458 WILLIAM THALBITZER. 
could not possibly have “ordered” a type of implement which he had 
never known or heard of}. 
I have indicated this wooden bottle from Ammassalik as being 
“not typical, rather quite unique.” Hr. THOMSEN does not venture 
on his own account to deny this, but contents himself with quoting a 
statement by JoHAN PETERSEN which he is thus not obliged to answer 
for, and possibly does not agree with. But even if the imitated wooden 
bottle found at Ammassalik by Jorman PETERSEN should support Hr. 
THOMSEN’s theory of the wooden bottle as an old-fashioned article (the 
oldest known specimen is that acquired by the Museum from 1848, 
whereas that in the Johan Petersen collection is a new product of dif- 
ferent shape, and these are the only two known), it might well be cor- 
rect that the other objects, which I have in this connection indicated 
as “not typical, rather quite unique”, are so. I had here in mind the 
three objects which are described immediately after the wooden bottle 
in my book; a sucking tube for drinking water, and two wooden pails 
for drinking water, both belonging to Horm's collection (Figs. 274 and 
275 а and b). One of these wooden pails is made from a piece of a bamboo 
pole, and is absolutely unique. But also the two others are without 
parallel in our finds and collections, and I must still maintain that they 
are at any rate “not typical”, 
I might here pass on from these pages of Hr. THomsEn’s paper, 
were it not that he has, on p. 394, at the bottom, smuggled in a remark 
which, taken together with the footnote, is intended to have the effect 
of an insinuation. Without actually saying what he means, he slips in 
a comment altogether irrelevant to the question, on the fact of my having 
rendered some assistance to Kolonibestyrer JOHAN PETERSEN when he 
was seeking, after his return from Ammassalik in 1909, to dispose of 
his collection to a foreign Museum. Hr. THOMSEN writes as follows: 
“The expression ‘Mikeeki’s waterscoop etc.’ is incomprehensible to the 
uninitiated, referring as it does to the unpublished catalogue of a pri- 
1 In order to avoid misunderstanding, I think it well here to call attention 
to the fact that Hr. Thomsen’s fig. 1 (p. 395) does not represent the 
dipper in question (No. 213), but is of quite a different and far more 
common shape. I did not make use of this last from the Petersen col- 
lection for my book, having already illustrated a similar form from pre- 
vious collections (fig. 263 a in my book). 
Hr. THOMSEN appears to have misunderstood my words in the text: 
“These objects (the wooden bottle etc.) show us” — as if they applied to 
the Jonan PETERSEN collection, whereas they referred to the objects I had 
illustrated in my book, viz. figs. 273, 274 and 275, which are described 
before and after the mentioned words. I may admit that the sentence 
is unfortunately placed, and might better have stood after the description 
of the whole. On the other hand it seems to me that both my paren- 
thesis (the wooden bottle) and the expression “show us” distinctly indicate 
which objects I referred to. 
> 
