l6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. IO7 



Studies, the Committee on the Anthropology of Oceania, the Com- 

 mittee on African Anthropology, the Smithsonian War Committee, 

 and the Intensive Language Program. A sixth, the Committee on 

 Asiatic Geography, was formed as a result of a Board-sponsored 

 conference. Its relationship to the Board was the same as the others, 

 except that for fiscal reasons its finances were administered through 

 the Board. In theory the Board was supposed to integrate the work 

 of all these committees, although actually each remained an indepen- 

 dent entity. 



Consultants 



Two categories of consultants were defined : "Consultants," who 

 were representatives of committees and other organizations and who 

 cooperated with the Board on a part-time basis ; and "research con- 

 sultants," who worked part-time for the Board without compensa- 

 tion. Both categories were appointed by the Board upon the recom- 

 mendation of the Director. It was never clear whether the consultants 

 were attached to the Board or to the Directorate. This was not very 

 important because only a few were appointed. Raymond Kennedy, 

 of Yale University, was the only one honored by the title of "research 

 consultant." Five others were named as "consultants": George Peter 

 Murdock, of the Oceania committee; Melville J. Herskovits, of the 

 Africa committee ; J. M. Cowan, of the Intensive Language Program ; 

 Douglas Whitaker, of the National Research Council ; and Robert B. 

 Hall, following his resignation as a Board member on account of 

 war-service obligations. 



The consultants were in no way organized in any formal fashion. 

 At the one meeting held for the consultants only two attended. Prob- 

 ably closer affiliation and a greater number of consultants would 

 have been helpful. At one meeting an extension of this type of rela- 

 tionship was proposed in the form of a committee of collaborators, 

 but nothing was done about it. 



Interrelationships 



The Board and the Directorate were differentiated in fiction but 

 not in reality. Theoretically, the Washington office represented but 

 one activity of the Board, albeit that of major immediate importance. 

 The Board could have set up other Directorates, or conducted a pro- 

 gram independently of its Washington staff. But it never did, which 

 makes the distinction between the two difficult to maintain. In actual 

 practice, and in the eyes of all who used its services, the Washington 



