NO. I ETHNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD — BENNETT 2^ 



nonprofessionals, particularly those with extended residence. The 

 roster was built up to meet this area requirement. 



There was little question of duplication or conflict between the 

 Ethnogeographic Board and its cooperating committees, since, in 

 eflfect, the Board's roster served as the master file. There was, how- 

 ever, the question of competition with the National Roster. This 

 was carefully considered and amicably discussed by the two organi- 

 zations. The National Roster was limited to professional scholars 

 of the United States, arranged primarily by discipline and profes- 

 sion, and not evaluated. It placed area and language familiarity in 

 a secondary category. The Board's roster included professionals and 

 nonprofessionals, citizens and foreigners. It emphasized area knowl- 

 edge, length of residence, and linguistic ability. Instead of competing, 

 the two rosters would complement each other. Actually the staff 

 used the National Roster as a major source for its preliminary lists, 

 which were then checked and sorted according to the area require- 

 ments. On the practical side the Board's information service required 

 speed. The National Roster was so overburdened by requests at the 

 beginning of the war that it could not have assumed responsibility 

 for another major job. 



The centralization of area personnel information at the Board 

 received military sanction. The Intelligence Branch was worried 

 about the miscellaneous distribution of special personnel lists and 

 formally requested that the distribution of lists, and the master file, 

 be controlled by the Board. 



The laborious and painstaking task of building up the Area Roster 

 was assigned to William N. Fenton, research associate. For the 

 first year, as he discovered, this was no part-time job for one man 

 and a secretary. The Smithsonian as usual lent its assistance in the 

 form of clerical help and the services of its archivist. Miss Mae W. 

 Tucker. 



Sources 



The cooperating committees furnished the basic personnel lists 

 for the Area Roster. The Committee on Latin American Anthro- 

 pology furnished an evaluated list of United States anthropologists 

 with Latin American experience. The Committee on Asiatic Geog- 

 raphy furnished a list of some professionals. The best evaluated 

 language experts came from the Intensive Language Program's file. 

 The Smithsonian War Committee provided information on the area 

 experience of the Smithsonian staff. This was very useful because 

 the individuals were available at all times. The lists from the com- 



