The Angmagsalik Eskimo. 385 



TREATMENT OF THE MUSEUM MATERIAL. 



Prior to the commencement of his task, the Author was acquainted 

 with the Museum "only as a general visitor" and found it "almost im- 

 possible .... to see what is placed at the back" of the cases 1 . Later 

 on, however, his interest in Museums increased: "I began to take more 

 pleasure in the collections of Museums than before; the dead objects 

 assumed life and personality. From the silent cases I began to hear 

 the language and thoughts of the people" 2 . Nevertheless, after having 

 photographed here as much as he pleased ("the work .... extended over 

 16 days") he felt "no inducement to continue" his studies of the objects 

 removed from their cases for his examination. The reader will doubtless 

 be disposed to acquiesce in Mr. Thalbitzer's statement as to the "strength" 

 of the work having been "reduced" thereby 3 . 



So completely, indeed, did the Author relinquish his studies at the 

 Museum, that he did not even make any enquiry as to the origin of 

 the objects which he had selected and photographed; had he but handed 

 in a list of the numbers, with a request for particulars of each, the result 

 would, as will subsequently be seen, have increased the value of the 

 work to no slight degree. 



Mr. Thalbitzer has himself, albeit somewhat tardily, realised to a 

 certain extent the disability thus involved. On the last page of the work, 

 under the heading of "Corrigenda", he mentions that "in several of the 

 objects . . . designated ... as belonging to the Holm collection doubts may 

 be raised whether they really belong to this collection, or originate from 

 Graah's journey, or have been added on later occasions, e. g. sent by 

 J. Petersen from Ammassalik". The Author feels some uncertainty in 

 this respect regarding ten illustrations in the text. "On the other hand", 

 we read, "the nondescript objects shown in fig. 241 (p. 517) surely belong 

 to the Holm collection" 4 . 



Such an observation can scarcely fail to produce a discouraging 

 effect upon the reader, who is thus suddenly confronted with the pos- 

 sibility that certain objects are not from Angmagsalik at all, while others 

 may be of far later date than Holm's collection. To anyone in doubt 

 on such a matter, the self-evident course would surely be: to ask. And 

 the fact that the Author has not seen fit to adopt this obvious expedient 

 i ; hardly calculated to inspire confidence. As it is, the Museum must 

 now take upon itself the task of correctly stating the origin of the objects 

 in question. 



1 Thalb. II, pp. 328 and 325—26. 



2 1. c, p. 327. 



3 Thalb. II, p. 329. The fact that the Editor seeks to lay this lack of in- 

 terest on his part to the charge of the Museum should not be regarded as 

 of any great importance. As will be seen in the following, his work- else- 

 where is subject to the same inconstancy. 



4 1. c, p. 755. 



Lin. 25 



