The Ammassalik Eskimo. 439 
were designed to intimate the reason why I had curtailed my visits to 
that Department as far as I honestly could; the fact itself I felt const- 
rained to mention, as accounting for certain failings in my work. My 
remarks, then, were meant in self-defence, and not aggressively. The 
effect, however, was surprising; the Museum Department took them. as 
a challenge. 
I am not authorised to reveal the manner in which the wrath of 
the Department was first visited upon myself; the present pages are 
concerned exclusively with Hr. Underinspektor THomas THOMSEN'S 
criticism of my work. The form and tone of the critique in question 
leave no room for doubt as to its being the direct outcome of this animus; 
I am therefore called upon to refute, not the unbiassed expression of 
expert opinion, but the charges of a conscious adversary. 
There are not lacking in Hr. THOMSEN’s paper utterances indica- 
tive of the fact that he is acting at the instigation of departmental autho- 
rity’. Even so, I fail to see on what grounds I should bow to his com- 
mission, since I consider him incompetent to deliver judgement on the 
crucial point of the case. 
This crucial point is, of course, my personal relations with our 
Ethnographical Department, or, more correctly, the attitude of the 
Department towards myself as visitor and student. The treatment 
meted out to me by the Department was of such a nature as to preju- 
dice my work, not least through the impressions which I carried away 
after my studies in this section of the Museum. 
Hr. THOMSEN is, I maintain, incompetent to judge at all in this 
matter, as he was never present at such times as I was occupied in his 
section, and cannot therefore testify to the manner in which I was re- 
ceived and treated there. At the time when most of my visits took 
place, the Specialist of the Ethnographical Department happened to be 
busied about the duties of his office in other parts of the building. I 
have thus had no intercourse with this gentleman; I do not know him. 
And I have accordingly no intention of discussing the personal side 
of the case with Hr. THOMSEN. 
I reiterate, however, that my work has been seriously delayed and 
impaired through the unfriendly reception accorded me by the Ethno- 
graphical Department. None of the errors or failings in my book — 
not even such as might appear to lie beyond the sphere of museum 
investigation —- but was in some measure due to the undermining effects 
of this hostility. 
And I further maintain, that I could not in fairness have formu- 
lated any other expression of thanks to the Director of the Museum De- 
partment, regrettable as this may seem. In giving my name to the 
book as its author, I was obviously obliged to explain, what I had rea- 
hsed before its completion, that it contained certain shortcomings, and 
Le, g. in his paper pp. 382 (bottom of page), 422 and 425 (middle). 
