58 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. I07 



Board offered to find these rather than let it absorb the time of every 

 Government agency and division. To be sure answers to many ques- 

 tions were more or less common knowledge to the sciences concerned 

 (a factor which made the Board's job relatively easy), but the 

 sciences have seldom summed up their knowledge in simple and con- 

 venient form. 



The Board oft'ered a central location for obtaining answers to 

 questions on areas and area personnel. It placed no restrictions on 

 the use of its services for any Government agency, or any individual 

 within it. Almost every question was answered with comprehension 

 and speed, and with a competence comparable, at least, to any other 

 quick source of reply. Furthermore, the Board did not question the 

 validity of the request. Instead, it followed the old army policy, 

 theirs not to reason why, theirs but to seek reply. The burden of 

 proving the validity of the questions was deliberately handed back 

 to the agency. Finally, the Directorate with its sponsorship was in 

 a key position to evaluate sources, an advantage not shared by other 

 information centers. 



The effectiveness of the various categories of the information ser- 

 vice can be roughly rated. The personnel service seems by far the 

 most important. No other area roster was available, and through 

 its use the Board was able to secure valuable materials, as well as 

 supply the names of important consultants. The bibliographical ser- 

 vice was certainly a convenience, and the particular merits of the 

 way in which this was handled have been mentioned previously. 

 The factual information, if we are forced to judge by the recorded 

 examples, was not too impressive. Orientation was useful, although 

 limited. It would take more than an Ethnogeographic Board to 

 eliminate duplication of effort in Washington. The requests for 

 advice were the most interesting, in that they presented the best op- 

 portunity for utilizing the scholarly attributes of the Board. Un- 

 popular as advice is apt to become, it is unfortunate that the Board 

 was not able to play a greater role in guiding the formulation of 

 projects and procedures within its competence. 



The information service made good publicity, and helps to account 

 for the wide recognition which the Board received in relatively little 

 time. Considered in this way, it is an effective technique which 

 would be useful in a future emergency. The question of whether 

 the information service was really worth while is left open. It cer- 

 tainly cannot be judged on its own merits, but should be considered 

 in relation to the total activity of the Board. 



