420 THOMAS THOMSEN. 
grapher Dr. О. 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, Мовросн, 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. NELSON (Alaska). We are then told of a spear 
from the Gjoa 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. Арм. 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- 
