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. Hotm’s description here р. 46 and to O, 
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. c., 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 Mason’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. 
