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 
ın 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 p. 223 of the same work, we read “The two bone handles ... 
(presumably drum handles) .... are carved as if from the same model 
as а quiver handle shown by Boast, 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 (Tuare. 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. 
