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 .... ete.””. 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 intended 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- Wer 
ring first-hand knowledge of the implements. The reader cannot, pig. 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. 
11932, 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 Tuas. II, р. 416. 
3 TuHaxs. II, р. 421. 
