450 WILLIAM THALBITZER. 
Оп р. 385 20.97: — Hr. THOMSEN observes that “The Author ‘feels 
some uncertainty in this respect’ regarding ten illustrations in the text”. 
This is a misunderstanding. It would be far more correct to say, that 
I felt a general uncertainty as to referring the objects to Нотм’з col- 
lection, and merely mentioned the ten instances as examples (M. o. G. 
Vol. 39, p. 755), where the appearance of the objects, or of my photo- 
graphs, gave me particular reason to doubt. 
As already mentioned, the manner in which the exhibits were ar- 
ranged at the Museum afforded the visitor no guidance; the East Green- 
land collections from this and the more southerly part of the coast were 
indiscriminately mingled. ; 
I had no doubt at all, however, as to the essential point, viz: that 
all these objects were truly representative of Ammassalik culture (in 
the broader sense), and I considered the question of collectors’ names 
as relatively subordinate. 
I may add, moreover, — and I should like to emphasise the point 
— that since Hr. THOMSEN in several cases admits his inability to iden- 
tify the specimens shown by me from his Museum (cf. p. 479) it will 
be reasonable to regard with some mistrust the whole of this side of 
his work. I have myself handled all these objects; Hr. THOMSEN has 
only the illustrations in my book to go upon. I may at least decline 
to be held responsible for his failure to identify certain exhibits, and 
his inability to do so is no concern of mine. 
р. 387, note 2. Here, by way of variety, I find myself accused of having 
followed my authority too closely, i.e. literally. My quotation and reproduc- 
tion of an illustration from Nerson’s work on the Eskimo of Alaska will be 
found in a little Danish volume dealing with Greenland sagas on the past history 
of the Eskimo, included in a series of popular, or popularly scientific, ethno- 
graphical works published by С. У. Harrman (Stockholm). It is in the first 
place unfortunate, that Hr. THOMSEN should declare the notes under the two 
plates in NELson’s work to have been transposed, since the notes, as a matter 
of fact, are where they should be; it is the blocks for the plates which have been 
changed about (Pl. LIII to face p. 135 and Pl. LVIII to p. 151). Moreover, 
my illustration is not taken directly from Nelson’s work, but is reproduced 
after a somewhat indistinct copy in another!. The details in my figure are there- 
fore somewhat vague, so that it is difficult to discern the exact appearance of 
the head of the weapon, or to determine whether there is any connection be- 
tween the lifted weapon and the thin line on the kayak. The only thing that 
is quite distinct is the slender shape of the throwing stick and its position at 
the rear end of the spear, which circumstance naturally leads one to suppose 
that it is a bird spear, in accordance with NELSoN’s note beneath the figure 
(though on the other hand, this does not exclude the possibility of its being a 
sealing harpoon). The fact that the well-known three lateral points are lacking 
1 I have since examined Neıson’s original illustration, in order to see 
whether the details in the kayak and the man’s weapons are here more 
distinct than in the copy. This is naturally also the case; even here, 
however, the illustration shows evident traces of having been made, not 
from a photograph, but from a drawing. 
