The Ammassalik Eskimo. 471 
results, Hr. THOMSEN makes it appear as if it were he himself who had 
made the discovery, while as a matter of fact he has contributed abso- 
lutely nothing in any way whatever to the attainment of the correct 
conclusion. And he then goes on to apply his own particular art of 
critical quotation with the object of extracting the desired result from 
the actual process. As far as I can see, all that he really succeeds in 
doing is demonstrating clearly how far his method is removed from 
true scientific research; he has thus nothing but scorn for the gradual 
growth of a true solution, which, from ıts very nature must often follow 
a sinuous course, feeling its way by arduous work of which no trace 
appears in the simplicity of the final result. It would seem, however, 
that there will always be a class of men for whom only authorised and 
irrevocable opinions exist; who have never themselves experienced the 
inner metamorphosis of development. 
Take another instance. In my book 1909, p. 441—443, after a 
detailed description of the “wooden hammerlike implement (blubber 
beater?) in List I, I added a few lines suggesting that the implement 
resembled in shape the post at the bottom of the stern of an umiak, 
at the same time however, rejecting the possibility that the specimen in 
question had any connection with such use. My critic, nevertheless, 
again finds an opportunity of distorting my meaning by an unfair dis- 
location of part of the text (p. 414 at bottom of page). 
p. 415—416. In 1909, the Commission for Investigations in Green- 
land presented my collection from Ammassalik to the Ethnographical 
Department. It was not a large collection, as my instructions for the 
winter’s stay made no mention of ethnographical studies or collecting 
work. Nevertheless, this collection does contain certain rare or new 
items, of which the Museum did not previously possess any specimens 
from Greenland, such as wooden masks, a mask sewn of sharkskin, 
а decoy-whistle, a sling, spindle-buzzes, ete.; in a word, objects which 
warrant the assigning of some relative importance to the whole as com- 
pared with the principal collections from Ammassalik, on which I have 
largely drawn for my material. It is therefore ridiculous to insinuate, 
as the Museum critic suggests (p. 416), that I have given too much credit 
to my own collection. 
His futile attempt at making me responsible for the contents of 
the collection is easily disposed of. It is not my fault if the lists of the 
Department do not now agree with the collection which the Museum 
at an earlier date received with thanks. The list published by me is 
independent of that given by the Department, and is naturally cor- 
rect. Hr. THoMSEN’s suggestion р. 4/6 (at bottom of page) is altogether 
worthless. 
