414 Thomas Thomsen. 



This last is not surprising, since the handles in question lack just 

 that very notch into which the frame of the drum is inserted. The notches 

 for the fingers merely prove that the object was intended as a handle 

 of some kind or other, and the knob at the one end clearly indicates 

 that the man who made it had here finished off his work in such a manner 

 as to preclude the fastening of drum or any other instrument to that 

 end at least. 



By 1910, Mr. Thalbitzer had realised the fact that this notch was 

 lacking. In Geogr. Tidsskr. Vol. XX, p. 218, he tells us: "These hafts 

 somewhat resemble drum handles, which are cut in the same manner 

 in Alaska; both lack, however, it is true, the notch at the broad end 

 into which the wooden ring of the drum is generally set and lashed, 

 so that the explanation must be regarded as doubtful, unle-ss supple- 

 mentary finds should subsequently be made". 



On p. 223 of the same work, we read "The two bone handles . . . 

 (presumably drum handles) .... are carved as if from the same model 

 as a quiver handle shown by Boas 1 , from Vantissard Island". Here again 

 however, it must be observed that the resemblance lies in the finger 

 notching of the grip, the value of which as a distinctive feature of the 

 drum handle generally is thus reduced, since they may equally well 

 be taken as characteristic of quiver handles. Mr. Thalbitzer has now 

 discovered what is lacking in the two objects in question; he has not, 

 however, as yet been able to see the distinctive attributes which they 

 do possess, viz. a hole at the one end for the insertion of a blade, and an 

 oblique boring at the other intended to receive a thong, two well known 

 features in East Greenland knives. 



In 1914 (Thalb. II, p. 640, Note 5) we are brought somewhat nearer 

 the truth: "They have possibly been knife-handles, not drum-handles". 

 Thus from the "unmistakable drum-handles" of 1909 via doubtful drum- 

 handle and quiver handle (both in the same paper 1910) we are at last, 

 in 1914, brought within view of the actual fact; the Editor is careful, 

 however, to leave a pathway open in case any new hypothesis should 

 arise. 



Without some kind of commentary, the reader will find serious 

 difficulty in discovering what lies beneath such change of names, unless 

 he happen to be particularly familiar with Mr. Thalbitzer's published 

 works, already of considerable extent. It may even at times be difficult 

 enough to make List I agree with the accompanying text; it is not im- 

 mediately obvious, for instance, that the object cited in List I as a "wooden 

 hammer-like implement (blubber-beater?)" is identical with that treated 

 in the text as forming part of the framework of an umiak. We cannot 

 however, here undertake to guide the reader point by point through the 



1 Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. XV, p. 420, 

 fig. 219 e. 



