basis upon which to determine the class to which an im-
plement belongs.

CONTENTS LISTS OF THE COLLECTIONS.

Pages 322—23 and 743—53 of the work are devoted to lists of the
contents of some collections. The reader will naturally expect the col-
lections in question to be those mentioned on the title-page of the book:
as “Ethnographical collections from East Greenland, (Angmagsalik! and
Nualik) made by С. Hotm, G. Амовор and J. PETERSEN and described
by W. THALBITZER”. This is, however not the case. Of the collection
on which the whole work is based, to wit, Hozw’s, no list is given; the
Editor of this English work refers his readers to the Danish edition of
Horm's book, which according to the Editor’s own statement, is out

1 On the title-page of this section Mr. THALBITZER writes “Angmagsalik”
according to KLEINScHMIDT’s orthography; on the page following, however,
(р. 321, Note 1) he asserts that ‘the East Greenland form of this name is
Ammattalik or Ammattaling”. It might perhaps have been reasonable
enough to have introduced one or other of these latter forms; it is less
easy to realise, however, upon what grounds the Editor has, in the text of
the work, supplanted the tradional form Angmagsalik by the term Am-
massalik, which, according to the linguist himself, is the phonetic form of
the word as used in the dialect of central West Greenland.

The. Angmagsalik Eskimo. 411

of print. Nor is there any catalogue of JoHAN PETERSEN's important
collection. Of the three mentioned on the title-page, then, we find but
one, viz, the AMDRUP collection, this being, however, accorded two lists:
a brief classification on pp. 322—23, and another at greater length on
рр. 743—52, both of which include, not only the objects from Angmag-
salik and Nualik as stated on the title-page, but also the finds from
the country farther to the north, which have already been treated by
the Editor in his work of 1909, and of which an English catalogue already
exists!. In lieu of the Нотм and Jou. PETERSEN collections, we are
given a list of THALBITZER's collection.

The reader might, however, after all manage well enough without
the missing lists, were it not that Mr. THALBITZER in the text of the work
(p. 548) refers to some numbers in the one of them, for it must be
admitted that catalogues reduced to such a degree of brevity as is evi-
denced by the following instances: “No. 36—38. Wooden plates and a
spoon” or “No. 99—100 Sundry objects (plaited sinew threads etc.)?”
can be of no value, and should certainly never have been included in
a scientific work.

As regards the Amprup collection, we need here only concern our-
selves with the lists of finds from the north, and will, for the sake of
convenience, designate these as List I (Тндтв. I, 540—42), List II (ТнАгв.
II, 322—23) and List III (ibid. 743—52).

Far simpler would it have been had Lists II and III been given
as reprints of List I, but in revised form, and with the corrections di-
stinetly indicated. The three lists as they stand may easily give rise
to doubt and misunderstanding.

List II may, on account of its extreme brevity, be disregarded; it
is, however, in some respects preferable to List I, which includes only
numbers up to 113, whereas the references in the text of the work go
up to 1213. This incompleteness is corrected in List II, which brings
the items from Cape Borlace Warren and Sabine Island up to No. 119,
and even adds: “120—194 Finds from uncertain place north of Ammas-
salik”. In List II we read “Skærgaards “Peninsula”, whereas I and III
have “Skergaardshalvo”; all three lists however, agree in stating the
latitude of the place as 68°07’, in contrast to the text, (Тнлтв. I, р. 386)
which gives it as 68°.

The uncertainty as to the size of the Amprup collection arising from
the fact that List I gives numbers up to 113, Lists II and III up to 194,
is further increased by an article of the Author’s in Geographisk Tids-
skrift*, where the number is stated as over 300.

1 Tuas. Г, pp. 540—42.

2 Tuas. II, рр. 752—53.

3 THALB. I, pp. 495—99 and рр. 533—34.
4 Geogr. Tidsskr. vol. XX, p. 215.

412 THOMAS THOMSEN.

If we now proceed to compare Lists I and III, we find, in the figures
alone, a series of other discrepancies calling for correction.

Inv. No. List I List III
45 Fig. 21 Figs. 22 List I is here correct.
53 Fig. 26 Figs. 26 and 28

55—56 | Fig. 29a and b Figs. 29 and 33

List III is here correct.
f should be: Figs. 55 and 56, р. 472 (No.
\

86 Fig-55 Figs. 55 and 561 56 appearing twice in the same work).
87 Fig. 56 Fig. 562 Should be the second Fig 56, on p. 476.
90—95 | Fig. 58 Figs. 58—60 List III is right,

two of the animals shown in Fig. 58 having turned out badly m the
reproduction, wherefore they are shown again in Figs. 59—60. In Fig. 58,
Mr. THALBITZER has altered the position of one of the animals, from
the erect to the prone. The natural course in such a case would have
been to remove the figure incorrectly reproduced, and replace it by
the amended illustration; Mr. THALBITZER, however, has preferred to
let the prone beast lie, and makes it the subject of the following
passage:

“As all the animals just mentioned are rendered in a very lifelike
manner in the carvings, there are no grounds for supposing that the
sixth, inv. Amp. 95, should not also give a faithful representation of
some animal or other. However it is by no means easy to identify it.
It cannot be any kind of seal, as it has no swimmers, and the shape

of the head with the small pointed ears is very unlike that of a seal. |

The imagination recoils from conceiving it as a land mammifer. And
yet we have no other recourse, and we shall discover, to our surprise,
that the realistic sense of the Eskimo has not failed him this time either.
The drawing fig. 60 shows how the figure is to be conceived; not with
the head in front and the tail behind, but with the head erected: a polar
bear walking on its hind legs”.

We may pass over the twenty further lmes of print through
which Mr. THALBITZER continues his explanation of the same figure,
it should be observed, however, that the realistic execution of the
object in question is not so great but that another scientific opmion
pronounced it a hare. I leave the question open to the judgement.
of zoologists.

Turning now to discrepancies of another order, viz. in the classi-
fication of the objects themselves, we find, apart from minor differences
of style, such instances as the following:

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 413

Inv. No. List I List III
31 Bodkin, or marline spike, of bone. | Bodkin-shaped wound plug of bone.
33—44 || Bodkin and needles. Bodkins.
55—56 | Drum handles, 2, of bone. Two handles of bone with finger-
rests.
62 Wooden handle. Handle-like object (cross piece of
a bladder float ?).
72 Wooden hammer-like implement | Hammer-like implement (maul)
(blubber-beater ?) made of a crooked branch.
80 Wooden handle of a skin-scraper. | Womans knife (scraper).
97 Fragment of a wooden implement. | Head of a wooden implement
(fragment of a snow beater).
99 Shaft-like fragment of a wooden | Handle part of a wooden imple-
implement. ment (snow beater or blubber
beater).
104—105 || Miniature foreshafts of harpoons, | Foreshaft like fragments (or toy
2. harpoons?).

Such inconsistencies cannot but create a feeling of uncertainty in
the mind of the reader. Have we here, as in the figures above referred
to, but a series of errors due to negligence? Have the words “and needles”
under 33—44 merely been omitted in List ПТ? Or is the “wooden handle
of a skin-scraper” a totally different object to the “woman’s knife (scra-
per)” of List III, which must thus have crept in through some accidental
error?

The answer to such queries is in the negative. The difference in
terms is due to the change which the Author’s opinion regarding one
and the same object has undergone in course of time. An instance of
this is furnished by Nos. 55—56. In his work of 1909, Mr. THALBITZER
treats of these two objects, and comes to the result that they are drum
handles, and further that they are the earliest finds of this type and
material made in Greenland!. As to the features which the Editor here
has regarded as of decisive importance, this may be seen from the fol-
lowing passage? referring to one of the specimens: “The drum-handle
type, however, is unmistakable; we see the finger-rests and the remains
of the knob-like head”. These, however, would hardly appear to be the
distinguishing marks of a drum handle, if we may judge from the dif-
ficulty which Mr. THALBITZER experiences in determining how the drum
is fixed to the handle. After having devoted nine lines of print to the
discussion of the question as to which end of the handle should be fixed
to the frame of the drum, he concludes: “I feel convinced that it is the
broad end of the handle which carried the drum, though I am not clear
as to the mode in which it was secured”’®.

1 Tuas. I, рр. 412—17.
2 THALB. I, p. 417.
3 |. с., р. 416.

414 THOMAS THOMSEN.

This last is not surprising, since the handles in question lack just
that very notch into which the frame of the drum is inserted. The notches
for the fingers merely prove that the object was intended as a handle
of some kind or other, and the knob at the one end clearly indicates
that the man who made it had here finished off his work in such a manner
as to preclude the fastening of drum or any other instrument to that
end at least.

By 1910, Mr. THALBITZER had realised the fact that this notch was
lacking. In Geogr. Tidsskr. Vol. XX, p. 218, he tells us: “These hafts
somewhat resemble drum handles, which are cut in the same manner
in Alaska; both lack, however, it is true, the notch at the broad end
into which the wooden ring of the drum is generally set and lashed,
so that the explanation must be regarded as doubtful, unless supple-
mentary finds should subsequently be made”.

On р. 223 of the same work, we read “The two bone handles ...
(presumably drum handles) .... are carved as if from the same model
аз a quiver handle shown by Boas}, from Vantissard Island”. Here again
however, it must be observed that the resemblance lies in the finger
notching of the grip, the value of which as a distinctive feature of the
drum handle generally is thus reduced, since they may equally well
be taken as characteristic of quiver handles. Mr. THALBITZER has now
discovered what is lacking in the two objects in question; he has not,
however, as yet been able to see the distinctive attributes which they
do possess, viz. a hole at the one end for the insertion of a blade, and an
‚ oblique boring at the other intended to receive a thong, two well known
features in East Greenland knives.

In 1914 (Tuas. II, р. 640, Note 5) we are brought somewhat nearer
the truth: “They have possibly been knife-handles, not drum-handles’”.
Thus from the “unmistakable drum-handles” of 1909 via doubtful drum-
handle and quiver handle (both in the same paper 1910) we are at last,
in 1914, brought within view of the actual fact; the Editor is careful,
however, to leave a pathway open in case any new hypothesis should
arise.

Without some kind of commentary, the reader will find serious
difficulty in discovering what lies beneath such change of names, unless
he happen to be particularly familiar with Mr. THALBITZER's published
works, already of considerable extent. It may even at times be difficult
enough to make List I agree with the accompanying text; it is not im-
mediately obvious, for instance, that the object cited in List I as a “wooden
hammer-like implement (blubber-beater?)” is identical with that treated
in the text as forming part of the framework of an umiak. We cannot
however, here undertake to guide the reader point by point through the

1 Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. XV, p. 420,
fig. 219 e.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 415

list. One or two other instances of metamorphosis will be mentioned
later on; for the present, we may proceed to consider the catalogue of
the second collection, viz. THALBITZER’S.

When Cand. THALBITZER in 1909, on behalf of the Committee for
the Investigation of Greenland, handed over the collection to the National
Museum, it was accompanied by a catalogue drawn up and signed by
the collector himself, marked “Copy” and dated Copenhagen 1907, with
a further note: “Delivered to the National Museum 19 12 1909, W. T.”

This list does not altogether agree with the one now published; it
did not, by the way, altogether agree with the contents of the collection
as delivered to the Museum. And in view of the fact that a published
list, if allowed to pass without remark, might well be regarded as invol-
ving an obligation on the part of the Museum to produce the objects
therem cited when called upon, it will be necessary to make some cor-
rections.

List. No.
6—10. The two lists agree, but 6 specimens were received.

41—50. “Two masks carved of wood”. There were three (L. 4853—55).

55—67. “Dolls dressed in skin clothes”. These 13 numbers were noted
in the list as “abt. 12”. There were however 21 (L. 4858—77
and L. 4899).

71—88. “Various toys (nodding or pecking birds, puzzle with movable
beads on a string, buzzes, ajagaq, tops, balls)”. In the list
delivered to the Museum these 18 numbers are represented
by the following: Two toys (noqgataait) (L. 4912—13) 2 ditto
birds (L. 4909—10) 4 wing buzzes (imittitwaain).? One ajagaq
game (L. 4911) — 3 tops (There were four: L. 4903—06).
Three balls (L. 4916—18). One toy with two beads (puzzle)
(L. 4945). Thus the published list gives 18 articles, the list
delivered to the Museum 16, whereas the actual number
received was 15. To these should be added, however, one
object not noted on the list delivered, viz; a jumping animal
(L. 4919) so that the Museum also received 16 pieces in all.

89—98. “Images of animals carved of wood or ivory”. This lot is
noted in the delivery list as “Various animals carved in wood”
1. е. not inivory. Fifteen of these were delivered to the Museum,
not 10 as stated in the published list.

1 Similar to that shown in Fig 376c as “bull roarer”. The Eskimo name
is not stated here, as in the case of the other toys, so that the List deli-
vered to the Museum furnishes new information on this head.

2 The original 2 in the list had been altered to a 4; there were, however,
but two: L 4907—08.

416 Tuomas THOMSEN.

99—100. “Sundry objects (plaited sinew threads etc.)”. The sinew
thread is now marked No. L. 4947. The “etc.” presumably
refers — although only one number is allotted — to various
small objects not noted in the list.

In addition, the list delivered also mentioned “One dust
cleaner” that is to say, an umiak cleaner, or as Mr. THAL-
BITZER prefers to call it, a boathook, this bemg the very
one shown in Fig. 83a p. 380 of Mr. THALBITZER's work
(L. 4940). Further, two dolls are also mentioned, repre-
senting men on ski, (L. 4900—01); these are not included
in the published list. The Museum has also received 1 drum
(L. 4857), 5 undressed figures (L. 4878—82) including one
jointed doll (vide p. 403) and four bone beads (L. 4949—50)
which articles are not mentioned either in the list delivered
to the Museum or in that now published. Finally, to com-
plete the references made in the work to illustrations there
given of objects in the collection, the following numbers, with
those of the figures corresponding should be added:

12 (Fig. 152c), 13 (Fig. 186a), 24 (Fig. 253e), 25—35 (Fig.

2531), 36—38 (Fig. 285f and <), 43—44 (Figs. 321f and 322Ъ),

46 (Fig. 324b), 52—53 (Fig. 180b) and 71—78 (Fig. 378 a).

Among objects shown in the illustrations but not mentioned
in the published list, we have also: One Umiak cleaner (Fig.
83a) beads (Figs. 343a and b) and 1 drum (Fig. 360a).

Mr. THALBITZER evidently attaches considerable importance to his
collection, since he has seen fit to include a catalogue of the same in his
work, at the expense of Нотм’з and JoHAN PETERSEN’s, which are of
far greater value; it would therefore be reasonable to expect that the
catalogue given should be correct. The collection was not delivered to
the Museum until three years after his return from Greenland; and
one might suppose that he would thus have had sufficient time to
make himself fairly well acquainted with the material which he had
brought over. Nevertheless, his illustrations show no less than 15 objects
from this, his own collection, here attributed to others. Had he wished
to refresh his memory, or to fill up possible lacunae in his notes, he could
at any time have inspected the whole of the material at the Museum.
The most correct method of proceeding would have been to draw up a
list from the records of the Museum, or at any rate, to make sure that
the list to be published agreed, either with the contents of the collection
as preserved in the Museum, or with the list which accompanied it on
delivery. The third list which now appears in his work serves no good
purpose; rather, indeed, the reverse.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 417

CONCLUDING REMARKS.

We have in the foregoing considered various typical instances of
Mr. THALBITZERS peculiar methods of dealing with museum material
and with such sources of information as are afforded by previously
published works. We have seen that he is not always thoroughly familiar
with the subjects of which he treats, and that his lack of proper quali-
fication in this respect also makes itself apparent in his new edition of
Hotm’s work, included in the same volume; that he is apt to be remarkably
inaccurate in quoting his authorities, and inclined now and then to
formulate far-fetched conclusions on the basis of madequate observation.

All questions such as might form the subject of scientific discussion
have been purposely omitted here, only indisputable errors being dealt
with. Mere inaccuracies of the mental process and of exposition have
also been passed over. By way of illustration, and to save the reader,
if possible, from overmuch pondering upon obscure passages, a single
instance of the Author’s style may here be given.

With regard to Capt. Auprup’s find of the so-called “dead house”
at Nualuk, we read, on p. 323; “The objects found were first brought
by boat down to Ammassalik, where several of them were recognised
as belonging to a man, who with some other families had journeyed
northwards two years previous to Horm’s arrival, without any-
thing bemg heard of the whole party later. The circumstances atten-
ding the discovery indicated, that the natives (over 30) had been over-
come by a catastrophe, hunger or more probably poisoning from rotten
meat”.

And immediately after: "They had not gone much more than 80
miles from their tribal relatives, which agrees with the fact, that
the ruin found was of recent date in its appearance. Although
the collection found in the ruin originated from the time before the
arrival of Europeans, the contents showed distinct signs of an indirect
connection with European culture”. (Here follow some examples). “In
other respects, it confirms in every way the typological characteristics
of the Ammassalik culture, which we knew from the HorLm collection.
For example, there is a precise agreement between the forms of the
harpoon heads in the two collections, so that we become convinced,
that the types of harpoons, contained in the Ногм collec-
tion, had been fixed and predominant in this region pro-
bably for many generations”.

It is not easy to see why the harpoon heads carried by a man setting
out from Angmagsalik in 1882 should be expected to differ in any es-
sential degree from those obtained by Hotm at the same place in 1884.

The sentence: “They had not gone much more than 80 miles from
their tribal relatives, which agrees with the fact, that the ruin found
was of recent date in its appearance” likewise furnishes food for thought.

It would surely seem obvious, that the farther the party went, the later
и. 27

418 THOMAS THOMSEN.

would they build, and the newer would the resulting house appear, .
while on the other hand, the shorter their journey, the earlier — and
older — their house.

I find some difficulty also, in accepting, as does Mr. THALBITZER,
the resemblance between the harpoon heads of 1882 and those of 1884
as proof that the types “had been fixed and predominant in this region
probably for many generations”.

In the foregoing, I have sought to point out instances of the various
difficulties which the scientific enquirer is lable to encounter, and to
emphasise the need of caution in the face of errors and inaccuracies
which might otherwise prove misleading. To go through the whole of
the work would demand a disproportionate amount of space. For further
convenience, a list of some two hundred and fifty corrections, em-
bracing 385 pages of the book (pp. 369—753) is given in the following,
arranged in order of page numbers, with references to the foregoing in
such cases as have been dealt with already. Even this list, however,
can make no claim to completeness.

Yet with this we might well conclude, had it not been for the
fact that Mr. THALBITZER has endeavoured to make the National Mu-
seum responsible for the quality of his work. An accusation of so
serious a nature cannot be allowed to pass unrefuted. It has been
pointed out in the foregoing, and — albeit the fact would seem obvious
enough in itself — may here be repeated, that Mr. THALBITZER had every
opportunity of studying the entire contents of the Museum as closely
and as frequently as he might wish, and that he would, on application,
have been furnished with every information obtainable from the records
of the Museum. He has also formerly availed himself of these oppor-
tunities, as may be seen from p. 658 of his work. It has also been shown
(pp. 385—93) that Mr. THALBITZER's method of work when dealing
with written or printed sources of information entirely resembles his
treatment of museum material. Further proof will be afforded by a
glance at the manner in which he handles such material when un-
disturbed by such hindrances as he claims to have met with in the
Museum, and at the results which he attains by such study.

We may take, for instance, a couple of examples from his work
on the first part of the Amprup collection. Mr. THALBITZER had here,
as he himself tells us, the objects in question laid out before him all
the time on a table in one of the rooms of the Kgl. Danske Videnska-
bernes Selskab. And as another point in his favour, we may choose
out examples from the first chapters of the book, comprising 1) har-
poon heads, 2) other weapon heads made of bone and 3) stone imple-
ments. At the conclusion of these sections, the Editor himself informs

1 Medd. om Grønl., vol. 28, р. 329 ff. (i. е. THALe. I).

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 419

us that he has "treated of three kinds of Eskimo implements which have
hitherto been the object of particular attention on the part of ethnogra-
phers’”’!; he has thus had the work of other writers as a guide if needful.
As regards the remainder, he has not had the advantage of such aids,
and restricts himself also to a merely geographical arrangement of the
material.

It is only fair to remark that these chapters are at least richly illu-
strated; 6 out of the 9 harpoon heads shown are shown three or four
times each. This does not mean that they are presented from as many
different points of view; the difference is in several instances restricted
to the background, which is in one case white, im another black; the
white makes the better picture. In Fig. 14, p. 381, we have a flake
of stone, seen from two sides, concerning which the Editor observes in
the text: “The specimen shows no trace of polishing or finishing so that
it is uncertain whether it is an artefact at all, and whether it has ever
been in use”.

These sections are further marked by a strictly systematical order,
almost too strict, perhaps, at times, as when we find, in Fig. 13 p. 381,
under “Stone implements” the blade of a woman’s knife, the remaining
portion of which is given in Fig. 21 p. 403, in the geographically arranged
part of the book.

On p. 347 we are told, with regard to one of the harpoon heads
from North-East Greenland, that it “resembles very much a West
Greenland type of harpoon head” in proof of which the Editor
quotes SVENANDER? 40, Fig. 4 The resemblance to the illustration in
question is certainly striking; SVENANDER tells us, however, expressly,
on the opposite page (p. 41), that Fig. 4 represents one of the objects
collected by Dr. Hammar in North-East Greenland. The resemblance
is thus rendered less remarkable, and the connection with West Green-
land disappears. With regard to this same harpoon head, we are further
informed that the blade “as is ”(sic) “seems, was also wedged into the
slit with small pieces of iron”.

Here again, I am unable to concur in Mr. THALBITZER’s opinion;
the present appearance of the object is due to splitting of the metal
through the action of rust, a phenomenon very generally known.

The fragments from a tow-line, presented in illustration as points
of Ituartit harpoons, have been dealt with in the foregoing: it only
remains to add that the Editor might have avoided this, as well as other
errors, if he had been content to keep to the matter in hand, instead
of dragging in extraneous museum objects. And if Mr. THALBITZER had
omitted the passage on p. 448 to the effect that the Norwegian ethno-

1 THALB. I, p. 386.
2 GUSTAF SVENANDER: Harpun-, Kastpil- och Lansspetsar fran Väst-Grönland.
Uppsala och Stockholm 1906 (Kungl. Vetenskapsakademiens handlingar
Band 40, No. 3).

27%

420 THOMAS THOMSEN.

grapher Dr. O. SOLBERG “does not mention the three bone heads of
adzes in Prarr’s collection in the Riksmuseum at Stockholm” no one
would have suspected what we now know to be the case, that Mr. THat-
BITZER was ignorant of the fact that an Eskimo adze-head is not bored
to receive a haft, or cut away obliquely at the hinder end with socket
at same. In other words, he would have spared himself the embarrass-
ment of confusing an adze-head with the head of a whaling harpoon —
and the harpoon head in general is a subject to which he devotes especial
attention.

Mr. THALBITZER is hardly more fortunate in his determination of
the object shown in Fig. 8 of his work. The illustration shows it as an
arrowhead: the text accompanying it, however, does not lead the reader
to any definite conclusion. “I have not been able” we read, “to find
either in Mason, Мовоосн, or NELSON any arrow the head of which
resembles this specimen from East Greenland”. Arrowheads from Boothia,
King William's Land and Alaska are then discussed, until we come to
the following: “However, among the numerous varieties of bone arrows
in the National Museum at Copenhagen there are several which resemble
that treated of here pretty closely”. SOLBERG is quoted in support of
this; but even now, the Editor is not satisfied with the result,
and goes on to say: “It is, however, by no means out of the question
that we have to do with the head of a bird-dart”. Some space is then
devoted to the consideration of various objects which SVENANDER rightly
states are not bird spear heads, after which we are shown an illustration
of the true head of this weapon; the specimen shown is, however, as
widely different from Amprup’s as well may be. I leave it to the reader
himself to judge of these two objects and the accompanying text; it
would be waste of time to devote further space to the subject here.

The object in question is, then, finally shown to be the head of a
bird dart? No! not altogether. “Another, though less probable, sup-
position is that this bone head may have been used as a salmon spear,
for fishing on the ice; cf. Метзом (Alaska)”. We are then told of a spear
from the Gjga collection, intended for “salmon-spearing from a kaiak”;
these spears are, however, according to Mr. THALBITZER’s own words,
furnished with detachable point. And in conclusion, we read: “However,
as inv. Apu. 17 is not arranged so as to form a detachable fore-piece,
it is not quite justifiable to compare it with these western fish-spears,
especially, as fish-spears with detachable heads, as far as I know,
are not known from any district in Greenland”.

And here the discussion closes, somewhat, no doubt, to the reader’s
relief, since each new hypothesis, as the Editor himself admits, has proved
more improbable than the one before. It would perhaps have been
more considerate had Mr. THALBITZER expunged the hypotheses which
did not satisfy himself before sending the manuscript to print; it seems,
however, that he is afflicted with a habit of thinking aloud, for we en-

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 421

counter the same thing in the case of the next figure (Fig. 9) here repro-
duced for the sake of convenience as Fig. 5. With regard to these bone
heads we are told: “At first sight they look like weapon heads, but what
kind of weapon heads? They cannot have been detachable, loose, har-
poon heads? belonging to the common sealing harpoons, or agdligak
harpoons, or to the somewhat heavier walrusing harpoons; against both
these possibilities militates .... etc.”. And again “They have no slits
for blades, and. thus cannot have been the fore-pieces of sealing lances.
Nor do they look like the fixed bone heads of bird darts; a
partial resemblance to the head of an arrow from Alaska....
must be regarded as a coincidence. On the other hand, the
resemblance of these heads to the firmly secured bone heads
at the end of whaling-harpoons of the type known from
Alaska and from Baffin Land, is unmistakable. But a remark-
able point about them is their small size, which might lead
one to suppose that they were only used as toys, or as models
for boys to practise with”.

The discussion of these weapon heads in 1909 has, at
. least, one advantage over the treatment of the arrow heads,
to wit, the fact that it ends with a definite result. In Mr.
THALBITZER’s work of 19142, however, where the same articles
are dealt with, we read: “In my earlier description of AMDRUP’s
finds from northern East Greenland I identified two cylindrical
bone points from Cape Tobin as, miniature bone fore-pieces
of whaling harpoons’. It seems more correct to regard these
as fragments of ordinary loose shafts mtended to be spliced
together with thicker (lower) parts of the shaft, which are
wanting. They should thus be called, fragmentary fore-pieces
or loose shafts for harpoons’. These spliced bone shafts are
extemely common at Ammassalik”.

The Editor has himself spent some time at Angmagsalik,
and has there, as he informs us, had opportunities of acqui- Wen
ring first-hand knowledge of the implements. The reader cannot, Fig. 5.
therefore, hesitate to believe that the front portion of these 1}.
spliced foreshafts is of the form shown in Fig. 5, viz; 1) having
a hole in front of the oblique surface, and 2) lacking the holes opposite
the oblique surface through which the two pieces of the foreshaft
are nailed together. As matters stand, however, I for my part venture
to opine, until the contrary is proved, that these pieces must be
formed after the manner of that shown by Mr. THALBITZER in Fig.
119a®, i.e. with holes through the obliquely cut portion by means of
which the two parts can be firmly joined together, but without

1 “Loose shafts” is probably was is meant.
2 ТнАьв. II, р. 416.
3 Tuats. Il, р. 421.

422 THOMAS THOMSEN.

any complete perforation above, which also agrees with the speci-
mens of this nature preserved in the Museum (cf. Fig. 6), whereas
none of the alternative construction have been brought over as yet.
If this be the case, then we are still without a final conclusion of the
discussion regarding Fig. 5. And if I may be permitted to offer a hint,
I would suggest that Mr. THALBITZER in his next work should consider
the possibility of ice harpoons.

The instance above quoted will doubtless suffice to
show that the treatment of the material, and the results
arrived at, are very similar to what we find in the author’s
last published work. The latter is, mdeed, possibly superior
in some respects; Captain Amprup, for instance, had been
careful to obtain reliable information on the spot as to
the uses of the implements in his collection, in addition
to which Mr. THALBITZER has here had the advantage of
being able, during a period of two years, to draw upon
the firsthand knowledge of so experienced an authority as
Kolonibestyrer JOHAN PETERSEN".

The foregoing observations have been mainly con-
cerned with the scientific side of Cand. THALBITZER’S
work. I cannot however refrain from adding a few words
concerning his reference to the Museum with which I am
connected, and which he has made use of for the purposes
of his work, albert, as we have seen, to so slight a degree,
and in a manner so peculiar, as greatly to impair the
scientific value of his work as a whole.

On p. 328, we are told that “only a part” of the
Greenland collections “are said to have been set up in
cases”; the reader will, however, look in vain for any de-
finite statement as to who has “said” so. The Museum
authorities, of whom it would be most natural to enquire,

Fig. 6. 4 have certainly never said anything of the kind. The fact
of the matter is, that since the general rearrangement of
the collections, made some ten years back, 1) all the Greenland objects
are fully exposed for scientific inspection in the gallery set apart for this
section 2) with the exception of supplementary specimens and fragments
from the finds made on the sites of Eskimo villages, which are placed
in the window cupboards”, everything is set out in glass cases where
3 THALB. II, p. 324.

2 These cases, which, it need hardly be said, are likewise accessible for scien-
tifie inspection, contain only matters of little importance to the scientist,
and nothing at all belonging to either HoLm’s, Amprup’s, JOHAN PETER-
SEN’S or THALBITZER’S collection. With regard to Horm’s collection, Mr.
THALBITZER states in one place, with a somewhat ambiguous expression,
that it “has lain” in the Museum since 1888; this is, however, according to

a later written statement of the Author himself, to be understood as mea-
ning that is has been on exhibition since that time.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 423

the contents would be easily visible. 3) Newly received contributions
are placed on view. as soon as the necessary registration, etc. has been
made. Immediately before the rearrangement above mentioned, and
during the course of same, a number of objects were necessarily removed
from their places and stored elsewhere: this took place, however, prior
to the period of Mr. THALBITZER's ethnographical workt.

The rearrangement included the procuring of much-needed space
through the fitting up of a gallery 24 metres long, consisting of five
deep divisions, the interjacent portions reaching nearly to the glass parti-
tion. The accompanying illustration shows the arrangement in the case
of a part of the Angmagsalik collection. The left side of the picture
gives one of the deep divisions, where small implements are seen
lying immediately behind the glass, while the background is occupied
by hunting dresses, larger implements, and sledges. The photograph,
taken on a cloudy day in October 1914 by the same photographer who
carried out the work for Mr. THALBITZER, shows very clearly the dresses
on the wall at the back. The left half of the picture shows, on the right,
the side wall of the same division, occupied by a row of spears, and
in the centre one of the projecting portions, while to the left again, the
adjacent division, containing West Greenland objects, is partly seen.
The labels on the front edge of the shelves give descriptive notes as to
the exhibits there; at the back of the deeper portion, however, numbers
only are placed, the descriptive labels corresponding being set up in a
frame outside the case. The strip of wood running down the centre
of the picture is the framepost against which the doors rest when closed,
screwed fast against a lining of soft leather, on account of the poisonous
chemicals used to preserve the numerous furs against moth.

It is this arrangement to which Mr. THALBITZER refers when he
tells us that “The Greenland objects are placed in unusually deep glass
cases, in which it is almost impossible for the visitor to see what is placed
at the back and in which most of the objects can only be got at with
great difficulty”. As regards the first part of this statement, the reader
can himself judge, from the accompanying photograph, taken at a con-
siderably greater distance from the case than that at which the visitor
ordinarily would stand, how far it may be justified. As regards the latter

1 Unreasonable as it would seem, it is nevertheless not improbable that the
Author’s “are said” refers to this remote period, since, in a note on the
same page, he harks back to the last century in order to draw attention
to an alleged neglect on the part of the Museum authorities in connection
with a request made to them. My own connection with the Museum
Ethnographical Collections does not date back so far as include any per-
sonal knowledge of this ancient matter; I must therefore confine myself to
the suggestion that since the gentleman concerned — an eminent American
ethnographer, now long since deceased — did not think fit to carry the
matter farther after receiving the letter forwarded by the Museum authori-
ties under date 21.—6.—1897, then surely Mr. THALBITZER also would have
done well to let it rest.

494 Tuomas THOMSEN.

part, it should be mentioned that the whole interior furniture of the
cases consists of loose shelves, which can be removed at any time with
their contents. They were also thus removed for Mr. THALBITZER’s con-
venience, and placed outside, where he could freely select and study
his material.

The whole of this arrangement, with its alternating deep divisions,
the movable shelves and large doors reaching from floor to ceiling, which
can be drawn right back to the glass partition, has been commended
by experts as an exceptionally happy solution of the problem: given
a restricted amount of space, to obtain a scientifically adequate arrange-
ment of the collections, rendering them at the same time thoroughly
comprehensible for the ordinary visitor and easily accessible for the
scientist. | ES

Mr. THALBITZER then goes оп to say that he ‘obtained very little
time to study the objects taken from the cases, as they had to be brought
out and put in again each day by one of the assistants”. It is perfectly
true, that the replacing of removed shelves at the end of each working
day is one of the constant rules of the Museum. This is necessary, both
for the preservation of the objects themselves, and for the convenience
of the general publie, and there can be no reasonable grounds for complaint
when the same shelves are brought out next day by one of the staff
to the same place where they had been placed for inspection on the
foregoing. The research student would, on the other hand, have every
reason to complain if the Museum authorities did not accord him suf-
ficient time to prosecute his mvestigations: on this point again, however,
Mr. THALBITZER’s statement is altogether at variance with the actual
facts. He was of course at liberty to have the same shelves removed
for inspection as often as he might desire. Mr. THALBITZER has here
evidently used an ill-chosen expression; it cannot have been his intention
to say what his words imply.

With regard to his work in the Museum, Mr. THALBITZER further
states: “I directed a request therefore in 1908 to the Director of the
ethnographical section, Dr. Sopnus Mutter, that I might be permitted
to study the collections from East Greenland and first and foremost
С. Hotm’s. In the following year I asked to be allowed to photograph
Horm’s collection. In the spring of 1910 I succeeded at length in begin-
ning the work of photographing which extended over 16 days”.

It must be admitted that this passage, taken sentence by sentence,
is perfectly in accordance with the truth; here again, however, Mr.
THALBITZER has been unfortunate m his choice of expression; his words
as they stand might well be construed as meaning that the writer had
spent a couple of years m vain endeavours to obtain permission to
photograph and study the collections. This is far from being the
case. Only in a single instance did Mr. THALBITZER meet with any hin-
drance on the part of the Museum authorities, viz. in the case of his

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 425

application in June 1909 for permission to photograph. Here the authori-
ties were obliged to defer the desired permission for three months, the
Museum being during that time open daily to the public, so that the
rooms in question could not be reserved for special work. The fact that
Mr. THALBITZER chose to wait until the 24th of February of the fol-
lowing year cannot be laid to the charge of the Museum.

Mr. THALBITZER tells us that he employed “a photographer recom-
mended by the director” and that the work of photographing was car-
ried out “in front of the cases, where the light conditions were not exactly
good” and “somewhat hastily owing to the short working hours of the
museum”. It should here be observed, that although the Museum au-
thorities furnished Mr. TIALBITZER with the name of a photographer
having considerable experience of photographic work in the Museum,
he was perfectly at liberty to engage another had he pleased; further,
that the photographer in question has declared in writing that the light
was satisfactory, and that the working hours accorded — from 10 or
12 to 4 — were fully sufficient to permit of the work being done clearly
and well.

It will thus be seen that Mr. THALBITZER has had full liberty to
prosecute his studies in the Museum, the only restrictions bemg such
as would inveritably arise from the regulations to which every student
must necessarily be expected to conform. Since, however, he has been
unable to realise the necessity of such restrictions, but has construed
them as unfriendliness, and now endeavours to bring the Danish National
Museum into ill repute abroad, the Museum authorities are forced to
correct and explain the frequently vague and misleading statements in
which he expresses himself. Mr. THALBITZER evidently fails to realise
the fact that a Museum accessible to and much visited by the general
public cannot altogether set aside the interests of the ordinary visitor
in order to serve the convenience of a single investigator.

Finally, we read: “I regret that such a short measure of interest and
friendliness obliged me to renounce a fuller utilization of the rich collec-
tions and has thus without doubt reduced the strength of my work”.
In the face of this repeated accusation, we must once more emphatically
assert that Mr. THALBITZER might to the full have utilised the collec-
tions for the purposes of his work, and I will take upon myself to point
out, that it was his plain duty as a scientist to utilise the Danish Museum
to the highest possible degree, the more so since it is there, and not
in the foreign Museums he mentioned, that the material which was to
form the subject of his work was to be found. Had he, as he gives his
readers to understand, encountered opposition on the part of the Museum
in the prosecution of his studies, two courses would have lain open to
him: either to request the Committee which had entrusted him with
the work to intervene, or to declare that he could not, under the circum-
stances, undertake to complete the task. The course which he has adopted:

426 Tuomas THOMSEN.

of publishing his work on the basis of highly inadequate study of his
subject, and afterwards seeking to lay the blame on the Museum,
carries its own condemnation.

The fact that the work in question has been accorded a place among
the “Meddelelser om Grønland” which stand in so high repute as scientific
publications, renders it impossible to disregard it altogether; the title
in question is very properly regarded in scientific circles as conferring
a patent of reliability. As a matter of fact, however, it should be borne
in mind that the editors of the series do not hold themselves responsible
for the contents of the volumes, and the individual author’s selection
of quotations, his treatment of literary sources, his description of objects
and statements concerning their origin are thus likewise outside the Com-
mittee’s control.

Since the foregomg was written, other works have appeared bearing
in part upon the same points, and in certain respects supplementing
the observations therein contained. It will therefore be proper to call
attention to the publications in question. They are as follows:

Nordisk Tidskrift for Vetenskap, Konst och Industri, 1914, pp.
530—34, a review by Gupmunp Harv.

Meddelelser om Grønland, vol. 51; Morten P. Porsitp, Studies
on the material culture of the Eskimo in West Greenland.
Det Grønlandske Selskabs Aarsskrift 1915, pp. 62—71, a review

by Kas BIRKET-SMITH.

The editors of Meddelelser om Grønland having intimated that a
reply from Cand. THALBITZER will be published in the same volume as
the present work, and that the discussion, as far as the periodical in
question is concerned, will therewith be considered closed, I take this
opportunity of mentioning that a further statement on my part may,
if deemed necessary, be expected to appear in a Danish or English
periodical.

Finally, I beg to express my best thanks to the Carlsberg Fund,
which has borne the expenses of the foregomg work.

CORRECTIONS TO W. THALBITZER’S ETHNOGRAPHICAL
COLLECTIONS FROM EAST GREENLAND.

Page.

369. L.3; “ornamental expansions’. These expansions are not orna-
ments, but are of practical importance, being intended to strengthen
those parts where the pull of the thong is felt.

380. Fig. 83a (Mus. No. L. 4940) was not brought over by Hom, but
by W. THALBITZER 1906.

Page.

383.

388.

389.

390.

408.

411.
418.
420.

425.
432.
455.

439.

454.

455.

458.

460.

465.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. | 427

L. 15—16. “Kayaks have been used everywhere naturally”.
Among the Polar Eskimos the kayak was at any rate not in use
during the period 1818 to about 1860.

Fig. 92с (Mus. No. L. b. 695) was not brought over by Hom, but
by RYDER 1892.

Line 20; “bird’s claw”. The bird in question is a polar bear. Line 2
from below: “ром”. NELSon, from whom the quotation is taken,
gives “board” which makes better sense.

L. 4. “Various other small variations of this type also occur in
Alaska. cf. Netson l.c. Pl. LX XIX fig. 4 and Mason (1900)
Pl. XIV”. It is the same object (Washington Museum No. 160.
337) in both cases, and is not a small variation, but an entirely
distinct implement, which cannot be used as a float and which
stands on three legs rising above the kayak itself.

Fig. 103b (Mus. №. L. 1555) was not brought over by Horn, but
by JoHAN PETERSEN 1897. Fig. 104 is a child’s harpoon. Figs. 105
and 106a—b (L.b. 688 1 and L.b. 687 1-2 respectively) were brought
over by RYDER.

Cf. Ровзшо р. 240—41.

Cf. PorsıLD р. 241.

Figs. 116a (L.b. 686) and 118a (L.b. 678) were not brought over
by Ногм, but by Вуовв 1892. In the case of 116a, this correction
should also be made in the text p. 419.

Cf. PorsıLD р. 240.

Cf. PoRsıLD р. 240.

Fig. 137a, b,c (Mus. No. L.b. 6891-32) Figs. 139a (L.b. 685), 139b
(L.b. 684) and 140b (L.b. 683) were all brought over by RYDER
1892. Fig. 140a, which belongs to the Ногм collection, has three
teeth, the middle one must have been missing when the piece was
photographed, as all three teeth are still in position.

Fig. 144 (Mus. No. L.b. 367) is part of a child’s harpoon. The
scale, stated as “1/,?” should be altered to !/,.

Fig. 152. The specimen farthest to the left, (Mus. No. L.c. 1335)
was brought home by С. RypER 1892; No.3 from the left (Mus.
No. L. 4944) by W. THALBITZER 1906.

In Fig. 154, the kayak stand belongs to Ryver’s collection (L.b.
6952); the remainder is difficult to identify. The scale “1/,,?”
should be 1/,. As to the double bladder cf. PorsıLD р. 242.
Fig. 158. All six specimens (a—f) are from Rypar’s collection 1892
(Mus. №. L.b. 6591-65); the same applies to Fig. 159c (L.b. 6732).
Fig. 161. This specimen is from JoHAN PETERSEN 1897 (Mus. No.
L. 1555). The scale is stated as “1/,5?”. 1/1, is correct, and the
query may therefore be deleted.

Figs. 172a (Mus. No. L.b. 6581) and 172b (L.b. 670) are both from
С. RYDER’s voyage of 1892.

428

Page.

467.
468.
471.
473.

476.

477.

478.

479.
480.

481.

482.
489.

496.

497.

499.
501.
502.

THOMAS THOMSEN.

Fig. 174 (L.b. 661) was brought over by Вурвв 1892.

Fig. 175b (L.b. 6711) likewise brought over by Вурев 1892.
Fig. 180b (L. 4920) was brought over by W. THALBITZER 1906.
Fig. 181b (L.b. 660!) is from С. Вурвв’з voyage of 1892, as also
Fig. 182f (L.c. 1293).

Fig. 186 left (L. 4848) is from W. THALBITZER’s voyage 1906; cor-
rection should also be made in text p. 475.

Linie 15—27. OLEARIUS’ statement is misunderstood. The knives
{rom Southampton Island have stone, not iron blades (vide supra
рр. 404—05).

Note 6. The illustration in GRAAH's work is Pl. VIII, not УП.
Fig. 187b (L.c. 371) was not brought over by Horm, but was found
by GRAAH as far back аз 1829 at Malingiset, on the East coast of
Greenland, Lat. 62°20’ N. The scale of Fig. 187 is not 1/; but 1/;.

Fig. 188b (L.c. 12911) was brought over by C. Вурвв 1892.
Fig. 189 is not a hammer, but a chisel (vide supra pp. 398—99).

Fig. 190 is not a drill, but a whetting iron (vide supra рр. 396—97).
Fig. 191с (L. 1495) was collected by JoHAN PETERSEN 1897.
Line 1; vide supra pp. 396—97 L. 2 “likewise” should be deleted,
as the former of the two objects was not brough tover by Horm.

Fig. 192b (L.c. 896) was presented in 1883 by Konferentsraad
RYBERG: it was procured from East Greenlanders, but is hardly
from Angmagsalik. Figs. 192c and d (L. 1506! and L. 15068) were
brought over by Joh. PETERSEN 1897.

Lines 8—9. Finger and knee protectors are also used on the West
Coast.

Fig. 195, the scale is incorrectly stated; should be !/,.

Note 1. PEary has brought home 3 meteorites to America (cf.
Meddel. om Grønland vol. 32, p. 513).

Figs. 205a and b (L. 4446 and 4447). Presented by JoHan PETER-
SEN 1909. с. (L.c. 1296) brought over by Вурев 1892. 205d-g
and 206a-b we have been unable to identify. If preserved in the
National Museum, it must be presumed that they are from West
Greenland: they are in any case insignificant fragments.

Lines 21 ff. As the objects shown in Fig. 206 cannot be identified
it is impossible to say whether a. is a scraper; this cannot be seen
from the illustration. b. is a fragment of one of the flakes of stone
which are of very frequent occurrence in West Greenland: they are
found in hundreds, especially in the same small size. It is not likely
that any important archeological results can be obtained from this.
L. 25; The point shown in Fig. 2101 is of bone, not of slate.

Cf. PoRSILD р. 246.

Fig. 218a-b (L.c. 1292? and 12921) were brought home by RyDER
1892. Fig. 218c is not a whetstone, but a whetting iron (cf. supra
pp. 397—98).

Page.

508.
509.

512.

517.

534.

544.

546.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 429

Fig. 223e (L. 4414) was presented by JoHAN PETERSEN in 1909.
Line 3 from below. The object shown in Fig. 223d has a red
bead inset in the wooden handle on the side not visible in the
picture.

Line 2 from below. Fig. 223e had a wooden handle, with iron
arms and blade. The arms in Fig. 223f however, are of bone.
Fig. 231a is, it is true, mentioned by Horm as a skin creaser; it
was, however, doubtless originally intended as a toggle on some
line which passed through the hole bored from one side to the
other (ef. Fig. 531c).

Fig. 234a (L.b. 657!) was brought over by Ryper 1892.

Fig. 241. Text to illustration amended under corrigenda as fol-
lows: “guard .... guard (Horm coll.) 1/,”. This scale is not cor-
rect; it should be abt. 1], (cf. supra р. 403).

Fig. 242a (L.c. 1299) brought home by Вурвв 1892.

Fig. 249а (L.c. 1302) and с (L.c. 1305) likewise from Ryper 1892.
Fig. 250b (L.c. 1303) brought over by Ryner 1892; с (L. 1503)
from JOHAN PETERSEN 1897.

Figs. 253a, d and f are from Horw's collection; b. and с. from RYDER's,
e. and i. brought over by W. THALBITZER in 1906, h. presented by
Pastor C. Rirren 1903.

Fig. 254b is from Horm's collection, a and d are from RYDER's,
с. is from JoHAN PETERSEN 1897.

Fig. 256b (L. 4429) presented by Jonan Petersen 1909, together
with the strap belonging to the “fire-making implement” shown
in Fig. 256c, the remaining portions of which are from Horm's
collection. The lamp moss marked е. is from RyprEr’s collection
(L.c. 1353).

Fig. 258. Only the wick trimmer placed in the lamp marked b.
belongs to the Hom collection: а-с. (L. 4426, 4423 and 4422) were
presented by JoHAn PETERSEN 1909, while а. (L.c. 1350) is from
RYDER’s expedition of 1892.

Fig. 260. Only the drying frame a. is from the Horm collection.
The cooking pot b. (L.c. 13491) and the lamp with stand 4. (L.c.
1350—51) belong to Ryder’s collection.

Fig. 263a (L.c. 1324) was brought home by Ryper 1892; b. (L.c.
937) by Horm 1885.

Fig. 264 (L.c. 9541) is a model.

Fig. 271a (L.c. 9641). Scale (4/,) incorrect; should be abt 1/,. The
length of the specimen is 17 cm.

Fig. 271b (L.c. 13297) is not from Hotm’s but from Ryper’s
collection; the scale is not !/, but a little under 1/,.

Fig. 271с (Г. 4419) was presented in 1909 by JoHan PETERSEN;
the scale is abt. 4/s.

Fig. 271d-g are reproduced to scale abt. ?/,, not 1/,; only f and

430 THOMAS THOMSEN.

Page.

а. (L.c. 96317?) are from Horm’s collection, е. (L.c. 1328) being
from Ryper’s, and 4. (L. 1518) sent by JoHAn PETERSEN 1897.

547. Fig. 272. Both (L.c. 13261-?) brought over by RYDER.

Fig. 273 (L.c. 268) sent over in 1849 by Kolonibestyrer KIELSEN
(vide supra р. 393 ff.).

550. Fig. 276. Both the objects are models, a. (L.c. 1341) was brought
over by C. RYDER in 1892. .

Fig. 277 is а model.

Fig. 279 (L.c. 1546) was brought over in 1897 by Тонлм PETER-
SEN.

551. Fig. 280a (L.c. 1340) was brought over by RypEr 1892.

Fig. 280b (L.c. 9597) is a model; the scale given is incorrect,
and should be, not 1/,9, but abt. !/..

Fig. 280с (L.c. 267) was sent over in 1849 together with the
specimen shown in Fig. 273 by Kolonibestyrer KIELSEN (vide
supra p. 393 ff.).

352. Fig. 281b is not a drmking cup, but a blubber pot.

553. Fig. 283b (Г. 2060) was presented by Pastor €. Ваттег 1903.

555. Fig. 2851 and g (L. 4829 and 4828) were brought over by W. THAL-
BITZER 1906.

556. Fig. 286b and j (L.c. 13451 and L.c. 13441) are from Rypers
collection 1892; c. and m. (L. 1517 and L. 1516) were sent over
by Joan PETERSEN 1897.

560. Figs. 289a and d (L.c. 13231-2) brought over by Вуовв 1892; e.
(L. 4432) presented by Jonan PETERSEN in 1909.

564. Fig. 291. None of these objects are from Horm's collection, a.

(L.d. 1207) was brought over by Вурвв 1892, b. (L. 15362) sent

over by JOHAN PETERSEN 1897.

Fig. 292. Of these again, neither is from Horm’s collection, a.

(L.d. 1331) is from Ryper’s voyage of 1892, b. (L. 4393) was

presented in 1909 by JoHAan PETERSEN.

567. Fig. 293. Here again, nothing from Horm’s collection. a. (L. 4396)
was presented in 1909 by JoHAN PETERSEN, b. (L.d. 1321) is from
Ryper’s collection of 1892. These are, however, at least from
Angmagsalik, which is not the case with the following: c. (L.d. 6)
presented by Kolonibestyrer Hoyer 1865, and d. (L.c. 222) pre-
sented by Inspektor Ногвотл, 1846 (vide supra р. 388).

569. Fig. 295. The dress (L.d. 119 etc.) was brought over by RYDER
1892, with the exception of the shoes, which are from the Horm
collection.

572—3. Figs. 296—297. This dress (L. 1531 etc.) is from JOHAN
PETERSEN 1897.

574. Fig. 298. The dress (L.d. 118 etc.) was brought over by RyDEr
1892. As to frocks of bird’s skin cf. Porsizp р. 246.

582. Fig. 304 (L.d. 130 etc.) brought over by RypEr 1892.

or
D
or

Page.

583.

602.
603.

604.

The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 431

None of the garments shown in Figs. 305—307 are from Horm's
collection: 305 (L. 1541 and 1535) being from Лонлм PETERSEN
1897; 306 and 307 (L.d. 129—30 and 133) from Вурвв’; expedition
of 1892.
Fig. 308. The specimen b. we have been unable to identify. The
border on the lower edge shows that it cannot be identical with a.
Fig. 309. The garments are not from Horm’s collection; they are
separate items received between 1849—54 and originate from
southern East Greenland. The frock (L.c. 271) was presented by
Kolonibestyrer KIELSEN in 1849, the breeches (L.c. 373) being the
gift of H. Rink 1854 and the boots (L.c. 310) from Нотвотл, 1850.
The child’s dress Fig. 310 (L.d. 131 etc.) is from RYDER's collection.
The boots Fig. 311a-b (L. 4399 and 4398) were presented by
JoHAN PETERSEN 1909.
Fig. 312 received in 1897 from JoHAN PETERSEN (L. 1535).
Of the objects shown in Fig. 314, only b. (L.d. 60) is from Horm’s
collection; a. (L. 1542) was sent over by JoHAN PETERSEN 1897,
while с. and d. (L.d. 1401 and 146) belong to Ryper’s collection.
Of the caps shown in Fig. 315 b. and с. (L.d.138! -2) are from RYDER's
collection, while e. and g. (L. 1543) were received from JOHAN
PETERSEN 1897.
Of the eye-shades shown in Fig. 316 only half are from the Нотм
collection, and of the remaining 5, only one, viz. that marked k.
(L.d. 145) is from Angmagsalik, this being brought over by RYDER
1892. The other four are of earlier date and were procured from
Julianehaab, whither they had been brought by natives from the
southern East Coast; d. (L.c. 100) was presented by Kolonibestyrer
Kiezsen 1840; ©. (L.c. 177) by Inspektor Horsørr 1844; В. (L.d.
13) by Distriktslege Jessen 1881 and 1. (4544) by Inspektør
Нотвотл, in 1838.
Fig. 3211 is from W. THALBITZER’s voyage of 1906 (L. 4852).
Fig. 322b (L. 4851) likewise brought over by W. THALBITZER 1906.
Of the objects shown in Fig. 323 a. and e. (L.d. 1421-2) were brought
over by RypEr 1892, that marked t. (L. 1526) being sent in by
JoHAN PETERSEN in 1897.
Of the five objects shown in Figs. 324 and 325, only one, viz.
325a (L.d. 521) is from Horm's expedition of 1884-5; another,
325c (L.d. 26) was brought over by Horm in 1881. No. 325b on
the other hand (L.d. 150) is from Ryper’s expedition of 1892,
while 324a (L. 4404) was presented by JoHAN PETERSEN in 1909,
and 324b is from W. THALBITZER’s voyage 1906.
Fig. 327b (L. 1529) was received in 1897 from JoHAN PETERSEN.
Fig. 328a (L.d. 1497) belongs to the RYDER collection; b. (L. 4406)
was presented in 1909 by JoHAN PETERSEN.
Fig. 330c (L.d. 151) was brought over by С. RypER 1892.

432

Page.

605.

606.
607.
611.

614.

645.

THOMAS THOMSEN.

Of the six combs shown in Fig. 331, only one, viz. a. (L.c. 9391)
is from Horm's collection, those marked c., d. and e. (L.c. 1298172)
being from Ryper’s, while b. and Г. (L. 15051 and 3) were received
from JOHAN PETERSEN 1897.

The comb in Fig. 332 is an imitation of a type of comb used at
an earlier period; it was made to order for JoHAN PETERSEB.
Fig. 334 (L. 4431) was presented by JonHan PETERSEN 1909.
Figs. 335b and d. and 339 we have been unable to identify, 338,
however, noted by THALBITZER as "HOLM (?) coll.” is, as a matter
of fact, from Ryper’s voyage of 1892 (L.c. 1337).

The two beads shown in the lower part of Fig. 343 we have been
unable to identify; the two other items in the same Fig. however,
(L. 4949 and 4950) were brought over, not by Horm, but by W.
THALBITZER, in 1906. The scale is incorrect: it should be abt. 1/3.
: Of the objects shown in Fig. 344, that marked а. is from Ногу’
expedition of 1884—85, and is part of the lock belonging to the
wooden case shown in Fig. 289c (L.c. 9791); b. (L.d. 26) was recei-
ved from Ногм 1881.

Of the three amulet straps shown in Fig. 348, that marked a.
(L. 1493) was received from JoHAN PETERSEN in 1897, while с.
was presented by Pastor С. Rürter in 1903.

Fig. 350a (L.a. 17) is from Horm’s expedition of 188485; b.
(L.a. 16) is not from East Greenland, but was taken from a grave
at Ungudlik in the Julianehaab district. The rest, 350c-f and
35la-c were presented by Pastor C. Ваттег (cf. supra р. 382).
Fig. 352 (L.c. 1338) is from Ryper’s voyage of 1892.

Line 3 from below to p. 636 L. 8; vide supra p. 391 ff.

Line 12 from below to р. 637 L. 2; vide supra pp. 399—400.
Fig. 360a (L. 4857) was brought over by THALBITZER 1906.

Fig. 361 “Drumsticks”. These are not two distinct objects, but
two presentments of the same drumstick, viewed from side and
front respectively. (L.c. 9043).

Fig. 3661 and m. are not, as stated, made of wood, but of bone
(cf. suprap. 400); Ъ. (L.c. 126948) has a hairknot, later pegged down
into the doll’s head; this was, however, removed when the photo-
graph was taken. The dolls marked с, f, h, 1, К, I and m belong —
to Horm's collection; the remainder from RyDER’s.

Line 1—8; vide supra p. 402.

Fig. 372a-c (L.c. 12737?) and 374a (L.c. 1313) were brought over
by Ryprr 1892; 374c and d (L. 15071-2) by Тонлм PETERSEN 1897.
Fig. 376c (Т.е. 1280) |
Fig. 377 (L.c. 1286) |

Of the two puzzles shown in Fig. 378, that marked a. (L. 4945)
was brought over by THALBITZER in 1906; b. is not identified, but
is in any case not from the Нотм collection.

are from RYDER's collection.

Page.

655.
667.

674.
677.

678.
679.
681.

The Angmagsalik -Eskimo. 433

Fig. 379a was sent over by JoHAn PETERSEN 1897 (L. 1494).
Fig. 392 (L.a. 1) was received in 1848, and is not from Angmag-

-salik (vide supra р. 388) Fig. 393 (L.c. 100) is likewise not from

Angmagsalik; it was presented as far back as 1865 by Koloni-
bestyrer Ноувв.

Cf. Porsizp р. 246.

Lances vide Porsizp р. 246. “The shark’s tooth knives”, vide
supra p. 405.

“Hammer, chisel, wedge”; vide supra pp. 398—99.

Cf. Ровзи р. 243 fi.

“Dolls” vide supra pp. 402—03.

682 ff. “Earlier authors on the Eskimo of the Davis Strait”; vide supra

725.

728.

736.

738.

p. 389 ff.

Lines 11—15. The knives referred to are not, as stated, peculiar
to Angmagsalik, but are also found in West Greenland.

On this page, reference is made to 39 “implements” or “forms and
details of otherwise common types” as being peculiar to Angmag-
salik. With regard to these the following should be noted:

4. Boat hooks. As to boat hooks nothing whatever is known.
(cf. supra pp. 406—07).

5. The cross-shaped kaiak stand has, as the Editor correctly
states on p. 387, also been in use in West Greenland, and should
therefore not be included here.

13. Men's finger and knee protectors are likewise used in West
Greenland.

16. “Old-fashioned men’s knives”. The expression is certainly
somewhat vague; here also, however, it will doubtless be correct
to remark that such articles are likewise known in West Green-
land.

26. Ivory pendants as ornaments on needle skins are, it is true,
only known from Angmagsalik: this is, however, merely a natural
corollary to what is stated under (19), viz. that the needle skins
are only found there.

39. Slings are known among the Polar Eskimos.

“Hough W. Fire-making apparatus etc. Report Nat. Mus. Wa-
shington 1888”; should be “Report Nat. Mus. for 1888. Washington
1890”.

Similar correction should also be made in the case of all his
references to W. Houen’s and О. T. Mason’s works, on pp. 736—7,
whereas in the case of W. J. Horrman’s (р. 735) and Т. WiLson’s
(p. 741) the date given is the year of publication. :

Mason’s “Aboriginal skin dressing” is noted as from Washington
1888—89; it should be Rep. for 1889, Washington 1891.
“NORDENSKIOLD, A. E. Den andra Dicksonska Expeditionen etc.
Stockholm 1885?” The note of interrogation may be dispensed with.

LILI. 28

434 THOMAS THOMSEN: The Angmagsalik Eskimo.
Page.
Poıncy. The chapter in question is the 18th, not the 8th.
739. Ryper, С. Here should be added: Beretning om den estgren-
landske Expedition 1891—92 (Medd. om Grønl. vol. 17) this work
being also quoted by the Editor (vide supra рр. 400—01).
“ScHAcHt Manuser. N. Kgl. 5. 4° 1965 (and А. М. 364 Fol. and
A.M. 775 4°) Kbhvn. 1789”. Should be: A. M. 364 Fol. Kerte-
minde 1689. The rest may be dispensed with (cf. supra pp.
390—91).
743—53. Lists of Amprup’s and THALBITZER’S collections: vide р. 410ff.

TRANSLATED BY W. J. ALEXANDER WORSTER

MEDD. om GRØNL. LIII. Nr. 4. [Тн. THOMSEN]

Pr. II

TER, à

MOT

BRL A, = Rk

ENN RAS Pee = =
Sal MON

Fototypi. Pacht & Crone:

р
i
Ни
#2
x

Eu EN LS

sø

Appendix

to

The Angmagsalik Eskimo
by

THOMAS THOMSEN.

Hr. THALBITZER's reply to my criticism, previously announced as
forthcoming, has now been published in Meddelelser om Gronland.
Save for a certain lack of restraint in tone — a further development
of our author’s polemical zeal — the paper in question merely confirms
what I had previously maintained as to the peculiarity of his methods.
And as the reply did not appear until more than a year had elapsed
“since my work was ready for his perusal, it may be regarded as the
full and well-premeditated sum of what the author can find to say in
his defence.

With regard to his relations with the National Museum, the
author is disinclined to admit my competency in the matter. I will
therefore merely repeat the concluding words of my paper, as putting
the case from an outsider’s point of view: “Had he, as he gives his
readers to understand, encountered opposition on the part of the Mu-
seum in the prosecution of his studies, two courses would have lam
open to him: either to request the Committee which had entrusted
him with the work to intervene, or to declare that he could not, under
the circumstances, undertake to complete the task. The course which
he has adopted: of publishing his work on the basis of highly inade-
quate study of his subject, and afterwards seeking to lay the blame
on the Museum, carries its own condemnation”’.

-In face of the repeated assertions as to his having been “unable
to procure” this or that item of information, I must emphatically
point out that he has neglected to avail himself of the means of access
afforded by the established arrangement of the Museum, to wit, by
applying for an extract from the records. That he should have been
unacquainted with this method of procedure is out of the question,
since he has previously had recourse to the same, and in relinquishing
it subsequently, he certainly seems to exhibit a lack of conscientiousness
in dealing with the task entrusted to him.

The results of this neglect are somewhat euphemistically agnor
ledged by the author on р. 446. We read: “My note: “Holm coll.”

2 THOMAS THOMSEN.

under the figures is thus in certain cases incorrect”. Now as a matter
of fact, the expression ‘‘certain cases” here means one hundred and
fiftyone cases at least; or two-fifths of the items shown under Holm’s
name, (cf. p. 447, where the author gives a detailed definition of what
is to be understood by ‘Holm Collection”). He endeavours then, to
reduce the scientific importance of these errors, and further attempts
— very awkwardly — to disparage the revision of the exhibits as
made by the Museum. He is perfectly correct in stating (p. 480) that
I was not present while the work of photographing was being carried
out; fortunately, however, his illustrations are, with very few ex-
ceptions, distinct enough to permit of the items being identified without
any doubt, and I can challenge him to prove where I am at fault.
In cases where I was not absolutely certain, I reframed from making.
any attempt, which might have left the issue doubtful after all; my
caution here, however, in our author’s view, “would seem to suggest a
certain disorder somewhere in that Department” (p. 479). Finally, he
gives his readers the impression that the erroneous notes to the figures
formed the main point in my criticism of his work. This, however,
as will be seen from my paper, is not the case. And I can draw upon
Hr. THALBITZER's defence itself for further examples of other features
in his method of work.

On р. 389—90 I pointed out that Hr. THALBITZER had recorded
the landing of a Dutch captain in 1656 at 64°10’, whereas the original
authority states 72°. With regard to this, he now writes (p. 453): “My
critic will not be able to weaken this fact. The figure may be seen
in DE Pomcy, and appeared to me to be more essential than the
subsequent 72°, since there might from the first be some doubt as to
the accuracy of these localities, which were not obtained directly from
the Dutch captain, but have only been handed down to us through
the medium of the author of a work on the West Indies. Less doubt,
however, would naturally attach to the figure giving the more detailed
indication, the more so when this corresponds to a spot far easier of
access by sea than the more northerly one which Hr. THOMSEN prefers.
«64910'” would correspond exactly to the position of Godthaab, the
principal landing place in South Greenland, whereas ‘‘72°” would be
Upernawik, the farthest Danish colony to the North, where only
comparatively few ships touch. It may be uncertain whether DE
Pornoy’s authority did land at 72° N. lat., but there is some reason to
believe that he landed from Godthaab Fjord, and saw the objects
described with his own eyes”.

Hr. THALBITZER would thus make it appear that there are two
figures to choose between, one being as good as the other, or more
correctly, his the better of the two. It will here be well to quote the
text from which these conclusions are drawn. Poiney states, that
Nicotas Tunes set out from Zeeland towards the close of the spring

Appendix to the Angmagsalik Eskimo. 5

in 1656, to “découvrir quelque nouveau commerce”, which may
possibly account for his not haying landed where other navigators
were accustomed to put in. At the end of June, he arrived in Davis
Strait, ‘d’où étant entré dans une rivière qui commence au soixante
quatrieme degré et dix minutes de la ligne tirant vers le Nord, it fit
voile jusques au septante deuxième sous lequel la terre que nous
allons décrire est située”.

It is this manner of dealing with his sources in Hr. THALBITZER'S
work, which compels me to feel “а certain doubt as to the results
which may be arrived at by such methods’, and which renders it
necessary to read his defence with the same amount of caution as his
original work.

On р. 457, Hr. THALBITZER observes : ‘“‘Mikeeki’s waterscoop No. 213
in the Petersen collection, which Hr. THomsen declares to be of the
same type, had — if I remember rightly — but one lateral hole”.
Surely it would have been more natural for the author to convince
himself as to the correctness of his opinion by examination of the
specimen itself. He would then have discovered, that his memory,
on which he too often relies, had once more played him false: The
piece has two holes.

This is what I understand by his “peculiar methods of dealing
with Museum material”. And since Hr. THALBITZER has “no idea as
to what may be Hr. Tuomsren’s method of dealing with Museum
material” (p. 445) I may answer, that I have no other method than
what I take to be that generally employed; viz, to study the items
“in the hand” and make notes on the spot, instead of sitting at
home and writing about them from a photograph, or, as in the present
case, from mere recollection. When Hr. THALBITZER writes (p. 439)
“T had curtailed my visits to that department as far as I honestly
could”, he is using too mild a term. It is plain from the facts that
he should have written ‘far more than I honestly could”. A more
extended study would doubtless have furthered that ‘inner metamor-
phosis of development” which he suspects me (p. 471) of undervaluing.
But indeed I wish Hr. THALBITZER may attain yet richer development ;
I have merely hinted that it would be well if the very earliest stages
were suffered to proceed within doors, and not made public as litera-
ture (cf. my paper, p. 420 et seqq.).

On р. 448, we read: “Now what does Hr. Тномзвм know as to
the task which was entrusted to me at my return from my investiga-
tions in East Greenland ?” I have, however, distinctly stated (p. 384,
note 2) that I had my information from Hr. THALBITZER's own work of |
1914, p. I—II, which I naturally took to be a reliable source. I am
now, of course, constrained to accept the author’s assurance that this
is not the case.

On p. 387, note 2, I cited an instance showing how difficult it is

4 Tuomas THOMSEN: Appendix to the Angmagsalik Eskimo.

to check the consequences of an error once committed, which may be
passed on from one writer to another. The example was drawn from
an illustration which Hr. THALBITZER, according to his note thereto
appended, had taken from Е. W. Netson. It now appears (р. 450) that
he has not had recourse to NELSON’s own work, which is to be found
in all our public libraries; the picture "fis reproduced after a some-
what indistinct copy in another”. — The example thus serves even
better to illustrate my point than I had at first supposed.

I see no need to waste further time upon Hr. THALBIZZER's latest
paper. I may, however, just draw attention to one more feature in
the author’s polemical methods. On р. 455 note 1, he writes, “In the
footnotes to these pages Hr. THomsen exhibits a dainty specimen of
his erudition. He appears, by the way, to have overlooked the Danish _
historian Г. ВОВЕ” etc. And оп р. 481 we read: “I imagine that Hr.
ТномзЕем has found the material for some of his more fortunate com-
ments in Hr. PorsıLp’s valuable work”. The accusation of plagiarism
is in my view a charge of a very Serious nature, the more so since it
will as a rule be very difficult for the person accused to defend him-
self. And where such accusation is launched, as here, without even
the slightest attempt at proof, I am confident that others beside
myself will denounce it as a weapon which decent people do not
usually condescend to employ. As regards the facts of the case, I am
fortunately able to-add that my work has been under control since the
autumn of 1914, and that alterations made since then are still to be
seen in the manuscript preserved. . The two mentioned papers were
both issued in 1915.

Hr. THALBITZER has illumined his defence with a neat selection of
quotations from the Latin. If I desired to intimate that I am myself
not unacquainted with that language, I could hardly find a better phrase
with which to conclude than the well-known maxim:

““Audacter, calumniare, semper aliquid haeret’’.

* ‘Translated by W. J. Alexander Worster.

L
р

MCZ ERNST MAYR LIBRARY

ЩИ |

el