The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 411 
of print. Nor is there any catalogue of Jouan PETERSEN's important 
collection. Of the three mentioned on the title-page, then, we find but 
one, viz, the Амовор collection, this being, however, accorded two lists: 
a brief classification on pp. 322—23, and another at greater length on 
pp. 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 Horm 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.)?” 
ean 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 (THars. I, 540—42), List I] (Тнатв. 
II, 522—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 im 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 121%. 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 “Skeergaards “Peninsula”, whereas I and III 
have "Skærgaardshalvø”; all three lists however, agree in stating the 
latitude of the place as 68°07’, in contrast to the text, (THALB. I, р. 386) 
which gives it as 68°. 
The uncertainty as to the size of the Амовор 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- 
skrift4, where the number is stated as over 300. 
1 THALB. I, pp. 540—42. 
2 THALB. II, pp. 752—53. 
3 THALB. I, pp. 495—99 and pp. 533—34. 
4 Geogr. Tidsskr. vol. XX, p. 215. 
