: i} ve ita by a

Ot)

ta) sages 1 ah tod aah maw tas ane 4

osama Soden ot thee a4? Oded Hoke

Sheds. es) cone”

it

bE ct

n

a) ei iate hints ite avait

iy uh 2) nical

ida eh i fia oe ie

sta ty

Pibsace 4e ipsir ttt ee

ain Raa

Rit ‘tt ree tea nares thy Anne:

ru : ne

iis et

et

4 uy aia tie hs

vo oe it 5 , ee pe et

ad » ae Hay br}

has

ial ih rahi hi te

es aH nat

pret Ts ae

ae

ier na

Hy oat rh nee U

. ibe ty V4 Rate tif t ioe

engi phi

ie ena tn

nia she bth i

aint

‘ Se aall Butt i ae it i

oe tH tats “ aiatatate ade : a eee stasis ae aes ate en

a

yt 5 i ye

4 ‘ a ' : 7 5 7 Py > J pt i ad - i! : a ; ! 7 o 1 Al oS ; - | Sor _ = — CS ae 7 eo : : ; ~a, % j - =_— 7 a - aa 7 ad . [ 1 7 ~ hes 7 - Bia , : - - - o o ‘ - Po. 2 : 7 _ ys ao -_ LAS 1 Oy 7 . 7 7 J = ow _ 7 7 = ap @ « - . _ | Ng \ 7 : = : ; ene | =) 7 - ’ - ? t+ : |

— Ri VYRR

| ‘ | f ee iy” vrvillae-

Pn a i m we, 7 _ a

a7 o 7 ¥ a 4 "a 7 7 fy

a

! : i = i ie = oes { : ; - —_ oS i @, 4 z 1 ay “e i > : ' . 4] 5 ‘ ‘ Li sf ? 1s 7 if : op fit L oy! as x ‘ i Ls) - 3 La ih

SMITHSONTAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

VOL. 107

eeeeCccon,

S2eece008?

“EVERY MAN IS A VALUABLE MEMBER OF SOCIETY WHO, BY HIS OBSERVATIONS, RESEARCHES, AND EXPERIMENTS, PROCURES KNOWLEDGE FOR MEN ””__sSMITHSON

(PuBLIcATION 3949)

CITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 1948

The Lord Waftimore Press

BALTIMORE, MD., U. 8. A.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections series contains, since the suspension in 1916 of the Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, all the publications of the Institution except the Annual Report, the annual volume describing the Institution’s field work, and occasional publications of a special nature. As the name of the series implies, its scope is not limited, and the volumes thus far issued relate to nearly every branch of science. Papers in the fields of biology, geology, anthropology, and astrophysics have predominated.

A. WETMORE, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.

(iii)

10.

Tals

CONTENTS

. BENNETT, WENDELL CLARK. The Ethnogeographic Board. 135

pp. Apr. 14, 1947. (Publ. 3880.)

CARBONELL, C. S. The thoracic muscles of the cockroach Peri- planeta americana (L.). 23 pp., 8 pls. May 8, 1947. (Publ. 3890. )

Axssot, C. G. 1946-1947 report on 27.0074-day cycle in Wash- ington precipitation. 2 pp. Mar. 17, 1947. (Publ. 3892.)

Apsgot, C. G. The sun’s short regular variation and its large effect on terrestrial temperatures. 33 pp., 12 figs. Apr. 4, 1947. (Publ. 3893.)

BLACKWELDER, RicHARD FE. The dates and editions of Curtis’ British Entomology. 27 pp., 4 pls. June 12, 1947. (Publ. 3894. )

WebEL, Watpo R. Prehistory and the Missouri Valley develop- ment program: Summary report on the Missouri River Basin Archeological Survey in 1946. 17 pp., 2 pls. Apr. 23, 1947. (Publ. 3895.)

SNnopeGrass, R. E. The insect cranium and the “epicranial su- ture.” 52 pp., 15 figs. July 30, 1947. (Publ. 3896.)

Drucker, PurLip. Some implications of the ceramic complex of La Venta. 9 pp., 6 pls. July 30, 1947. (Publ. 3897.)

Aszot, C. G. Precipitation affected by solar variation. 4 pp., 2 figs. Aug. 11, 1947. (Publ. 3901.)

Aspot, C. G. A revised analysis of solar-constant values. 9 pp., 2 figs. Aug. 30, 1947. (Publ. 3902.)

FENNAH, R. G. Notes on neotropical Dictyopharidae and syn- onymy in two other groups. 13 pp., 2 pls. Nov. 24, 1947. (Publ. 3904.)

SWANTON, JoHN R. The Wineland voyages. 81 pp. Dec. 15, 1947. (Publ. 3906.)

. HEnpberSON, E. P., AND Perry, S. H. The Edmonton, Kentucky,

meteorite. 4 pp., 4 pls. Oct. 31, 1947. (Publ. 3907.) DeEIGNAN, H. G. A review of the races of the spotted babbling thrush, Pellorneum ruficeps Swainson. 20 pp. Oct. 20, 1947. (Publ. 3908. ) Baker, Lt. Rottin H. Report on collections of birds made by United States Naval Medical Research Unit No. 2 in the

(v)

vi

16.

17;

18.

19.

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

Pacific war area. 74 pp., 6 pls., 9 figs. Mar. 22, 1948. (Publ. 3909. )

Bayer, FREDERICK M. Charles T. Simpson’s types in the mol- luscan genus Liguus. 8 pp., 1 color plate. Apr. 3, 1948. (Publ. 3910.)

WEINTRAUB, Ropert L., AND Price, LEONARD. Inhibition of plant growth by emanations from oils, varnishes, and woods. 13 pp., 8 pls. Mar. 10, 1948. (Publ. 3912.)

HILDEBRAND, SAMUEL F. A review of the American menhaden, genus Brevoortia, with a description of a new species. 39 pp., 9 figs. Mar. 22, 1948. (Publ. 3913.)

Aszot, C. G., AND ALpricu, L. B. Energy spectra of some of the brighter stars. 9g pp., I pl., 3 figs. Feb. 27, 1948. (Publ. 3914.)

WEINTRAUB, Rozert L. Influence of light on chemical inhibition of lettuce seed germination. 8 pp. May 27, 1948. (Publ. 3915.)

vy! Fi yi ap Aca

ys %

Pe ad Wisi

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 107, NUMBER 1

| | THE -ETHNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD

y

BY WENDELL CLARK BENNETT

“23>

eae

Seeecesee?

(PUBLICATION 3889)

oe

Sa a ee a a = _ ' ae — fe

% CITY OF WASHINGTON : A PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

* APRIL 14, 1947

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOLUME 107, NUMBER 1

Wels FE THNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD

BY WENDELL CLARK BENNETT

(PuBLIcaATIOn 3889)

CITY OF WASHINGTON PUBLISHED BY THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION APRIL 14, 1947

The Lord Baltimore Press

BALTIMORE, MD., U. 8S. A.

CONTENTS

PaGE

1 ERG EI A ae Nee a re re ee le v JNO LG ATG LETOT eee cat ONE MMRDA rn SPE Rien dae ee ei A a Vii ESGAnCMmcy allt zat. ac tevaerlce siccicyatecie ha Doe etc cists Ghee eas Seeier hd oe Vill AGE UA Gm DLO DIEING mts tarisiei5)e Aco nis aie ISO ee te Eee ais I Wcitbirincen cistiita et Onin ace sania cle/s.ctet ore Gera ioe a Me MeL Liciee eeu Re I INOSCAN GM VEL SIS pACEIOMb rs), ncaa nye iiahae solace cast ate oid oid an he eke reece 2 JNIRSEL DDL R EES we Saal Aer ie Re ee Pane PR Ree a Naa fe 3 OUNCE On cher ES Oar Glatt. a conic ore ace ste. See Mis eis a ded as Suara (oned oie alnaroec 4 Committee on Latin American Anthropology......................4. 4 Joint Committee on Latin American Studies......................05 + 1G Mitensives Lan gua mere LO CAI sces oa ci icles ss cie Bernd oe canis deus cdo alas Ga 6 Commiitteevonsthe Anthropology ‘of Oceania. ..¢5.0.0c0seo0s.+5. 02000. 6 Committeevon African Anthropolocy <<... s0e<% i - dso fants sce esae Gi PELMOM TAN MICH OAT Minds sereome eek hae.ns ceils emo ards eee cee cen 8 DMichSOmianie VV ate COMMITEE S .)c,. sianiers bose ee iis AS ke alg ecerses oe bse 9 Conference Board of Associated Research Councils............./..... 9 tases cograpinice DOALGh suis a sereeias 3 Ae oe icles er caine nd Se eee 10 ORS ao» SG ea a een er OP a Se OR 12 SSG IAS Geran stee eer tone ay Sater HAN sn cvsebene ila Ren ctclic eseharins ei he iad aa cictinortpciies 12 OVEN Ca kaa SeenON I ENLOEIC CHORE RCIA ME TENS CREED IPC DENCE eee ee 12 NBIINE RECALL Came rens cha cae Navara eee ates oe eal sici ghar @ oka az an is SILOS a NE, Geks 14 OOMeT ATI ey COMMNIELCES te sheeie eo ora, ye orale Seon REM ese 15 SBOTISUMEA TE Steere unite ce as Arch REI NR ONE tithes Sean Ce 16 IIPERT El SETOLIS LI Simee ise rayaaea ee ere CON IO oe AAS ee ee a a 16 Genera Me te Cer nen ioe cyst etek fry ya anes Sr ae Me ore a Me Ee ase 18 SEL SCE aay Wey ray SSN as toga At ae: ap. oA crc ahagatel® atten e A Sieh ie hae Cee hls. Motig 18 PSO AUC MACEIVITLES) Next frieg anion citi We 2abtaih: bles cs Ae ern UN DaeR mime a og Roe. i a, 22 JASEGEY SHOGUTEI CAA y Clea At ae i ee TS Va GP a 23 INI! SS Ais Cc HAGUE Ar onde ee Oley Bars LR UP od AO mE CY A et Se 24 SiOULAGES: OSAMA Cra se ee eo Ree ae aR 2 eS mR PR nL 25 Eat tp eal SOME CES ce. neat ives ce forsee oracles este oes hee ei 27 JENS Die Gr aR or aged ee gr aeRO foe AS Sct OPER ee aay a 28

ES VAla lou On eindividdals \.v2tnoWslo a tate aicboiow sco eee Sera ene Se ees 31 NOISES) TRE een Scheme ER SNe ttn Oe PR NE ont CART ek Te Sa 32

EN DDN AISA le Mes atevane seers Oa ata evclarera nn Liat meron tote ny Ue aa Lace 36 iveERovera esi Say os all CctNs meee er as eae Ie RE ee Sen Oe 38 SVUa) bofea eel a) ah artic ster AON Gre tS, cht a RRM CREE Re eS a 30 FROISLEIICE MTG Iau rere ae ere Tien Part or conus Lae Nee ER ooh tel see Mc, Hike oon oe 39 SSUES EE) SSE Fata betes Relea eS EC open aN Re 39 EACLO TAD Sete ere eI a irhrd tne gee eects DMC sae ties ee esha) 5 40 Gross uikinral p SULVey utile eMmneras ts aA ye Comm esAWenles e dhe xcoaaiates Fe 40 CLINI Ua Tas ee 2 ei NE en A AE Rg ae 4I

IP icelanleyetarel Sixeceley cnVGhe Lats igs caches een ene tr nen) RR a nO oe 42 GOvVeriinemm relations aise ssc e wa Ae sect as co Atee oes, ee SOI UR Pos eis 42

AN SA(ALSTTN( LY SEI ENS LO) SHS. ey Rey MAP RO a 46

iV CONTENTS

IPpikorg 1121500) Nato PARC AoC MER Oe OE Ren iC Oe ne a micom ron ooo cies Man oda dur 46 i DYey cto} 000T Sane ER IES RA ELE RS RIEEIOCEISIO Cae TOC OIC HAR COIL NA oO BOOS. cid. o'c 47 GS LCOS ee eae ae ee fe cotesorer se sselan Mtoe ere CAoReev eros RSIS ee aE CR 48 IDE Ve tse Ae aR Re Se ee errs ereciegrs ee Meee em Penne ani oaMlnrs a rnina sc Ando tin oD, cco 52 INA tet Al Swe rica ctts oceenecve eines ote mits steterei Slain ate eo sn uct = ehetinye rote: SIMA ok Toho 53 @rieritaer om recyece cas Seton ote a aeostane eo syevelicere teats lek SERS ReIG OC HUA te oc aerate 54 iB EVCY=s gnT cs 0 Gaaey Se AM RA Ps Pe eee et alae ere MetRSEaDn OE ela Macias: a Gi ¢ 55 PENIS Ott se cae RR a acy Rk eG ere gee RL rR NENG RS fo por CESS Gell c 55 1 SANS CARESS ae IPI a eI PE Aa oem e sos tices iss aS 56 Eau atlOme ye hers lays uststaystous otesecvaucs are Me uont ole «lovetetah Nevers aves ate ent ene P Set erie 57 WISE RIDE ONS lore Acie rarer secre eos eating > sect oheaneet eee rye seeeaetere ose ee ee ee 59 RE DOEES Meets cates ce tacols erated Srey ct a Sues basen cop taal ave tate netics) opteae eee eae 63 ]EOMPCL EM CES A sete rece ey che evs oer GON O re on erave ey a Velenes oe etectel et 8 forage oe ieee ee 67 TERT CESHa seks oisieehres Siaebee tee % Sra tae ake vel GS ltca aliovege to at cae tavstses trey axe eee ea aa em 73 “Sunvivalvon (and tatid Sean ta. s cu -yardlerleiecs crs. terral rar earner eee 73 Gonterence on) Boliviansindiansses-eeeeee ce ones een Cees 75 Survey of Area Studies in American Universities.................... 77 Wiar Document “Surveys iirtsc ceils kle baie. sie ocr ole exon a eee 70 Eistoryaon the Ethnogeographic Boarde.).wace: eesee oe see ae eee 80 Parti Cipat1On s a5 ec, Me sc toeSe:Sieceie se 2 ese Re eek ee Ee oe oes cl Fs eee ee eae 80 (Geietallae Ne cose ccchen ees Risks Se vepsee's ottees Cie CEG Nee ART ee 80 NB) aU OTIS eevee vic cstsscroncle foresee ato cael Mero eR we Ra See ee eA eR cane on eas eae 8 PACihC SULVEY: PP GOUECE Sac Sue wstinetoe Sem ae “eae aie oe aoe ores ana 81 Area (and language) Totes.a% 47.4 /.c<cedeice sevice olen eas tae 83 TRESCAECLOR es acaors Gece ies tealanaue ss ears) oleae eder nea arate ake ies TOLeT eatin eee 85 ARGrel shav(aje cea eee Iara ee ee er oP Ie oe Se Ee tor arcols oi 92 PAG PU AISAl Ls cokers dare ia fost ents Sis s whale shag, © BiSte eae URNS eles mrerel eho Sas Sant ee quake Se 04 Servicenorsanizatlongh «Acc oc cis casero aero cielo ache Sie eien creeoeerte 04 RESeanchS promotwOn <ccieccnrecies eelae a eteietetees aye cers Gini haere ee ate 07 Mechniquespand@materials or future usetulness...-me ce ose ae eee 99 IN@SE YET eH SEM matseisecieustaune sees ree clin A Sen eho P ons tel enn acetate eis ye. AISI ee 101 Bar Pe arene sate oioten ane ieee ss naa chioke eal ay synt due vena ci toe Seana dated ls pene one aa ea 102 Washing tom: One 3.2/5.5, 2! id dicts: 5 sual cuclveeteper eae tera ateiey ws) ev se stehacia rare eit 104 (Cocos MPa Rp Ota PG er pee Tick ray ac Ero GIG LIO Hn Oe SUI OLIGO kaa toe 105 Bibunesmroblein Svcs pcteeve pies o racine Give ie Ree OEE oe ET oe 106 INGEA EXP OTES! Sheclas Sac tatey wid Celie oege nies Bee ee Oe ee 106 INGeas MAteTIals:ciieess oc cleeharig, pets Om Iie Ie ee Oe ee OS OSE ener 107 IAG EA TED OLES 5) )siaicu ais thors « ncserstaa te Saree Setar ties enol Siok Oe 108 ATCA SEPANG oe 2k oe eecleakke sathore Aa eee Oe IO SE heer 108 RESearchi versus, ACHOM«n oho aaecroetecteeet ee eee ea ee eee 109 Rutuserot ther Ethnogeosraphicysoardeeee ae eeiaeeeenee rac ee 109 Appendices : (APE OaIIp IGS Ollettersvon Commendaioneencmr essere cen cenit III Basamples or personnel qiuestronnaineseserer cei ot eee aes II5 C. Samples of the Ethnogeographic Board’s circular letter requests... 125 D. Samples of Army and Navy outlines for area reports.............. 131 E.Contributors to: “survival on Landvands Sean... seen oe pre 134

PREFACE

The Ethnogeographic Board was established in June 1942 by the National Research Council, the American Council of Learned Socie- ties, the Social Science Research Council, and the Smithsonian Insti- tution. A printed brochure stated the primary purpose: “to make readily accessible to Washington military and war agencies such spe- cific regional information and evaluated personnel data as may be available to the sponsoring institutions and the numerous other govern- mental and outside scientific organizations with which they are affili- ated or in contact.’ The Board consists of a policy and advisory body, the members of which are selected by the four sponsoring institutions, and a Director and staff with offices in the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.

The Ethnogeographic Board is now entering its fourth year of ac- tivity and will continue as long as its services are needed in the war emergency. The Sponsors have requested that the Board prepare, while still in operation, a historical account of the work, an appraisal of the experience, and constructive suggestions for the consideration of the Sponsors as to the most effective ways of organizing the schol- arly and scientific resources, which they represent, for public service.

Such an assignment presents its difficulties in spite of the short time span and relative simplicity of the organization. Obviously, the history is not intended as an apology. In fact, the preparation of the pocket booklet “Survival on Land and Sea,” of which almost one mil- lion copies were distributed to the armed forces, would in itself justify the Ethnogeographic Board’s existence. Furthermore, neither the Sponsors nor the Board members consider the organization one of unique importance since they are well aware that it was but one of many efforts to make the country’s scholarly and scientific resources available for emergency use. However, in this lies the importance of a historical analysis, since the Board can be considered, in a very real sense, a sample of broader activities.

The Ethnogeographic Board is an example of a service organization, a clearinghouse for Government needs and academic knowledge. Ser- vice was the keynote, both by mandate and by practice, and conse- quently, the major emphasis in this analysis will be placed on that aspect. Before a proper evaluation of this service can be made, it is necessary to review the setting, the intellectual and physical environ- ment, in which the Board operated. Washington in wartime was in itself a factor of major importance.

Vi PREFACE

The body of this report consists of a somewhat detailed account of the activities of the Ethnogeographic Board. No attempt has been made to follow a chronological order, except when sequence is needed to explain some action, or to illustrate speed. The approach is frankly topical and, after each topic is described, an analysis and evaluation is added. Were the techniques and accomplishments effective or inef- fective? What techniques were not employed and why? Such a de- tailed presentation is justified on the grounds that the actual actions of the Board form the documentation on which this study is based. If minimized, the report becomes little more than the personal reflections and prejudices of its author.

An over-all appraisal follows the topical description. The service and research features, as well as some of the specific techniques and materials, are reviewed in the light of their general usefulness for future emergencies and for other than wartime situations. For ex- ample, dinner conferences, problem conferences, liaison officers, sur- veys, and interviews are all techniques which have wide application. Likewise, certain materials such as the Area Roster, the area bibliogra- phies, the survival library, and the area reports might be worth while preserving and elaborating.

The Board is more than an illustration of an emergency service or- ganization. For example, it was also a joint committee of the three Councils, cooperating, in this case, with the Smithsonian Institution. Implicit in this review is, then, an evaluation of the effectiveness of joint committees. The Ethnogeographic Board was characterized, as its name implies, by the area approach. Since area versus discipline is a question of considerable interest, it seems worth while to emphasize the area techniques and materials assembled by the Board.

Finally, the future, both immediate and distant, must be faced. This can be treated in three ways. First, the experience of this Board should serve as a basis for determining the nature and function of a similar organization in the next emergency. Second, the efforts of the Board to supply needed information to the Government war agencies pointed up many lacunae in area materials, organized knowledge, and trained personnel. These demand serious consideration by both aca- demic institutions and Government agencies. Third, the usefulness of an organization similar to this one in the immediate postwar period merits discussion. Insofar as suggestions about the future are derived from this analysis, they are placed in the final chapters. Other sug- gestions, formulated independently by the author, have been submitted directly to the Board and the Sponsors.

PREFACE Vii

The task of going through the extensive files, reviewing the record, and what lay behind it, evaluating the successes and the failures, has been possible only because of the whole-hearted cooperation of the staff, the Board members, and the Sponsors. As a Board member my- self, and a personal friend of everyone involved, the problem of main- taining an objective attitude has not always been easy. However, every participant has insisted that artificial courtesy should not spoil the usefulness of the report. If then, I speak of the Board largely in the past tense, it is only because that is the period covered, and not for any lack of appreciation of the continuing activities. Likewise, if I seem to judge harshly at times, the victim’s consent is implied, al- though the opinion is wholly my own.

WENDELL C. BENNETT, New Haven, Connecticut, August I, 1945.

ADDENDUM

This history when first submitted covered the activities of the Ethnogeographic Board up to June 1945. Since that time the Board has been formally disbanded, as of December 31, 1945, although cer- tain unfinished commitments are still to be completed. The first 3 years were those of greatest activity, and consequently a complete re- vision of the history does not seem necessary. However, revisions have been made where needed to bring the activities up to date.

BOARD ORGANIZATION

SPONSORS 2 tie creed aie weetrans col cleteleistor ee

COORERALING AWILEAeMe ee eniniioeiis

RESEARCH CONSULTANT .......... CONSUETANTSH ae eee ee eee

Boarp MEMBERS ................

Sponsors’ REPRESENTATIVES ......

Vili

American Council of Learned Societies. National Research Council. Smithsonian Institution.

Social Science Research Council. Committee on African Anthropology. Committee on the Anthropology of Oceania. Committee on Asiatic Geography. Intensive Language Program.

Joint Committee on Latin American Studies. Smithsonian War Committee. William Duncan Strong.

Henry B. Collins, Jr.

Elizabeth Bacon.

Homer Barnett.

Henry B. Collins, Jr.

William N. Fenton.

Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr.

Raymond Kennedy.

J. M. Cowan.

Robert B. Hall.

Melville J. Herskovits.

George Peter Murdock.

Douglas Whitaker.

Carl E. Guthe (chairman).

Wendell C. Bennett.

Isaiah Bowman.

Carter Goodrich.

John E. Graf.

Mortimer Graves.

Robert B. Hall.

Wilbur A. Sawyer.

William Duncan Strong.

Charles G. Abbot.

Robert Crane.

Ross G. Harrison.

Waldo G. Leland.

Alexander Wetmore.

Donald Young.

THE ETHNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD

By WENDELL CLARK BENNETT

Yale University

BACKGROUND PROBLEMS WARTIME WASHINGTON

For the millions who milled around Washington in the first half of 1942 no statement about the fabulous confusion could ever be adequate and would never be necessary. In judging many of the service activ- ities of the Ethnogeographic Board, however, the chaotic environment must be kept in mind. This was not a period of calm deliberation. Everyone rushed first, and questioned where he was going afterward. The sudden mass increase of population created a housing shortage, a restaurant shortage, a transportation shortage, a service shortage. All this was added to a day of office frustration.

New agencies were created overnight and old ones were expanded beyond capacity. Mandates were vague and overlapping. Competition was keen between agencies and within agencies. Experts were rushed from their calm academic security into the maelstrom. The process of “leveling” was elaborated, so that a man in one agency, in order to communicate with a colleague in another, had to send his message up to his top-ranking official, who transferred it to a correspondingly high official in the other agency who in turn let it “level” down to the man who should have received it directly. In the war fervor each agency started a system of classifying its documents—any document—as con- fidential, secret, supersecret. The mad scene was popularly labeled the “War of Washington” and doubtless will become the subject matter of many a roving reporter’s personal reminiscences. It was both ironic and pathetic. There were many opportunists, but there were a vastly greater number of the genuinely sincere who wanted to be of service in the prosecution of a war in which V-day was not yet visible on the horizon.

The Ethnogeographic Board, unlike many other agencies, found operation in wartime Washington a stimulating challenge. Fortu- nately, it had certain concrete advantages over the others. Though a new organization, it was housed in the Smithsonian Institution build-

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS, VOL. 107, NO. 1

2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

ing and staffed by Smithsonian personnel familiar with the Washing- ton scene. Being non-Governmental it was outside most of the compe- tition and suspicion. Its services were open to all agencies. Since it had no fixed place in the Government hierarchy, it could receive a general or a private, the chief of an agency or a junior research assis- tant. Withal, however, many of its actions and methods seem mean- ingless if the Washington environment is forgotten.

RESEARCH VERSUS ACTION

The Ethnogeographic Board, as an intermediary between academic institutions and Government agencies, faced a second general problem, that of research versus action programs. In general, the emphasis of universities, foundations, councils and scholarly institutions is on re- search, or training for research. Government agencies, on the other hand, are engaged in the execution of action programs. Undoubtedly the careful investigation and ordering of facts carried on in many a Government agency is as much entitled to the term “research” as is the most pedantic university program, but that the two differ in orien- tation seems clear. The Government interests lie in the applied field ; academic scholars prefer placing application in a secondary category, if they recognize it at all.

The Board was, theoretically, supposed to adjust these two ap- proaches. Although not in itself a research organization, it was an agency for the procurement of such information. In order to do this it had the dual task of translating the Government action needs into terms which the academic researcher could understand, and likewise, of presenting the research materials in a form which would make them useful for the Government agencies. In part this also involved antici- pating Government needs, and following up “quick” reports with others of a more considered nature. Actually, little was ever done about this last point, but the need is nonetheless real. Hasty reports produced in the heat of an emergency have the tendency of gaining prestige by the mere virtue of remaining unreplaced by anything better in somebody’s file.

The Ethnogeographic Board is but a junior member of the corps of agencies, Governmental and non-Governmental, which have been struggling with this vitally important question of the integration of non-Federal research and Government needs. The three Councils and their numerous committees, the National Resources Planning Board, the Office of Scientific Research and Development, and many another agency have worked out some techniques. Many Government bureaus

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—-BENNETT 3

have appointed professional committees and consultants, and hired professional personnel for this purpose. The Government’s role in the support of academic research is still a much debated issue.

AREA APPROACH

’

“Ethnogeography,” according to the Board’s own definition of its somewhat cumbersome name, “‘is the study of human and natural re- sources of world areas.” In its application for financial support, the Board restated its function “. . . to furnish to Governmental war agencies, military and civilian, needed information of all sorts relating to any areas outside the United States where military, economic, or other action is carried on or planned.” This brings up another major problem faced by the Board, namely, that Government agencies, partic- ularly the military, operate in terms of areas, while universities, coun- cils, and foundations are organized by disciplines. Again it was nec- essary to translate the discipline knowledge into the geographic cate- gories used by the Government.

Since the beginning of the war there has been a marked increase in area consciousness on the part of academic institutions, but at the time of the founding of the Board the problem was really acute. Before 1940, only the American Council of Learned Societies, among the’ three research Councils, had area committees. These were concerned largely with language and literature, although some, like the Com- mittee on Latin American Studies, were truly cross-disciplinary bodies united by an area interest.

Some disciplines, such as history and government, have long recog- nized area subdivisions, even though these tend to be fixed by tradition and rarely achieve world coverage. Likewise, some fields of study are by their very nature more aware of areas than others. Most of the natural historians, particularly those in museums, have an area ap- proach. Among the social sciences, geography is the most logical leader for the area approach in spite of the fact that it has so far failed to develop many specialists. Because oi its interest in ‘“‘primitive’’ peo- ples, anthropology has had many specialists with foreign-area experi- ence. Previous to the area programs in the universities, sociology, political science, and economics largely ignored the area approach.

On the other hand, many of the Government departments, like Com- merce, Agriculture, and State, have long maintained foreign-area di- visions and staffed them with area experts. In fact for future discus- sions, it is interesting to remember that the foreign-service personnel of the Department of State has debated the issue of area versus pro-

4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

fessional specialty for years—a problem which is only now being con- sidered by universities.

Since 1940 most of the war-emergency agencies have had area subdivisions. The Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs is the only one devoted exclusively to one area, but others, like the , Office of Strategic Services, the Foreign Economic Administration, and the Office of War Information, attempt a world-wide coverage. The results of this increased area emphasis, added to the demands of the armed forces, placed a real strain on the supply of area specialists and made the work of the Ethnogeographic Board even more difficult by removing many of its chief sources of information.

Wartime Washington, research versus action, and area versus dis- cipline are three of the broad background problems which confronted the Ethnogeographic Board. The more local and immediate problems are taken up in the detailed review of the actual operations of the Board.

FOUNDING OF THE BOARD

The founding of the Ethnogeographic Board was not the result of a sudden flash of inspiration in the minds of the Sponsors. Instead, the idea germinated in a number of divergent sources, all of which contributed to the formation of the final organization. The immediate roots of the Board reach back to prewar days, and probably the intel- lectual concept could be traced into the deep past. For the present purpose, the history can be confined to a brief review of the eight groups which made the most substantial contribution. The eight or- ganizations do not form a pyramid capped by the Ethnogeographic Board, nor can their contributions be aligned in a strictly chronological order. Some of the eight no longer exist, others are still flourishing.

COMMITTEE ON LATIN AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGY

In December 1940 a group of anthropologists interested in the Latin American field held a conference which resulted in establishing a com- mittee of the National Research Council. Although prewar, the committee’s activities reflected not only the increased interest in Latin America but also a desire to integrate professional research and per- sonnel with Government programs.

The committee at once began to assemble a personnel file of pro- fessional anthropologists in the United States who had worked in Latin America. Each individual was rated, by each committee mem- ber, on linguistic ability, teaching ability, and suitability for a number

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 5

of type jobs which the committee’s survey had indicated as potential outlets for trained personnel. (See Appendix Br for a sample.) This file was confidential, by its very nature, but was used to furnish selected lists of specialized personnel in answer to requests from many Government agencies. A somewhat similar roster of Latin Americans interested in anthropology was also assembled, but in this the rating formula was not applied.

Other activities of this committee were more academic, such as a survey of research activities, and two reports on research needs. The chief contributions to the formation of the Ethnogeographic Board were the concept of area committees in anthropology, the rated per- sonnel roster, the idea of service to Government, and the usefulness of liaison representatives. Shortly after the formation of the com- mittee its activities were eclipsed, although not entirely eliminated, by the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies.

Joint COMMITTEE ON LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES

In March 1942 the National Research Council, the American Coun- cil of Learned Societies, and the Social Science Research Council coordinated their Latin American interests by establishing a Joint Committee. This was the first joint committee of the three Councils, although the Latin Americanists had been organized since 1935 as a committee of one, and later of two, of the Councils. The old committee, among other things, had published the Handbook of Latin American Studies, a cross-disciplinary bibliographical guide. The Joint Com- mittee continued the cross-disciplinary tradition as demonstrated by its first membership which represented anthropology, psychology, so- ciology, history, economics, geography, language and literature, and the arts.

The Joint Committee had many of the traditional academic in- terests in research, publication, tools of research, education and spe- cialized personnel. However it was also given a special mandate as follows:

The Joint Committee is prepared and willing to serve as an advisory agency, within its competence, to the various agencies of the Government, and to assist

such agencies in the promotion of inter-American intellectual and cultural rela- tions and in the planning and execution of projects.

This mandate led the committee rather deeply into certain Govern- ment departments where its advice was offered seriously, although not always accepted in the same spirit.

6 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

The Joint Committee cooperated with the Ethnogeographic Board without losing its independence. It initiated the pattern of committees of the three Councils, and showed the practicality of uniting disciplines by their area interests. Its Government experiment served as a warn- ing to the Board that proffered advice, be it ever so sound, is seldom accepted or appreciated, and leads to suspicion and resentment not only from the receivers, but also from the professional colleagues of the advisory body.

INTENSIVE LANGUAGE PROGRAM

The American Council of Learned Societies, since it represents the humanities, has a natural interest in language and literature, both area subjects. The Council has long supported such regional committees as those on Chinese, Japanese, Indic and Iranian, Near Eastern, Arabic and Islamic, and Slavic studies. The Intensive Language Pro- gram was directed toward the intensive teaching of many languages in anticipation of a real Government need. University programs were organized for teaching officers of the armed forces such languages as Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Malayan, Burmese, Thai, and Swahili. The great success of this program forms one of the outstanding achievements of scholarly efforts in wartime.

The existence of the Intensive Language Program allowed the Ethnogeographic Board to concentrate on the geographical and cul- tural aspects of area and to transfer language questions to its collab- orator. This was more than just a practical working arrangement which developed with time. The complementary relationship of the two programs was clearly considered at a meeting in March 1942, before the Board was actually established.

COMMITTEE ON THE ANTHROPOLOGY OF OCEANIA

In January 1942 a group of anthropologists interested in Oceania, inspired by the Committee on Latin American Anthropology and fully cognizant of an opportunity to be of service to the war, estab- lished a committee of the National Research Council. This group was aware of the need for integrated studies of world areas, and their application to the National Research Council actually requested that a special committee on anthropological areas be established, with an immediate subcommittee on Oceania. The over-all committee was not accepted at this time, but the idea was fermenting.

The Oceania committee immediately started a personnel file. This was not modeled on the Latin American committee’s limited and highly

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—-BENNETT 7

evaluated list of anthropologists, but was extended to include other disciplines as well as nonprofessionals. A mimeographed form was devised (Appendix B2) which emphasized the specific Pacific Islands with which the individual was familiar, the documentary or illustra- tive materials which he possessed, the languages which he knew, and his proficiency in them. Each individual was asked whether he would be willing to fill out a follow-up, specific-knowledge report, or be will- ing to be interviewed. He was also asked to supply the names of others who might have valuable experience and knowledge of the Pa- cific. This questionnaire form, considerably simplified, was adopted later by the Ethnogeographic Board in building up its own roster.

The assembled personnel data were mimeographed in six install- ments entitled: “Personnel List of Oceania,” and turned over to the Ethnogeographic Board for distribution. Later, the committee sent out a follow-up questionnaire asking for detailed information on geography and peoples of the Pacific (Appendix B3).

The chairman of the Oceania committee, George Peter Murdock, was also the director of the Cross-Cultural Survey at Yale so that the activities of the two organizations were linked. The Survey had been engaged for many years in getting published data on the primitive tribes of the world, and in processing and filing them systematically. When the war started the Survey approach was enlarged to include more than the primitive and strictly anthropological, and the efforts of the staff were concentrated on the Pacific Islands, particularly Micronesia. Together, the committee and the Survey prepared a num- ber of factual accounts about specific islands and island groups which again were distributed by the Ethnogeographic Board and this col- laboration continued even after the Survey was taken over by the Navy. On the whole, the Oceania committee deserves great credit in furnishing materials and setting patterns of procedure for the Board.

COMMITTEE ON AFRICAN ANTHROPOLOGY

s

Shortly after the Oceania committee was established a similar one on Africa was appointed by the National Research Council. This group built up “The Personnel List of Africa” which was mimeo- graphed in six installments and distributed by the Ethnogeographic Board. The Africa committee worked on a tribal bibliography, a tribal location index, and sought out native informants in this coun- try for use in an intensive language study. The Africa committee was also an important contributor to the Board.

8 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

ETHNOGRAPHIC BOARD

With three anthropological area committees already operating in the National Research Council, and a fourth on Japan, China, and India contemplated, the idea of over-all coordination, first proposed by the Oceania group, was again brought forth. Carl E. Guthe, vice chairman of the Division of Anthropology and Psychology, called an organizational conference to consider the formation of an “Ethno- graphic Board.” This body was to consist only of anthropologists and be located at the National Research Council. It was to act as an over- all organization for the regional subcommittees, so as to systematize procedures and prevent unnecessary duplication of records and efforts. It was also to serve as a clearinghouse for inquiries upon ethnographic subjects referred to the Council.

The organizational meeting was held in March 1942 and was at- tended by nine anthropologists, including the chairmen of the estab- lished area committees. The functions of an Ethnographic Board were discussed at length, and there seemed little doubt that activity would not be wanting. Three important requirements were faced. First, the need for adequate financing, preferably from a non-Federal source. Second, the need for an executive secretary who would es- tablish the necessary connections in Washington in order that the work of the Ethnographic Board would not be confined to the four walls of the Council. Third, the need for integrating the activities of the three Councils, since anthropology is represented in each. William Duncan Strong was recommended for Executive Secretary, and Carl E. Guthe was elected Chairman. They became, later, the Director and Chairman, respectively, of the Ethnogeographic Board.

The Ethnographic Board was duly appointed by the National Re- search Council but never functioned because of that all-important question of financing. Getting funds from foundations needs backing. Two Councils are better than one, and three are better than two, at least, it was so reasoned at the organizational meeting. Since the Di- rectors of the three Councils were accustomed to meet informally from time to time, it was decided to discuss the monetary problem with them. But three Councils also have bigger ideas than one, so, as can be anticipated, ethnography (the study of peoples) was laid on the flaming altar and ethnogeography (peoples plus land) emerged from its ashes. However, one other organization must first be considered before the history goes on, since it furnished the fuel for the burning flames.

NO. = ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—-BEN NETT 9

SMITHSONIAN War COMMITTEE

On the last day of March 1942 the Smithsonian Institution called a meeting of the staff for a discussion of the role of the Smithsonian in the war effort. Out of this meeting came the Smithsonian War Committee. One of its first acts was to assemble a roster which recorded the world travel and the special abilities of the Smith- sonian’s staff. A second action started a series called “War Back- ground Studies” of which 21 well-illustrated and popularly, although accurately, written numbers have appeared which cover many areas of the world. Official liaison was established with Army Intelligence. In fact, the committee started out to do many of the things later taken over by the Ethnogeographic Board.

At one of the formative meetings of this committee a report was made on the proposed Ethnographic Board of the National Research Council. The Smithsonian considered the advantages of cooperating with this body and decided to offer it office space as well as a salarv for the Director, particularly if it were Dr. Strong who had for many years worked for the Bureau of American Ethnology. Dr. Strong was consulted and agreed to accept provided the merger could be effected.

CONFERENCE BoArD OF ASSOCIATED RESEARCH COUNCILS

The Conference Board did not become a formal organization until March 1944, but previous to that date informal meetings of the Directors of the three Councils were held frequently to discuss prob- lems of mutual interest, and to keep informed on each other’s activi- ties. In June 1942 the Directors, together with the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, met to discuss the financial problem of the Ethnographic Board. The discussion was not so confined.

The objection was raised to limiting such a Board to one discipline, namely anthropology. If it were to be interdisciplinary, then the sponsorship of all three Councils would be logical, since collectively they represented the earth and biological sciences, the historical and social sciences, and the humanities. There would be an advantage, particularly from the point of view of the Government, in having a single agency to which queries and requests for assistance could be addressed. All agreed that the enlarged concept was definitely superior.

The offer of the Smithsonian Institution to provide the salary of the Director, office space, and other technical assistance, made the establishment of the Board an immediate reality. The Councils

2

IO SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

agreed to provide a sum of $6,000 for the initial operating costs, and to take up the question of applying for Foundation support after a short trial period. In brief, the following agreements were reached :

1. That the Board was a joint committee of the three Councils and the Smithsonian Institution.

2. That the name was to be the Ethnogeographic Board.

3. That the National Research Council was to act as fiscal agent.

4. That the old Ethnographic Board was to be discontinued, and the jurisdiction of the Ethnogeographic Board shifted from the Division of Anthropology and Psychology to the Executive Board of the Na- tional Research Council.

5. That the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, the committees on the anthropology of Oceania and Africa, the Inten- sive Language Program, and the Smithsonian War Committee should not be discontinued or reduced to subcommittees of the Board, but should be considered as cooperating organizations and so listed on the letterhead.

6. That William Duncan Strong was to be Director of the Ethnogeographic Board, with offices located in the Smithsonian Institution.

7. That the Board itself would be interdisciplinary in character and would act as an advisory and policy-making body for the Directorate.

8. That the Directors of the four sponsoring institutions would serve as ex officio members of the Board and that other Board members would be chosen jointly by the four Sponsors as “repre- sentatives of varied important human disciplines, on the basis of their familiarity with one or more geographical regions and their experience and associations.” (From the brochure of the Ethnogeo- graphic Board.)

Thus on June 16, 1942, the Ethnogeographic Board was settled in its Washington offices and ready to begin business.

ETHNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD

The true need for an organization of this type is implicit in the historical summary of its development. That the Board performed many useful services and more than justified its existence has been stated previously and will be repeated frequently in this account. The question raised here is merely whether the same results might have been accomplished in a simpler way, and whether, in a future emer- gency, a board with similar organizational structure would be needed.

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT Md

The Board had an impressive paper backing. The myriad resources of the Smithsonian Institution, the experience of the three Councils plus their varied committees, the activities of the cooperating com- mittees, and an active group of Board members, theoretically selected for their versatility and ingenuity, were all at its command. Was such an array necessary for a service job?

The answer to this question must be in the affirmative. It will be pointed out later that some of the Board’s connections never got beyond the paper stage, and that the Board itself failed to utilize, for one reason or another, its full potential backing. Many of the accomplishments of the Board could have been realized by the Smith- sonian, one Council, or a simple combination of the cooperating com- mittees. In fact, for the sake of discussion, it could be admitted that the total work of the Board might have been performed with comparable success with a less elaborate background structure. In spite of all this, the total paper organization was needed at the time, and would be necessary in the future, for three principal reasons.

First, the Board needed the prestige. Government agencies are hard to impress, and this appearance of a united front was effective. Furthermore, the Director of the Board needed entrée into offices and departments of Government so that the many established con- nections of the sponsoring organizations were invaluable. Both of the points apply equally well to the academic societies and institutions on which the Board theoretically depended for its information. The Councils are the known and trusted representatives of most of these organizations, and without their endorsement the Board would have been under suspicion.

Second, the Board needed financial support. The three Councils jointly are an effective combination in applying for support of an organization of this kind. Their unity is a convincing argument that the program is needed, that it will be well supervised, and that it is not competing with other projects. This would be equally true whether the sources of funds were Federal or non-Federal. In the case of the Ethnogeographic Board, the organizations most likely to compete had been incorporated, partly in this historical development, but also by the joint Council action.

Third, and most important, is the fact that no one knows in advance the direction that the activities of a Board of this kind will take. The Ethnogeographic Board was given a broad mandate, summed up under the term “service.” The ramifications of service in this con- nection are almost unlimited. The review of the actual procedures shows that many of the sources of service were not utilized. How-

I2 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

ever, part of the intention of this analysis is to show where sources could have been more widely and more effectively utilized, and tn a future situation many unforeseen opportunities for service might well arise.

ORGANIZATION

The Ethnogeographic Board is a conglomerate organization, in- volving four sponsoring groups, Board members, a Directorate with a Washington office and staff, six cooperating committees, and a loosely assigned group of consultants. The historical account of the founding explains how some of these became united. The interrela- tionships, however, were not too clear at the beginning, and at the end of 3 years of operation this situation had not changed. The components are examined individually and then mixed.

SPONSORS

“The Ethnogeographic Board is in effect a joint committee of the three research councils (National Research Council, American Coun- cil of Learned Societies, Social Science Research Council) with which the Smithsonian Institution cooperates to furnish a secretariat and office accommodations.” (From the mimeographed statement submitted to the Foundations in the application for financial sup- port.) Actually, the Smithsonian Institution was a full-fledged fourth Sponsor. The four sponsoring groups were represented on the Board by their Directors, jointly appointed the other members, and jointly applied for and received grants for the Board’s support from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution.

The Sponsors took an active interest in the Board, and controlled many of its policies, sometimes by concrete statements, sometimes by the negative technique of making no commitments. The prestige of the Sponsors was a great boon for the Ethnogeographic Board, but, also, so many masters had its drawbacks when quick decisions were required.

BOARD

The interdisciplinary character of the Ethnogeographic Board ac- counts for the sponsorship of three Councils instead of one, and also for the selection of the members. These were appointed jointly by the four Sponsors which was supposed to eliminate any idea of representation, although it is not difficult to guess which Sponsor proposed each member. In effect, however, the Board consisted of a group of independent scholars, and not of a body of representatives.

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BENNETT 13

The Board met twice a year as an advisory and policy-making body. Beyond this it had no continuing function.

The original Board consisted of six members: Carl E. Guthe, anthropologist, University of Michigan, now Director of the New York State Museum, Chairman; Wendell C. Bennett, anthropologist, Yale University ; Carter Goodrich, economist, Columbia University ; John E. Graf, entomologist and Assistant Secretary of the Smith- sonian Institution; Robert B. Hall, geographer, University of Michi- gan; and Wilbur A. Sawyer, medicine and public health, Rockefeller Foundation. Later the membership was increased to seven by the addition of Mortimer Graves, language and literature, American Council of Learned Societies. In the course of time, two members, Drs. Hall and Sawyer, resigned and were replaced by Isaiah Bowman, geographer, Johns Hopkins University ; and William Duncan Strong, anthropologist and ex-Director of the Board, Columbia University. In general the Board had sufficient backing to allow selection of members for interest and action, rather than front or prestige.

The Board membership was kept small by deliberate policy. At one point the Board asked the Sponsors to add three more members, preferably in or near Washington, so as to give representation to such fields as history, political science, sociology and psychology. The Sponsors declined, on the grounds that the group was already work- ing harmoniously and new additions might disturb this. In effect, this was true.in that the members cooperated well and took a sincere interest in the work. That is, with the exception of the geographers, who, through lack of interest and because of other obligations, never appeared at a Board meeting.

Until 1945 the Board met twice a year, and the mimeographed minutes of the five meetings have been important documents for the present history. At each meeting, the Board reviewed the activi- ties of its Directorate, discussed questions of policy, suggested new procedures, considered appointments to the staff, and approved the budget. The Sponsors thought of the Board as an advisory body to guide and aid the Directorate. However, no seven scholars are con- tent to limit their discussions to advice, and consequently each meet- ing brought forth many suggestions on broad problems, techniques, and needs. Frequently these resulted in recommending new action for the Washington office, which harassed the poor Director, although seldom were such mandates clearly enough framed to guide his course of activity.

The Board appointed the professional staff members, consultants,

I4 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

research associates, and the like. It also set up a few subcommittees, such as the ill-fated ones on research and on the Pacific survey to be described later. At the request of the Director, the Board named an executive committee, composed of members permanently or fre- quently in Washington, who could be called on short notice for advice and approval. This committee, of four members, held some six official meetings at which minutes were kept, but served the Directorate with far greater frequency than this would imply. Inso- far as the Board was intended to be merely an advisory group, all- Washington membership would have been desirable.

DIRECTORATE

The Ethnogeographic Board’s Washington office, the only one it had, was located in the Smithsonian Institution. From two rooms at the start, four more were added as business increased. All these were supplied, serviced, and partly equipped by the Smithsonian Institution. The first Director, William Duncan Strong, served from June 15, 1942, to July 31, 1944, on leave of absence from Columbia University, and since his resignation, Henry B. Collins, Jr., of the Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, has been Director. The salaries of both were paid by the Smithsonian.

The professional staff consisted of a Director and several “research associates,” defined as full-time workers, with or without compensa- tion from the Ethnogeographic Board. Without was more common than with, since only Miss Elizabeth Bacon received compensation from the Board’s funds. The others, William N. Fenton, Frank H. H. Roberts, Jr., Homer Barnett, and Henry B. Collins, Jr. (later entitled Assistant Director), were all on loan from the Bureau of American Ethnology. The Smithsonian provided some secretarial assistance, in particular the service of Miss Mae W. Tucker, but the Wash- ington office also had one or two full-time secretaries of its own. These include, for the period covered, Mrs. Ethel C. Ford, Miss Anne Fromme, Miss Elizabeth P. Clark, and Mrs. Mary Jane Miller.

All members of the professional staff assisted in the information service, and many of the reports show their collaboration. However, each research associate had a particular assignment. Dr. Collins was in charge of “research,” by which was meant bibliography and other sources used in preparing reports and supplying information. Dr. Fenton was first in charge of the area roster, and later of the survey of area studies in American universities. Dr. Roberts was editor of the Board’s survival reports, including the booklet “Survival on Land and Sea.” Miss Bacon assembled the area (and language)

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 15

notes, and participated in the survey of area programs in the uni- versities. Dr. Barnett served as the executive secretary on the Pacific Survey Project, and later as director of the War Document Survey.

The staff worked together with remarkable harmony. Only in the case of the survey of area programs did the lack of positive directives cause some confusion. Four of the six staff members were regular employees of the Smithsonian, which, under the circumstances of being in the home building, might have led to divided loyalties. That this was not too disruptive is due in large part to the fact that the Directorate itself was practically a part of the Smithsonian, and certainly took over many of the functions of the Smithsonian War Committee.

The staff was competent, but too limited in number to handle many of the wider aims of the Board, particularly the establishment of sound academic relationships and the development of research promotion. At one point, the Director received permission to appoint a new man, who could relieve him of some of the routine, and at the same time undertake new projects. It proved impossible to find anyone, although many were considered, and some offers were made. This was only partially a question of salary, since the Ethnogeo- graphic Board had reasonable funds. It can be attributed in part to the disagreement among the Sponsors on almost every man suggested, and in part because the job was necessarily of a temporary nature. Those seeking jobs preferred to go to one of the Government war agencies ; those with jobs could not be persuaded to take a leave of absence for the purpose.

The question can be raised as to whether part-time personnel might not have been one solution. The Director claimed that the Board could not take on many large projects nor build up sufficient contacts with scholars because there was no staff member to assume such responsibilities. The attitude was that the man must be found first, and then the project or program built around him. If the approach had been reversed, and the project placed first, then it might have been possible to find the people to carry it out. This is merely con- jecture, and might not have been possible during the drastic shortage of trained personnel in the war period.

CooOPERATING COMMITTEES

Five committees were associated with the Ethnogeographic Board even in its prenatal days: the Joint Committee on Latin American

16 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

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

NODE ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 17

office of the Directorate was “the Board.” Throughout this report the term “Board”’ is used to refer to the advisory body, the Director- ate, or to both combined. Where activities are described, the term usually means the Directorate ; elsewhere, as in discussions of policy, it more often refers to total organization. As the emergency activities of the Directorate diminished the question of its relationship to the Board was sharpened. Should the closing of the Washington office automatically dissolve the Board? We now know that the Board expired when its right arm was amputated, but a skilled surgeon could theoretically have kept it alive.

In operation the Board and the Directorate were thoroughly inter- locked. The Director attended every Board meeting, made his report of progress, and received advice and suggestions. The Chairman of the Board made frequent visits to Washington, and the executive committee also kept in close touch with the Director. The Washington office had liberal authority to initiate its own activities and was never merely an executive branch of the Board. In fact the minutes of the Board meetings when compared to the accompanying Director’s reports sometimes show an amazing gulf between theory and practice. Had the Board ever shown any inclination to assert its independence by a show of action, the issue of relationship to the Directorate would have been raised. However, it never did.

The Board kept in touch with the cooperating committees by having the Director attend their committee meetings, by appointing the com- mittee heads as consultants, by having the Directorate mimeograph and distribute the committees’ personnel lists and reports. The Area Roster in the Washington office was the master file for all the com- mittees’ specialized personnel data. Only the Committee on Asiatic Geography expressed a slight resentment of the role of the Board as a central distributing agency. In general the cooperation with all committees was effective, although best with those on Oceania and Africa, not only because they were two basic creators of the Board, but also because they were composed of anthropologists, all of whom were old personal friends of the Director.

Representatives of the sponsoring institutions attended every Board meeting and the Director of the Board went to each annual meeting of the Sponsors. The National Research Council, the fiscal agent of the Board, received bimonthly reports, and all four Sponsors got the minutes of every meeting as well as special progress reports:

The Ethnogeographic Board, June 16 to October 16, 1942. A Report to the

Sponsoring Institutions. Director’s Report of Progress, January 14 to August I, 1943.

18 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

Brief Summary of the Activities of the Ethnogeographic Board, as: i 1943, to July 31, 1044.

Report of Progress, Ethnogeographic Board, 1942-1045.

The Conference Board of Associated Research Councils discussed the Ethnogeographic Board at each meeting and sent copies of its minutes to the Director and the Board members.

GENERAL

The accomplishments of the Board, to be described in detail, reflect the organization. The Directorate determined the pattern and geared its staff for the various types of services to the Army, Navy, and war agencies. Judging by the quantity and quality of these services, the Board and the Directorate were successful. However, the total or- ganization was inadequate for many needed research activities because the staff lacked the necessary personnel, the Director was too occupied by the immediate urgencies, and the Board itself was too remote and passive.

The Board was supposed to be interdisciplinary, but it is clear from this review of the organization that it was dominated by anthro- pologists. The Director and the five professionals on his staff, three out of the six consultants, the Chairman and one member (later two) of the Board, and four out of the seven official liaison officers with the Army and Navy were all anthropologists. The Board was created by the anthropological committees of the National Research Councils, and continued to be dominated by the one profession, in spite of at- tempts to branch out. This overemphasis may possibly have handi- capped the full potential development of the Ethnogeographic Board.

BUDGET

The idea of an Ethnogeographic Board became a reality when the Smithsonian Institution offered to provide salaries for the Director and one assistant, office space and service, and some clerical assistance. The three Councils at once agreed to add a sum for other expenses during the initial trial period and to consider making an application for further financial support. The Ethnogeographic Board was launched, then, on a budget for the first 6 months of $3,000, plus the Smithsonian’s contribution. Another $1,000 was added to this as a special item for the Committee on Asiatic Geography. The geogra- phers spent about one-half of their fund, and the Board itself operated successfully on slightly less than its $3,000.

Before the close of this trial period the three Councils and the

INO ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 19

Smithsonian made joint application to both the Rockefeller Founda- tion and the Carnegie Corporation for annual grants of $20,000 each. A budget of $55,000 to $60,000 for the calendar year 1943 was drawn up, partially on the basis of the first 6 months, but largely on fore- casts of heavily increased demands. The Foundations would provide $40,000 of this and the Sponsors, principally the Smithsonian, would take care of the rest. Fortunately, the Foundations in making their grants did not insist on the calendar limit, but allowed any unexpended balances to carry over, since, at the end of the third year of operation, less than half of the $40,000 had been spent. This unusual situation requires an examination of the actual expenditures. Table 1 shows these by 6-month periods for the first 2 years.

The budgeted items for each 6 months refer only to Foundation grants and do not include the Smithsonian’s contributions. Each es- timated budget is about three times the actual expenditures for the same period, as is shown graphically in the chart (fig. 1). The estimates reflect the Ethnogeographic Board’s enthusiastic notion of its own potentialities. The actual expenditures show both the Board’s ability to get the jobs paid for elsewhere (namely, by the Smith- sonian ), and its inability to execute many projects. The totals for this 2-year period are:

Fistimated budgets trom grants......ss0s+sssessce- os $47,364.94 Expended! trome Grants >. wc cctwsie's se ieistelcreisersicis ¢ sou ane 16,501.00 Smithsonians contribubionsy cee aemeieciacieeinicioe oan cies 48,563.08 ehotalvexpendituresiic, ac semicelecin nomic rete cian cic taeiors 65,064.98

It is obvious that the Smithsonian Institution has borne the lion’s share of the cost. At the end of 3 years the Smithsonian’s contri- bution had amounted to something over $60,000. This sum went largely for staff salaries, which, it must be noted, except for the Di- rector’s stipend would normally have appeared in the Smithsonian’s budget. The estimate of $2,500 a year for office space and service is frankly a guess. The Board could not have rented equivalent space and service for this sum, but, on the other hand, the Smith- sonian would have had to maintain it in any case. This is not intended to belittle the Smithsonian’s contribution, which, on the contrary, made the work of the Board possible at remarkably low budgetary cost. If the Foundations consider matching funds desirable, they certainly received it in this case. In 3 years the Sponsors matched the grants at a ratio of three to one.

The grossly overestimated budgets reflect in part the Directorate’s concentration on low-cost war service in contrast to the Board’s wish-

VOL. 107

SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS

9z'060‘61 €g'z19‘V1 o0°00£ ‘1 000°00S‘II oo'0Sz‘t see eee oo'oSz'I eee oe oo'oSo‘zI Gti oo'oSz‘o1 a . gz 062‘ zo'gor'st Cg cre ZO'gOI ‘ZI eee eee OO’OzI‘I see eee OO'OZI‘I cb'be6 00°00S ‘I LS°¥g 00'002‘I fos 00°002‘I ots 00°002'I oz €z AMO DP Oc Z0'8Q7 Sobre 00°00S oo'SF1 00°00S 6S'71S 00°009 oS bev 00°009 eoeeeee oo'00F se eee 00'009 zg rele 00°089‘8 o£9z0'7 00'0gS‘S Se-Loz$ 00°000$ or ctr$ 00°006$ queds pspng quadg qospng Vrror yrror qevor qeror

92°662‘91

00°000‘zI 00'0SZ'‘I oo'oSZ‘01

94002‘ oo'StS

93 of Og 1SE gross IZ-gSh LOeLL°1

ce1Z9¢

quads Vveror

ereeeos eerree

06°g02‘S1 00°0z0‘I 00°02 00°00g 00'0072'‘1 00°000‘V 00'0g0'V

00000‘

qyospng VErer

I1'zgS‘vr gO'EgZ‘I1

gore iz‘T o00'0Sz‘I 00'00£ ‘6

€1°962'z gosh 1€°SSz LY'SIP Sg°Srz 00°0g6

ZS 66r$

qusdg qzror

00'000'V

00°000‘I oo'SZe oo'Szyv oo'0SP 00°S90‘I

o0°Sg0$

pspng qzror

ss55 sreIoy, puery

Ce

s]e}0 T,

eeeeeeosesss uoljon.14su07 5)

sapan 2 4ysayf ayy 40f sporsad yyuoul-g fq suoryngriyuos upiuosyjuug pun ‘sainpipuagxa ‘sjabpng :papog

*AdAING ApnyS evoIy

eeeoeee

eee eres

seeees quay °z eeSoMe;eS. cl

> UBIUOSY}US “DO reseeeeeees sreOT * yuosulju0y) °g

sees AQAING DyIOeG

Z 9 OID CG "Soan) oeIsy “C v £

coer eee

* Juowdinby

yA 0I 20

“* Jerauay) ‘~

>= *) Sopeyes) <I SaqeIopIGg “g_

ay dviboabouyjq—I1 AAV,

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 21

ful hopes for more “research” projects and planning. In the ap- plication to the Foundations, for example, the $55,000 annual budget estimated six Board meetings a year, although no more than two a year were ever held, nor would they have been practical. An item for five consultants a month at $100 each was not explained in the application nor ever clarified in practice. Six to ten projects at $500 were itemized by a Board which later restricted grants by policy and seldom considered the employment of part-time personnel. On the basis of 5 successful dinner conferences in 1942, the Directorate es-

20,000

TOTAL EXPENDITURES

N

! s IKSTIMATED BUDGET ~s, 4

| EXPENDITURES eee /

10,000

DOLLARS

BUDGET EXPENDITURES

1942 B 1943 A 19435 B 1944 A 1944 B 1945 A 1945 B

Fic. 1—Graph of Ethnogeographic Board’s budget.

timated 20 in 1943 at a total cost of $5,000 ($75 per conference dinner, plus $3,500 for traveling expenses), but owing to war re- strictions only 5 more were held.

In estimating its budgets the Director made allowances for hiring additional staff members. However, this was not necessary for many projects because the Smithsonian loaned members of its staff, which increased its contribution but did not deplete the Board’s operational budget. For illustration, the Pacific Survey Project cost the budget only $51.03. If outside personnel had been hired the Board’s expenses would have increased proportionately. The concentration on war ser- vice rather than research promotion cut down the costs enormously,

22 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

since it took little expenditure to answer questions, distribute ma- terials, and write brief reports. For future consideration, however, it must be remembered that the total costs amounted to about $30,000 a year which would have to be met by grants if no convenient Smith- sonian Institution were available and willing.

BOARD ACTIVITIES

The chapters which follow present a description and analysis of the actual activities of the Ethnogeographic Board. No attempt has been made to arrange these in chronological order, a procedure which would be exceedingly difficult and of little general significance. In- stead the treatment is a topical one, with an emphasis on techniques and the different types of service.

Service is a multifarious concept, but for the purpose of this description it has been limited to those aspects which actually are demonstrated by the Board’s endeavors. Convenient labels have been attached, such as Information, Distributions, Reports, Confer- ences, and Projects. Each of these covers a rather wide range of activities, as will be illustrated. The caption “Dead Ends” covers the projects and techniques which the Board discussed or initiated, and then abandoned for one reason or another.

It must always be remembered that the Ethnogeographic Board was primarily an emergency body intent on using academic knowledge for the successful execution of the war. There was, to be sure, a secondary purpose, as stated in the published brochure, “to encourage the promulgation .. . of more extensive research projects along the lines of applicable social science, linguistics and human geog- raphy.” It was the primary purpose, however, that motivated the Director and his staff, and that colored the activities of the Board throughout the first 2 years of its existence. Requests from the Army, Navy, and other war agencies were given precedence above all others. Longer term and more academic projects were consistently postponed in favor of the immediate. It is natural then that the category “Information” stands out most prominently in this history.

Information includes the spot questions about areas or personnel which could be answered by phone or short letter. It includes short reports in answer to requests that required a certain amount of investigation. It includes long reports involving one or more staff members, or the most competent outsiders available. The promotion techniques of the Washington office were intended to spread the scope of this service. The principal files, such as the Area Roster,

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BENNETT 23

area bibliographies, and the specialized library, were assembled and arranged in order to facilitate and improve the information sources.

As the Government agencies became more stabilized, war areas contracted, and foreign intelligence replaced the domestic, the demands on the Board’s information service dwindled. The first year of operation was the period of greatest activity.. By the end of 1943 requests were notably fewer in number and correspondingly of greater complexity. After 2 years the first Director felt that the Ethnogeographic Board’s primary objective had been achieved, and tendered his resignation since, as he stated in a letter of June 21, 1944, “. . . I came to Washington primarily to be of service in the war effort... .”’ He felt that the nature of the activities would, and should, change. His prediction was correct, since the third year was marked by requests for other than pure information.

The Board received its initial direction from those cooperating committees which it, in part, represented. Once connections with War and Navy Departments were established, the nature of their requests controlled the efforts of the staff. At the semiannual Board meetings, the members offered guidance to the Directorate and sug- gested new action. Since these suggestions were frequently not of a strictly informational nature they were seldom practical for the small, overoccupied Washington staff. The Board members emphasized the dual function, to answer and to sell. The Director gave priority to answering. His office was perfectly willing to distribute and promote any pertinent materials, but did not have time, staff, nor techniques to stimulate the scholarly profession in the production of more salable documents.

The description and analysis starts with the Area Roster, the Information Files, and the Promotion Techniques. Unfortunately, the various activities of the Board cannot be neatly segregated. The roster was compiled largely during the first year, but the informa- tion service started the first day. A letter answering a query would often include data on personnel, photographs, bibliography, and a promotion pamphlet, so that any description which separates these activities must not only be somewhat artificial, but also involve some duplication. In some ways this topical approach may seem to over- simplify, but little clarity would be gained by a presentation of the Board’s first year’s rush of business.

AREA ROSTER

The Board built up a file of the area experiences and linguistic abilities of some 5,000 individuals which it entitled: ‘World File of

24 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107 Area and Language Specialists.” This roster, unique in many ways, was constantly used both by the Washington staff and by other agencies. The emergency value of the roster and its potential future importance justify a detailed description.

NEED

Rosters are no novelty. The American public seems to enjoy writ- ing its name and experience on a questionnaire blank, and many an organization finds pleasure in assembling this information in files. Who’s Who, American Men of Science, and other publications cover the field of up-to-date biographical references. Most professional societies keep records of the careers of members. All these lists allow some evaluation of the individuals. In wartime Washington, with personnel at a premium, almost every agency drew up its own list of experts or potential employees. These were classed as house documents, not for circulation. Others, like the Office of Strategic Services list of Near Eastern Authorities, bore the label: “‘Not for distribution to non-Governmental agencies.”

Of all the rosters which the Board examined before starting its own, the most important was the National Roster of Scientific and Specialized Personnel (NRSSP). This is tindoubtedly the most com- plete and significant registration of the country’s scholarly personnel. Started well before the war, the National Roster makes every effort to record up-to-date information on all scientific fields. During the war it became an important part of the War Manpower Commission.

Before the Ethnogeographic Board was established, each of the area committees felt the need for specialized area rosters. The extant printed biographies and even the National Roster were not satisfactory from the area point of view. The personnel lists assembled by these committees formed the core of the Board’s Area Roster and stimulated its expansion to cover the other areas and utilize other sources. A large volume of the Board’s information service concerned personnel data, so that it was inevitable that a handy reference file would be needed.

Apart from the practical convenience of an office personnel file, there was a recognized need for a roster which placed the primary emphasis on area. The Board wanted to know who had been where, how long, doing what. The experience of the Oceania committee had shown that if such a list were limited to professionals it would be pitifully small. Furthermore, it was reasonable to assume that sig- nificant knowledge and materials on an area could be acquired by

NO> I ETHNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 25

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 effect, 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 know!- 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-

3

26 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

mittees on the Anthropology of Africa and Oceania formed the backbone of the roster since they had been built up on strictly area lines. Although the Board kept all these lists and had many of the original questionnaires, only the most promising names were included in the active card file. In some instances a new questionnaire form was sent to the individuals in order to fill out gaps in the information.

The Area Roster was built up for service rather than for complete coverage of the world. Consequently, names were sought for those areas of greatest immediate or anticipated importance. The first ones were the Mediterranean, Africa, and the Pacific Islands. The Board appealed to professional societies and institutions, such as the Ameri- can Political Science Association, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Library of Congress, whose members might have special knowl- edge of these regions. Others, like members of the American Asso- ciation of Petroleum Geologists, and the American Malacologists Union, could be expected to have special knowledge of terrain and beaches. The offices of both Army and Navy Intelligence gave their assistance. Government agencies with foreign service divisions were not overlooked. The Department of Agriculture and the Board of Economic Warfare agreed to send the roster questionnaire to their experienced employees. The Archaeological Institute of America, the International Labour Office, the Explorers Club, and the Interna- tional Committee of the Y. M. C. A. furnished names of nonpro- fessionals with area knowledge. Names of missionaries were obtained from the American Friends Service Committee, the Baptist Foreign Mission, the International Missionary Council, and others. The National Roster of Scientific and Specialized Personnel supplied basic lists of specialists with foreign travel or residence.

The Board members and the Sponsors suggested new sources and even persuaded some societies to send their lists to the roster. Such lists were filed for future reference if not pertinent to the immediate need. For example, the Board had access to the Intensive Language Program’s list of language teachers and trainees. Similarly, the American Friends Service Committee deposited a complete set of curricula vitae of specialists on Central Europe who were teaching in the Language-Area programs at the universities. If the Board wanted to include names from these lists in its master file, the society itself was asked to send out the questionnaire, a technique which usually gained a wide response. However, only selected individuals with special knowledge of a strategic area or special linguistic ability were entered in the card file.

NO. I _ ETHNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BENNETT 27

Some requests called for special efforts. In response to special requests, the Board obtained a list of Scandinavians in this country from the American Scandinavian Foundation; a list of citizens who returned from the Orient on the Gripsholm from the War Depart- ment and the Board of Economic Warfare; and a list of Russian resi- dents from the Russian Students Relief Fund, Inc. Finally, the chain letter system was employed. Each questionnaire or circular which the Board sent to an individual asked for the names of others who might have useful knowledge or experience.

The sources of names were not formally rated, although in terms of a particular project some proved far more valuable than others. In general, the number of sources or card entries was purely prag- matic. If the information from one set proved inadequate, new ones were sought.

PRINCIPAL SOURCES

. American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

. American Council of Learned Societies.

. American Friends Service Committee.

. American Malacologists Union.

. American Men of Science.

. American Oriental Society.

. American Political Science Association.

. American Scandinavian Foundation.

. Archaeological Institute of America.

. Baptist Foreign Mission.

. Board of Economic Warfare.

12. Chicago Technical Societies, Association Defense Committee. . College Art Association.

. Committee on African Anthropology.

. Committee on the Anthropology of Oceania.

. Committee on Asiatic Geography.

. Committee on Latin American Anthropology.

. Committee for the Protection of Cultural Treasures in War Areas.’ . Directory of American Scholars.

. East Indies Institute of America.

. Explorers Club.

. Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America.

. Foreign Missions Conference of North America Committee. . Foreign Press Club.

25. Intensive Language Program.

26. International Committee, Y. M. C. A.

27. International Labour Office.

28. International Missionary Council.

29. Library of Congress.

30. Military Government, Provost Marshal General’s Office. 31. Military Intelligence Service, U. S. Army.

HoH HOMO CON AM ABW ND

en a on | © ON ANB W

b&b bw bw WH ND & WN HO

28 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

32. National Roster of Scientific and Specialized Personnel. 33. Office of Navy Intelligence.

34. Rockefeller Foundation.

35. Russian Students Relief Fund, Inc.

36. Smithsonian War Committee.

37. United States Department of Agriculture.

38. United States Department of Commerce.

39. Who’s Who in America.

40. Who’s Who in Engineering.

FILEs

The questionnaire blank used by the Ethnogeographic Board was intentionally modeled on the ones devised by the Oceania and Africa Committees. The form, to be sure, was generalized so as to be suitable for any world area, and it was also greatly simplified. (See Appendix B4 for an example.)

The questionnaire stresses the geographic region, the major area, subarea, and specific locality, with which the individual is familiar. He is asked to state the length of his residence in the area by years and months, and to indicate the number of photographs, motion pic- tures, maps, and other materials which he possesses for each region. The correspondent rates his facility in native or European languages. The occupation, address, phone, place and year of birth are stand- ard questions, as well as professional experience and academic de- grees. Finally, the individual is asked to add the “names and addresses of other important travelers.” This simple, one-page blank, is accom- panied by a sheet of instructions which explains the particular items.

The information on a selected number of individuals was trans- ferred to a printed 5'x8-inch card, a sample of which is shown in figure 2. All pertinent data were entered on one side of the card, and the reverse side recorded how, when, and to whom the data were supplied. If an individual was familiar with several areas, a sepa- rate card was made out for each. At first, the total information was entered only on the first card, and the others were cross-referenced. This proved so unsatisfactory that subsequent cards were filled in completely.

Each card had a key reference to the source which furnished the individual’s name, so that an evaluation could be obtained if neces- sary. The original questionnaire blanks were filed in alphabetical order, together with a folder which contained pertinent correspon- dence, some additional information, and any supplementary reports which the individual may have sent in either voluntarily or by circu- larized request.

ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—-BEN NETT 29

NO.

"SOyOUL g X SG ‘azIS JenjoyY ‘pied Bul[Y Jojscy eaiy jo sjdures—z ‘ory

sdoyw (423}) SdIAOW $040Ud ‘ON (uA /*OuWd) 24 (uA/'ow) woy

ipauseg 22j8ap 4se>

“ppy 2woy

“ppw ‘sng

ryuey 99Q ‘$24g

:2WeN

SYIEWIY sueadoung T2AUON

syigy “8urq

SIyeNOH “220s

ruadxg pjai4

radxz °$82jy014 typig jO 248g PuR 22814

:quoyg a2woY

:pues; so Asjuno>

:easy ans

repay solew

30 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

The information cards were filed by major area (Africa) and sub- division (Abyssinia). A separate alphabetical file of name cards contained no personal information, but noted all areas under which cards for that individual could be found. There was no cross-index by disciplines or linguistic abilities. To find the names of anthro- pologists who had worked in Africa required a half day’s search; but then, this was not the purpose of the roster.

All rosters soon get out of date. The Board was mainly interested in the immediate utilization of its roster and consequently made only casual efforts to keep it current. If new information came in, it was duly recorded, but there was no systematic attempt to obtain it. The Army and Navy would have liked information on the draft status of the individuals, although in many cases such data were available through the National Roster’s system of having each of its regis- trants mail in a card when classified as immediately draftable. At one point the Army proposed that the Board build up a selected roster of regional and language specialists and cooperate with Selective Service in getting them usefully placed in the armed forces. This request produced intense activity among the Staff but, fortunately for the peace of the Board, the Army completely forgot about this plan 3 weeks after it had first suggested it. At the time, however, the Board considered the problem as one of major importance; it is one which has not yet been solved.

The major efforts in building up the Area Roster continued for something over a year, since which time it has received only occa- sional attention. The December 1943 approximation of the size and coverage of the roster is adequate for illustrative purposes. Over 5,000 individual names were included with an area coverage, includ- ing duplications, as follows:

Cards

INTEICas rok tua aorta Mee EL econ 2,450 PASTA siss,a) tabi Glee ech eo RE Ta ere ee eee 1,300 (e.g., Japan, 200) (e.g., Burma, 75) UUROPe wa shoe nes pe Ee ee eae 2,550 (e.g., Germany proper, 200) Matin: “Aumerica: bv... cckic.ce elena ae cee aioe 1,600 North America) Aenea aee ce eh te eee 300 Oceania | ects Mot cee ease etree ree ieee 2,450

(e.g., Sumatra, 175) (e.g., Philippines, 500) PRO tal Pe seervcrehs hciorren oraiore anee e 10,650

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 31

EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUALS

Every compiler of a roster ultimately faces the problem of evaluat- ing the individuals on his list. For example, when a man writes in “fluent” to describe his ability in speaking Malayan, what are the chances that he has more than a halting, 1o-word vocabulary? This may seem far-fetched, but experience has shown otherwise, par- ticularly when the rating is done by the individuals themselves.

Evaluation, except for such sweeping generalizations as “good” or “terrible,” must be done in the framework of a particular request, job, or project. Attempts to evaluate in terms of hypothetical frame- works are time-consuming and of dubious value. For example, the Committee on Latin American Anthropology set up a jury of eight to rate the linguistic and professional qualifications of each anthro- ‘pologist on its list, but even this simple technique broke down when the Joint Committee on Latin American Studies tried to apply it to historians, sociologists, language teachers, and others. These fields were so large that no jury could possibly be personally acquainted with any significant number of the individuals.

The Ethnogeographic Board made an over-all rating by inspec- tion and selection. Each questionnaire was examined to see if the individual’s experience and materials might be of service. If so, the entry was made on the filing card. Other evaluation techniques were utilized only when a particular request made them necessary.

The Board was frequently asked to recommend someone for a particular job or to furnish the names of individuals with specific area knowledge. In these cases the Board’s obligation was defined by a memorandum from Military Intelligence Service: “In all cases, the qualifications of such scientific personnel will have been evaluated by the Ethnogeographic Board, and their loyalty and reliability been investigated by the Counterintelligence Branch, War Department, or equivalent agencies.” For these evaluations, the Board used the standard biographical reference books, sought the opinions of others in the man’s professions, and checked with the source which had furnished the man’s name. Some evaluations were made by the cooperating committee which specialized on the area in question.

Many individuals in the Area Roster were sent requests for maps, photographs, and specific information on a particular area. Rough evaluations were used in selecting the individuals who would receive these requests. For example, the Oceania Committee had followed up its original questionnaire with a second one calling for details of resources, topography, and population of certain islands. A gen-

32 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

eralized judgment of the individual’s real knowledge could be obtained from these answers. Likewise, a rough rule-of-thumb evaluation was based on the length of residence in an area, the particular inter- EStS, (CLC:

Most questions of linguistic abilities were turned over to the American Council of Learned Societies which was better equipped to make a judgment or administer a test. In some cases, however, the Directorate handled such requests. For example, a request came for a list of Russian-speaking personnel in this country who had professional training equivalent to the Ph.D., especially in engineer- ing, medicine, dentistry, physics, and other technical sciences. The roster contained few such names, and sources like Who’s Who in Engineering had equally few. The Board turned to the National Roster and got a list of scientists, many of Russian birth, who claimed to be familiar with the language. The Russian Medical Society, the Russian Student Fund, Inc., and Dr. Paul S. Galtsoff furnished other names. All these lists were turned over to a competent Russian scholar who rated each individual’s claims on the basis of his edu- cation in Russia, the duration of his residence and his general back- ground. Out of 251 names from the National Roster, 139 were accepted as competent.

For some requests, however, the Board used a shotgun technique in preference to time-consuming methods of evaluation. Five hun- dred or more selected names from the roster would be circularized, and if the salvo brought down a brace of fat ducks everyone was happy. It usually worked.

USES

The Area Roster received extensive use. It was consulted at some point by every war agency and by most of the prominent civilian agencies. At first the agencies concerned with military matters had the greatest interest in personnel information, but later the roster was consulted frequently by those interested in rehabilitation, reloca- tion, and postwar planning. The Board encouraged direct consulta- tion of its roster by distributing a mimeographed description of its nature and content to many Government agencies. To all who came, the staff offered personal assistance in order to obtain the most effec- tive results.

The staff made constant use of the roster as part of its informa- tion service. A letter which furnished area information would also list the names of individuals who knew the region and consequently might be able to supply additional material. In this sense the use of

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 33

the roster definitely overlaps the information service category of this history.

I. LISTS OF SPECIALIZED PERSONNEL

The staff drew up lists of specialized area personnel both on request from an agency and in anticipation of needs. Some of these had a confidential, restricted distribution ; others, considered to be of wide interest, were mimeographed. In a very real sense these lists served the purpose of a cross-index to the roster. Examples of such pre- pared lists are:

Confidential personnel list of Thailand. Confidential personnel list of French Indo-China. Confidential personnel list of Malaya.

List of Russian-speaking authorities.

Partial list of Oceania experts in Washington.

Some of the lists contained rather detailed information, others were simple, depending on the purpose. The list of Oceania experts in Washington includes name, office address and phone number in Washington, profession, and the specific islands known. This was sent around with a note asking for additions and corrections, and many were submitted. Following this, the Board built up a more extensive file of scientists and regional specialists in or near Wash- ington, which included over 1,000 names and was constantly revised. This file enabled the Board to bring questioner and expert together without delay.

Most requests were for the names of individuals who had lived or traveled in some area. Some were turned over to the cooperating committees for answers. For example, the Africa committee handled an Office of Strategic Services request for a short list of business- men, government employees, and native leaders, resident in Liberia ; and an Army request for individuals with experience in Africa who had served in any branch of the Armed Forces previous to 1935.

A reply to a simple request, such as a list of people who had lived or traveled in Gambia, included the name, address, business or pro- fession, and months and years residence in the area. Sometimes the names of those who appeared to be most suitable in terms of the request were starred. Some requests were very specific. One called for an evaluated list of personnel having an intimate knowledge of coastal conditions in (1) Louisiade Archipelago; (2) South Papuan Coast, particularly east of 146° east longitude; (3) Bismarck Archi- pelago. At least one conchologist was wanted who knew each of the areas. The list was sent, shell specialists and all, within 6 days. Some

34 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

requests specified disciplines, for example, social anthropologists with field experience in social analysis. Others desired names of indi- viduals who might have specific materials, such as large-scale maps of Greece. When this last request was answered, the accompanying letter pointed out that most of the individuals were archeologists and con- sequently it might be advisable to inquire about Balkan maps in gen- eral at the same time.

2. SOURCES OF PHOTOGRAPHS

More elaborate compilations utilized the detailed information con- tained in the roster. These are illustrated by the “Sources of Photo- graphs” lists. The roster questionnaire included data on numbers of photographs, feet of motion picture film, maps, and other materials such as diaries, unpublished manuscripts, etc. Dr. Fenton compiled this information in terms of the areas which would most likely be of greatest interest to the Army and Navy, after considered consulta- tion with the respective liaison officers. One compilation consisted of four parts and an index, entitled as follows:

I. Sources of photographs on Netherlands East Indies; not already requested by the Navy Department; together with a map showing’ their distri- bution.

II. Sources of photographs on Southeastern Asia (Burma, Thailand, Indo- China and Malaya).

III. Sources of photographs on Japan (Chosen, Japan, and Formosa).

IV. Sources of photographs on the Philippine Islands.

Index to sources of photographs of I-IV above.

These four sections and index made up a manuscript of 188 pages. After each individual name was the standard information on nation- ality, address, profession, years and months of residence in the area, and also the quantity of pictures, maps, and miscellaneous information which he claimed to possess. If any war agency had already requested the materials, this fact was noted together with the name of the agency. Those whom the Ethnogeographic Board had already circu- larized for the Navy were not included, as the document titles state.

The sources of photographs for each particular region were indi- cated by numbers on a large-scale map. In the index the names in the four reports were numbered consecutively so that a reference to the specific sources of photographs could also be indicated on the maps. The job of actually obtaining the photographs and other materials was left in the hands of the Army and Navy.

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BENNETT 35

3. PERSONNEL INFORMATION

The Board’s roster served as one source for employable personnel, particularly when cross-checked by one of the cooperating committees or Sponsors. Samples of such requests are: a man to write the Sol- dier’s Handbook on Eritrea; a man to check a military phrase book in “Pidgin English” ; a good cultural-relations officer for the Carib- bean area. The Board was able to furnish the names of several in- dividuals who spoke a specific Oceanic dialect, in spite of the fact that other informed sources had claimed that no such people were available. The Army, Navy, and other Government agencies used the roster to obtain names of prospective officers or employees with foreign experience. Some use was also made of the roster by uni- versities seeking special teaching personnel for their foreign area and language courses.

4. FOLLOW-UP INTERVIEWS

At several Board meetings the possibility of interviewing people with extensive area travel or residence was discussed, but never tried out. However, this was done by some agencies such as the Office of War Information, the Army and the Navy. It is costly and difficult to interview a group of people scattered all over the United States. In order to simplify the procedure, the Navy, in 1944, asked for a spe- cial list of area experts arranged according to United States subregions represented by Naval District Offices. The Board selected 550 im- portant card entries, made two photostats of each, and classified these by States and institutions. One set of photostats was for the Navy’s central file, the other for the District Officers’.

5. CIRCULARIZING

At first the military departments handled all follow-up requests for photographs and information, but later the Board was entrusted with a good proportion of this work. The Army or the Navy desig- nated the specific area, such as the Balkans, Japan, or a Pacific Island group, and the type of information desired. The Board then selected a long list of potential names from its roster and sent the request to each individual. An accompanying letter gave details about the type of information, photographs, and maps which were needed. (See Ap- pendix C for samples.) If Army and Navy requests differed, this was explained. In order to avoid duplication the letter asked for the name of any other war agency which had solicited the same informa-

36 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

tion on materials. In some earlier individual requests, the correspon- dents had been asked to send their information directly to the Board, which would turn it over to the Army or Navy. This had sometimes aroused suspicion. Consequently, the later requests enclosed Navy or Army franks so that the materials could be sent directly. By this means it was unnecessary to give any elaborate explanation about the Ethnogeographic Board, although the printed brochure was enclosed for good measure. If the roster did not contain enough names, other sources were used. For example, good materials on the Mediterranean were obtained by circularizing the membership list of the Archaeo- logical Institute of America and of the American School at Athens.

A recent illustration shows the results of this circularizing tech- nique because it was handled entirely by the Board. The American Commission for the Protection and Salvage of Artistic and Historic Monuments in War Areas wanted Baedeker’s Guides to Germany and Austria for its special Army officers. As the Commission had already canvassed the large art galleries and museums and the second-hand book dealers, supplies of Guides were exhausted and the Board was asked to assist. A mimeographed letter which explained the need and requested the sale or donation of such Guides, was sent out at the end

of April 1945 (See Appendix C4). The statistics on June 15, 1945, were as follows:

Rotalrequests matlediiss..5... ca emeat cea cee eee eee 473 IREGUESESHNOLFATIS WELeCatOnCateanmrntentecistiielseiie ait niente 288 Negative answers with no new names suggested.............. 92 Negative answers, but with new names suggested............. 58 ATATIMALIVe ANSWELSY fis.ac «ie.cie sees tera ee levee Wie enon ae 35 Baedeker:s Guides) received ine .aseld ca ccitee Sees einen ee 63

The Guides received in response to this request proved sufficient for the needs of the American Commission and circularization was stopped. The Director, however, offered to send out a new batch of letters if the situation changed. Many of the Guides were received from members of the Archaeological Institute of America of which William B. Dinsmoor, a member of the American Commission, is president.

APPRAISAL

It was inevitable that the Ethnogeographic Board with its emphasis on world areas would build up a roster of area specialists. From the point of view of technique of procedure the job was well done. The emphasis on area and language, the simplicity of the question- naire and the filing system, the concept of usefulness rather than

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT Sy

completeness, were all consistent with the primary purpose of the Board. The roster was available to all agencies, both requests and consultants received personal attention, and the service was rapid and accurate—all important factors in wartime Washington.

The service was good, but a fair estimate of its effectiveness is impossible. What use was made of the many lists which the staff prepared, either on its own initiative or on request? Presumably the Navy, Army, or some other agency wrote to the individuals or in- terviewed them, but the quantity or quality of this follow-up is not available in the Board’s records, and probably never will be. The let- ters of acknowledgment are polite enough. For example, the Sources of Photographs Reports I-IV were acknowledged as follows by a Rear Admiral: “The Navy Department is very appreciative of the time, work, and effort of the Ethnogeographic Board in preparing these valuable lists, compiled from your World File of Regional Specialists, and especially wishes to compliment you and Dr. Fenton for the excellent way the studies have been prepared.” This shows genuine appreciation of the service, but gives no basis for evaluating the results. There is some indirect evidence that useful photographs were obtained, but it is not a matter of public record owing to the confidential nature of the material.

It is unfortunate, although understandable during the war, that the Ethnogeographic Board was not allowed to assist in the inter- viewing. The representatives delegated to examine the Area Roster were not always of the highest caliber, and it is probable that the in- terviewing was not always in the hands of those skilled in this tech- nique. The Board might have been able to make a real contribution by selecting the interviewers. Few area specialists would be able to answer the questions about beaches as framed by the Army instruc- tions: “Degree of slope, both above and below high tide level ; nature of adjacent terrain... ; currents, tides and surf—seasonal varia- tion; offshore obstructions. . ” However, some of this informa- tion might well have been obtained by a trained interviewer who talked about sailing, fishing, swimming, and picnics.

Even in those cases where the Board sent out circular requests it is difficult to judge the results because the materials were sent di- rectly to the Army and Navy. However, some of the replies are in the office files from which it can be ascertained that the quantity re- sponse was good, but that quality was often sketchy. Many of the individuals had already been approached by the Office of Strategic Services or some other war agency. From the small amount of ma- terial that the Board received directly, and from the liaison officers’

38 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

reports, it is certain that at least some important results were ob- tained. Furthermore, both the Army and Navy continued to request this service, which would not have happened if the results were all negative. If the request for the Baedeker’s Guides is at all typical, the effective response could be estimated as between 7 and 8 percent. which is certainly creditable. In many cases the approach was some- what hit or miss, but the over-all impression is that the hits were fre- quent enough to justify the procedure.

Although the Area Roster continued to be of some service until the closing of the Board, its future value is dubious. An ex-traveler or resident is seldom as good a source of information as the man on the spot, and unoccupied spots have diminished rapidly. The Board did not undertake the recording of all the new experience and training, so its files are largely outmoded. The 5,000 names now in the card file could probably be reduced to about one-tenth of that number, whose experience would be of postwar value. If this were done, the task of building an up-to-date file would be simplified. The Board’s roster technique could be followed in a future emergency with about the same success. There will always be sources of names for question- naires and follow-up requests or interviews. Perhaps, however, a more systematic registration of area experience and trained person- nel will be devised in the interim.

Obvious lacunae in area knowledge and personnel influenced the building of the roster, but the files themselves do not permit any sound evaluation of the true situation. The greatest efforts were made to fill in the little-known regions. Areas outside the war thea- ters were intentionally neglected, and little attention was paid to the better-known countries of Europe. In other words, the roster does not serve as a yardstick for the specialized personnel of world areas. Some have considered the inclusion of so many nonprofessionals a deplorable situation, but it is equally valid to use this as an indication of the value of registering the experience and organizing the knowl- edge of “‘amateurs.”

INFORMATION FILES

With the exception of the Area Roster and the Cross-Cultural Survey file, the Washington office had few systematic information files. The advisability of creating a backlog of information and sources in anticipation of needs was discussed at one of the first Board meetings, but relatively little was ever done about it. Instead, the Directorate depended on its own knowledge of sources and on the resourcefulness of its Sponsors. This was a deliberate policy.

INO. £ ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 39

The Director’s diary records an interview with a Navy representa- tive who came in to ask about motion picture films for area instruc- tion. The Director agreed to locate and evaluate practically anything that was wanted but added that he was not interested in making more lists such as everybody else was doing.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

As an important part of its information service the Board supplied the agencies with bibliographical references, and often the books themselves, either upon direct request or as supplementary material to a report. Henry B. Collins, Jr., present Director of the Board, and formerly Assistant Director, was in charge of all “research” activities, including the bibliographical. A basic area bibliography resulted from his personal survey of the resources of the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Library, and the Library of the Depart- ment of Agriculture. Like the roster, the bibliography was directed toward immediate needs rather than completeness. Additional ref- erences were sought in terms of specific requests. Since the bibliog- raphy followed the area pattern, geographic references were most frequent. Each item was evaluated in terms of maps, illustrations, and type content.

The bibliography was not arranged in any formal card catalog. Some of the references of general interest were included in a mimeo- graphed report entitled “Area (and Language) Notes” and distrib- uted to the universities with area study programs. It is possible that more of the bibliography might be worth organizing for a permanent record.

REFERENCE LIBRARY

The Washington office was in the building that houses the splendid Smithsonian Library, so the Board did not have to accumulate many books of its own. Standard biographical references, and books of a general nature on important regions, particularly ones with good bib- liographies, were purchased, and some Government documents, both published and mimeographed, were acquired. All these books were acquired for their usefulness and convenience, but there was no in- tent of building up a specialized library.

SuRVIVAL LIBRARY

From its inception, the Board took a special interest in survival literature. The staff’s ethnologists were particularly irked by re-

40 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

ports of stranded aviators practically starving in tropical jungles which had plenty of edible resources if knowledge of their recogni- tion and preparation were available. The Board stimulated the prep- aration of many reports on how to survive which received wide cir- culation in Army and Navy service publications. The Board also built up a special library and bibliography on the subject of survival. It acquired many manuals published by the Army and Navy, such as the War Department’s Basic Field Manuals, and the Bulletins of the Arctic, Desert, and Tropic Information Center, as well as those published outside of the Government, such as “South Sea Lore,” by the Bishop Museum, and “Food is Where You Find It,” by the Auckland Institute and Museum. Military Intelligence Service fur- nished copies of many of its unpublished reports on the subject by regional officers.

This was probably the only survival library in Washington, in spite of the fact that most of the materials could have been acquired by any Government agency. A special committee appointed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to assemble such books, curtailed its activities after seeing the Board’s collection. The survival library was con- sulted frequently by the writers of many manuals and pocket guides, and contributed to the preparation of the Board’s own booklet, “Survival on Land and Sea.”

PHOTOGRAPHS

The staff handled many photographs but did not maintain any spe- cial files. Most photographs were turned over to the war agencies im- mediately, or returned to their owners. Exceptions were illustrations on the subject of survival and Dr. Collins’ personal collection of Arctic photographs. Because many agencies were better equipped to copy and file photographs, the Board was able to concentrate on sources rather than actual prints.

Cross-CULTURAL SURVEY FILE

The Cross-Cultural Survey was established in 1937 by the Insti- tute of Human Relations, Yale University, under the supervision of George Peter Murdock, professor of anthropology. Its original pur- pose was to assemble and organize the literature on primitive peoples of the world. When the United States entered the war, the Survey was revised, and, after consultation with the Navy, concentrated on the literature on the Japanese mandated islands of Micronesia and other Japanese possessions. In 1943 the Navy took over the work

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BENNETT 4I

of the Survey, still under the supervision of Dr. Murdock, now a Commander, USNR. The Ethnogeographic Board, through ar- rangements with the Navy and the Institute of Human Relations, became the depository of a copy of the file in order that Government war agencies might have access to these valuable materials.

The Survey file contains full abstracts from over 1,000 books, re- ports, and articles on Micronesia, Formosa, the Ryukyu, Izu, and Kurile Islands. Foreign language materials are translated into En- glish and everything is typed on 5 x8-inch cards and filed by area, topic, and subtopic. The file contains approximately 70,000 cards, exclusive of reproductions of maps and illustrations. A simple printed guide makes it possible to assemble information on the 295 main topics with ease and rapidity.

The Cross-Cultural Survey’s staff used the files to prepare a series of “Strategic Bulletins of Oceania” which were widely distributed by the Board. After 1943 similar bulletins were prepared for, and distributed by, the Navy Department.

The Director issued a mimeographed statement which described the files and invited all agencies to use them. The response has been continuous, particularly by the Army, Navy, Office of Strategic Ser- vices, and the Foreign Economic Administration. The first interest was predominantly military, but more recently the files have been consulted for information on forests, industries, peoples, diseases, and the like. These files will continue to be important as a source of background information, even in the postwar period. Although the Board assisted the Government representatives in their consultation of the survey, it made little use of the materials itself.

GENERAL

A few miscellaneous lists contain general information on the sources of regional motion pictures, and the letter files contain fold- ers on many potential sources of information, such as professional societies, institutions, and individuals. In summation, the Board’s experience shows that a rather extensive service operation can be conducted without any elaborate information files. Bibliographies, lists, and detailed files are not only time-consuming to assemble, but are apt to become ends in themselves. The Board preferred action to system. This was possible because of the close relationship of the “promotion” activities to other aspects of the Board. By keeping in close touch with what was needed, little time was wasted on side lines.

4

42 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

PROMOTION TECHNIQUES

One of the first requirements of a new organization is to establish connections which will make its services known. Promotion was a major endeavor of the Washington office during its first 6 months of operation. Ways and means of establishing relationships were discussed at the Board meetings. It was agreed that the Director should have a free hand in his official and unofficial relations with representatives of Government agencies, on the ground that any rules and regulations would only hamper him. The point was a good one, because it is easily seen how complicated rules restrict the service activities of many Government agencies.

The Ethnogeographic Board faced a dual promotion problem, namely, the establishment of contacts both with the Government and war agencies, and with academic institutions and scholars. Some techniques cover both fields, but on the whole the approaches are distinct.

It is axiomatic that the best publicity is successful and significant performance. The Board’s standard activities, such as distributing mimeographed lists, preparing area reports, and sponsoring dinner conferences, served the secondary purpose of advertising its services. The availability of the Area Roster and the information service was also good publicity. However, these were not techniques aimed pri- marily at establishing public relations and consequently will be dis- cussed elsewhere.

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

The Directorate had considerable success in establishing the Board in war-confused Washington in spite of marked competition from Government agencies, both old and new, which were making every effort to get themselves known and heard. The backing by four powerful and well-known Sponsors was highly important, first in es- tablishing connections, and second in allaying suspicion that the Eth- nogeographic Board might not be what it seemed. Although the pro- motion techniques were not particularly unique, they deserve to be examined for the record.

I. PERSONAL CONTACTS

The Director spent a large part of his time in the initial months meeting people in Government agencies and following up all leads. He was already widely acquainted with Washington from his pre- vious post at the Bureau of American Ethnology from 1932 to 1937.

NO eh ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 43

Being an anthropologist, he found colleagues in practically every Government agency. Members of that relatively small and intimate profession were in great demand because of their knowledge of areas outside the continental United States. The Director entertained at small lunches and at his home, and on each such occasion explained the nature of the Ethnogeographic Board and its services. He at- tended conferences arranged by the war agencies and the Sponsors, where he not only met new people, but also told how the Board might assist. The records show his attendance at 11 major confer- ences between December 1942 and February 1943. A name and ad- dress file listed those individuals known personally by the Director and considered to be potential customers or valuable sources of in- formation. By 1943 the file contained over 400 names, represent- ing every major military and Government agency.

2. LIAISON OFFICERS

The Board established formal liaison with the Army, Navy, and some of the war agencies. Although this was an old, established technique, it was still effective, as demonstrated by the cooperating committees. In May 1942 the Smithsonian War Committee had ar- ranged with Military Intelligence Service for a formal representa- tive and, when the Board was established, the services of this officer were immediately transferred to it. The Director made a similar arrangement with the Navy within the first 2 months. Liaison was also established with Air Intelligence, Army Map Service, the Office of Strategic Services, and the Surgeon General’s Office and was discussed, at least, with several other agencies.

The technique of establishing such liaison with the Navy is an example. Following a visit by the Director, Naval Intelligence asked the Board to prepare a report on a Pacific area. The Navy was impressed by the quality of the report and the speed of the ser- vice. This gave the Director an opportunity to present an argument for the advantages of permanent liaison. Such appointments were more than gestures on the part of the Army and Navy Intelligence Branches. For example, the Army followed up with a memorandum “For the Chiefs, All Groups, Branches and Sections, MIS.” This included a statement about the Ethnogeographic Board and the ser- vices it might render, and indicated the procedure for utilizing these. The liaison officers held frequent consultations with the staff, in which they presented requests from their offices and in turn took the Board’s reports for distribution in their own branches. In this

44 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

way the Board was able to anticipate many needs, and the military agencies were kept informed about the Board’s materials and the projects under way. The Director could ask whether the Military would be interested in such and such a project and receive a direct answer. Furthermore, the liaison officers drew up outlines for the Board of the type of information needed, the form of presentation, and the time available for its assemblage.

Although in theory liaison should be effective with any agency, in actual operation the best results were obtained with Naval and Military Intelligence, particularly the former owing to the personal interest of Capt. Ellis M. Zacharias, Deputy Director of ONI, and the ability of the officers assigned to the Board, Lt. (now Comdr.) C. M. Terry and Comdr. Richard F. S. Starr. Liaison with other war agen- cies was never too effective, and was apparently impossible with the civilian agencies. This may be because the armed forces had the most urgent need for this type of area information, or perhaps it could be explained in the words of one of the Director’s reports: “Civilian Government agencies, in Washington as elsewhere, tend to become self-sufficient within the limitation of the Bureau of the Budget.”’ One generalization stands out clearly. The most valuable liaison officers were not those who best understood the work of the Ethnogeographic Board, but rather those who were thoroughly familiar with the or- ganization and operation of the office which they represented. The Army seemed to feel that it took one anthropologist to understand another, which is perhaps true, but does not lead to the most effec- tive sérvice liaison. (This is intended as a sound generalization, and not as a deprecatory comment on the merits and abilities of the three commissioned anthropologists who served successively as liaison officers to the Ethnogeographic Board. These three would, I believe, agree with me.)

The possibility of naming a Washington staff member as a liaison representative to some agency was never elaborated, although two were appointed at the request of the Office of the Provost Mar- shal General and of the Emergency Rescue Agency of the Navy Department. The Board felt that it was amply represented else- where by its Board members and Sponsors.

3. PROPAGANDA

Once established, the Board prepared a mimeographed state- ment about its organization, membership, and purpose, and this was printed later as a small brochure. This statement was widely

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 45

circulated in Washington and helped to make the Board known, if anyone in pamphlet-showered Washington found time to read it. The distribution outside of Washington was more limited. It was customary to include the brochure in each of the circular letter re- quests for area photographs or information, but there was no syste- matic coverage of the universities and scholars,

Two supplementary statements about the Board’s services were also sent to many Washington agencies. One was a “List of Mimeo- graphed Materials Available to National War Agencies upon Official Request to the Ethnogeographic Board.” The other was a descrip- tion of the World File of Area and Language Specialists, and the Cross-Cultural Survey file on the Japanese Mandated Islands in the Pacific. The true effectiveness of these is demonstrated by the numerous requests for the mimeographed materials, and the many representatives who appeared to consult the two files.

The publicity in newspapers and journals was limited. An article was prepared for Science, October 23, 1942, one for The Scientific Monthly, August 1943, and a general review was included in an article on “Smithsonian Enterprises” which appeared in Science, November 6, 1942. A news release through the Smithsonian press service reached many local papers in abbreviated form. This brought in a number of letters from world travelers, some of whom were sent questionnaires and added to the Area Roster. Periodic state- ments of progress were sent to the Sponsors who made summaries for their annual reports.

Two admirable qualities of the Ethnogeographic Board are that it did not seek flashy publicity (although some of the queries were tempting, e.g., “Are there snowshoes for horses?” and “What are the results of eating bearded seal liver ?”’), and that it was not jealous about credit. Many of its reports were published, in part or in whole, in Army and Navy service journals. The Board placed no restric- tions on the use of these materials, although it did ask for the courtesy of a credit line. However, when this was not given, as was usually the case, no complaints were registered.

In over-all appraisal, the Board was successful in establishing wide and effective relationships with Government agencies, particularly those most likely to use its information services. However, if the Board had decided to undertake projects of a longer term, and more academic nature, once its information service had largely ceased, new promotion efforts would have been needed.

46 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

ACADEMIC RELATIONS

The Ethnogeographic Board did not devise any special promotion techniques for establishing relationships with the academic institu- tions, but depended on its Board members, consultants, cooperating committees, and Sponsors. The articles in Science and The Scientific Monthly and the summaries in the annual reports ‘of the Councils reached many scholars, and most of the leading professional socie- ties were reached by correspondence, particularly in connection with the Area Roster. The brochure and some of the mimeographed materials were sent to a few institutions and scholars, although with- out systematic coverage.

Although a sizeable number of scholars learned about the Eth- nogeographic Board, either directly or indirectly, the relationships were inadequate in that few appreciated the potentialities of this direct channel to Government for their scholarly programs and re- search. The Director was aware that the academig relations were unsatisfactory and brought up this subject at practically every Board meeting. The analysis of this problem involves much more than promotion techniques and, consequently, is reserved for a later discussion.

INFORMATION

One of the major functions of the Washington office during the first year and a half consisted of answering questions. The Area Roster and the information files were assembled for this purpose. The promotion techniques encouraged Government agencies to ask questions, and the staff even assisted in phrasing these so that they could be answered more effectively. Judging by the quantity of inquiries received, these services were amply utilized. Queries came in by telephone, official visitors, and by mail. The liaison officers forwarded others from many branches of the Army and Navy.

Some questions could be answered immediately, others involved several hours or days of search. The more substantial questions, and their answers, were kept in a card file, but there is no record of all the ones answered quickly. All letter requests and copies of answers were available, so that these, plus the card file, allow a gen- eral description of the nature, source, and variety of the questions, as well as the Board’s technique and effectiveness in answering. The questions can be grouped into several major categories, although these are not always mutually exclusive, owing partly to the complex

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 47

nature of some of the questions and partly to the fact that the cate- gories themselves are somewhat artificial. However, the groups serve to illustrate the nature of the information service.

PERSON NEL

The majority of the questions were, either directly or indirectly, about people. One-third of the requests listed in the card file were concerned exclusively with personnel, and many of the others asked indirectly about individuals with special knowledge or training. Some examples of these questions and answers have already been given in the description of the Area Roster. Some of the queries, however, could not be handled by quick reference to the roster, particularly if the qualifications involved went beyond the limited information included in the roster questionnaire. Various types of personnel inquiries are illustrated:

I. SPECIALISTS

Requests came in for people who could speak little-known languages like Motuan (Southeast Papuan dialect), or Fijian, and for individ- uals able to read Amharic, Japanese, or Hebrew script. One agency wanted a man who could check a phrase book in Pidgin English for West Africa. Most of the questions which involved linguistic abili- ties were answered by the Intensive Language Program staff or others at the American Council of Learned Societies.

2. REGIONALISTS

Who were the travelers who had recently been to the Gilbert Is- lands, to the Japanese Mandated Islands, to Marcus Island, to Bora Bora in the Society Islands? Who might have motion pictures of the Arctic? What were the names of some individuals in Oceania who could be used as native informants? Most questions of this simple regional type could be answered by consulting the Area Roster.

3. SPECIALISTS AND REGIONALISTS

Some inquiries were for professional or specialized personnel who also knew particular regions. Some of these were general requests for geographers who knew the Arctic, Asia, or Latin America, or regional botanists who could aid in preparing the Army and Navy manuals. Others were for men with specific knowledge on the weather conditions in Alaska or navigation conditions in the Arctic. One

48 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

call was for anthropologists who knew the peculiar forms of tat- tooing in the Casablanca area. Other examples: a Washington der- matologist familiar with tropical skin diseases; an expert on croco- diles in the Southwest Pacific; agriculturalists familiar with types of containers used for shipping out of North Africa; businessmen and engineers familiar with Japanese industries. Some wanted specialists who could check a manuscript on Arctic instruction for aviators ; check the accuracy of regional films; assist in writing sol- dier’s handbooks. Answers to most of these questions involved con- sultation with the Sponsors, the Smithsonian staff, and other pro- fessionals in Washington.

4. EMPLOYMENT

Many questions concerned qualified people for employment: A curator for the enemy-weapons section of the Quartermaster’s Corps ; civilian experts on the Arctic, desert, and Tropics for commissions in the Army Air Forces; people who could be sent to Portuguese East and West Africa by the Board of Economic Warfare; an editor of Latin American materials for the Joint Chiefs of Staff; a research analyst for the Balkans and East Section of Navy Intelligence. Some universities turned to the Board for names of teachers in the area- language programs.

5. EVALUATION

Besides suggesting candidates for certain jobs, the Directorate was called upon to evaluate the abilities and scientific standing of individ- uals being considered for jobs. Through the roster, the cooperating committees, the Sponsors, and many other sources of information, the Board was able in almost every case to furnish names and evaluations.

SOURCES

A second large category of questions is characterized by requests for sources of information. In general, the personnel category clus- ters around the question “Who?”’, the source category around “Where?”’. The Board’s principal sources were individuals, commit- tees, institutions, Government agencies, and, most important of all, bibliography. Dr. Collins’ work of ferreting out significant area ref- erences has already been described and the usefulness of this bibli- ography is illustrated by the information service.

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—-BEN NETT 49

IT. BIBLIOGRAPHY

The bibliographical references furnished by the Board cover a wide range of regions and topics. Both general and specific references were supplied for such diverse regions as Nunivak, the Aleutians, Honduras, Gambia, Formosa, Spitzbergen, Burma, Sokotra, Mauri- tius, Albania, Italian Somaliland, Dutch Timor, Nicobar, Gough, Celebes, and Tripoli. Most requests were for geographical titles, but a few involved specific programs, for example: Sources on the Aleutians for instruction of Army engineers; sources on Albania to aid in planning a child-care program; list of basic sources for estab- lishing a foreign-area library at an Army Staff College.

Common requests were for books with regional maps, such as a map of Copenhagen showing the location of art galleries and mu- seums, or large-scale maps of Germany which marked county and city boundaries. The Board did more than wait passively for requests. For example, Dr. Collins compiled a list of publications containing large-scale maps of the Netherlands New Guinea, New Britain, and other South Pacific islands, and presented this list to the liaison of- ficers. This was also done whenever a book with unusually good maps - or pictures of some little-known region was encountered. Many agencies asked for books with illustrations. Not all were limited to topography and beaches, as demonstrated by requests for good pictures of the Ainus of Japan and for illustrations of common insect para- sites. Some requests were for both regional and discipline bibliog- raphies, for example, on Siamese botany, on race, on African agriculture, and on the Conus genus of poisonous mollusks. Others wanted linguistic references on the Lingua Geral of Brazil, on Tibetan dialects, on Eskimo vocabularies, on Pidgin English, or on the distribution of, languages in Europe.

In a few instances the inquiries were for rather specialized bibliog- raphies. Some of these include: Publications with information on the financial organization of Japanese companies exploiting the man- dated islands; bibliography on rocks and rock coloration for camou- flage in the South Pacific; references on the food, clothing, and culture patterns of North Africa, particularly Tunisia, for making relief pictorial maps; books with information on Greenland’s hos- pital facilities, educational facilities, police systems, and religious organizations; titles for data on acculturation through medicine men in Central America.

The Board was able to supply references for a large number of these varied topics from its files, or from its constant perusal of

50 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS — VOL. 107 Washington libraries. Some, however, were prepared for the Board by the cooperating committees and by individuals. Leila F. Clark, Smithsonian Librarian, prepared an extensive bibliography on Tri- politania, and Raymond Kennedy, of Yale University, furnished one on disease and health conditions in Netherlands East Indies.

Although the Board did its best, under the circumstances, to get satisfactory references in terms of the particular request, it 1s almost impossible to make any adequate judgment of the quality of the coverage. To say the least, no complaints were received, and there were many notes of thanks. However, some features distinguished the bibliographical service. Practically every request was answered with at least one reference and usually with several. Furthermore, the replies were sent with minimum delay. An example is seen in a letter from Dr. Collins to Lieutenant Starr dated June 25, 1943: “In response to your request of yesterday for literature on Italian Somaliland and adjacent territories, we are sending you nine issues of the Bulletin of the Royal Geographical Society of Italy containing articles on this area.” This not only illustrates speed, but also another feature, namely, that the books themselves were often sent. If it were not possible to send the books, or if they were not wanted im- mediately, the Board indicated their location in Washington libraries and gave the cali numbers.

As an aid to the requester, the bibliographies were annotated to in- dicate illustrations, maps, and general quality. When necessary, titles of pictures and sometimes significant passages were translated into English. As a general example, a list of publications on the Nicobar Islands was sent with the comment that the first four were best. A week later another reference was sent which was “‘even better than any of the first list.” Good books would be called to the attention of the liaison officers. Finally the staff's area interest and knowledge provided a true understanding of the nature of such requests. In March 1943, Dr. Collins sent Lieutenant Terry eight numbers of “Mocambique Documentario Trimestral.” These were selected be- cause they illustrated and described cities, harbor installations, ship- ping, aviation fields, road construction, railroads, bridges, military maneuvers, etc. It was also noted that other numbers of the same review while containing some materials, were not so well illustrated. There is no doubt that this type of service was deeply appreciated by the Army and Navy.

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—-BEN NETT 51

2. INDIVIDUALS

The Board depended on specialized personnel as sources of infor- mation. Naming individuals who might have additional information has already been mentioned as a standard practice in answering requests. In some cases the Board got in touch with the specialists, in others this was left up to the requester. When the Army Air Corps asked for information on the topography and soil conditions of one of the Aleutian islands where a new air base might be con- structed, the names of the few individuals who knew the island were furnished, so that the Air Corps could consult them directly. On the other hand, the Board itself got in touch with Mr. Cornelius Crane in answer to a request for his maps of the South Seas.

Three cases illustrate further how individuals were used as sources. Dr. Collins, in his library survey, came across a reference to a certain Japanese bulletin known to contain valuable material, but which was not to be found in any of the larger American libraries. He sent this information to the Military Intelligence together with a list of special- ized libraries and individual scholars who might possess copies. A map of Iceland which showed political subdivisions smaller than counties was needed to complete the publication of a map on that area by the Army Map Service. The Board, through its connections, rec- ommended Prof. Stefan Einarsson, professor of Icelandic at Johns Hopkins, and the map was obtained. A rush call for a picture of a Yangtze River steamer was answered in an hour by sending the name of a captain of the Marines in Washington who had been in charge of the Yangtze River Patrol.

3. COOPERATING COMMITTEES

Some requests for information were answered by referring to the cooperating committees as sources. For example, requests for a tribal ethnic map of Africa and for data on language distribution in Africa were handled by the Committee on African Anthropology.

4. INSTITUTIONS

In surprisingly few cases the scholarly institutions were cited as sources of information. Some requests were about institutions, for example, which universities were interested in the study of French Canadians, or which institutions specialized in Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Mohammedan, Russian, or Indic law. Requests for information on atabrine, or on color transparencies for training films on New Cal-

52 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

edonia and the Solomons, were answered by reference to special in- stitutions. On the whole, however, few requests were of such a nature as to require the services of the academic centers.

Facts

In some cases the Board furnished factual answers to questions. Apparently most of this type of information service was done by telephone, because the recorded questions and factual answers are neither numerous nor too impressive. To be sure, all factual ques- tions about personnel and sources are excluded from this category.

The types of factual information supplied reflect the interests and specialties of the staff of the Washington Office and of the Smithsonian Institution. Questions about the North fell into Dr. Collins’ special field. Those on anthropology could be answered by everyone in the Directorate. The Smithsonian’s staff handled the questions on natural history and, through the linguist, J. P. Har- rington, some questions on pronunciations of place names and words. A few factual answers came from the information files.

The Arctic group includes some strategic questions, such as the identification of the St. Lawrence Island coast line from air photo- graphs, and the suitability of a certain island in the Bering Sea for an air field. Others are more ethnological: The linguistic, cultural, and physical relationships of the Kodiak and Aleutian Islanders; Arctic fishing; the construction of sod houses in the north; the di- viding line between various Eskimo dialects; and what is the weight of a dressed caribou carcass.

The anthropological questions have the range and world coverage of a preliminary Ph.D. examination. How are blow guns made? Did the Northwest Coast Indians use fish or fish products in trade? What are the Indian methods of screening or other protection against mosquitoes? What tribes of Indians were in Iowa? What dialects are spoken in North Mexico? What are the tribes and languages of Angola, West Africa? Only one is still unanswered: the identi- fication of the supposed ethnic or linguistic groups called Granish and Litvich.

The Smithsonian staff answered a variety of questions such as the distribution of wild hemp; the scientific name of the Australian bandicoot ; the Baobab tree ; and vampire bats and rabies in Trinidad.

Dr. Harrington and others aided in furnishing pronunciations of names in the Caroline, Marshall, and other Oceanig,islands. Other questions about meanings, spellings, origins, and pronunciations were

/

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 53

answered with the aid of a dictionary or published vocabulary— sources of information apparently unknown to the requesters.

A few miscellaneous questions were answered after a bit of search and consultation. Are the cotton warehouses in Alexandria fireproof? Are there any stamps or paper currency of the Formosan government which existed for 3 weeks in 1895?

MATERIALS

Many of the requests could be answered by sending materials which the Board had accumulated or prepared. The types of lists and materials distributed by the Board are discussed elsewhere, so that here it is merely mentioned that the circulation was enlarged on the basis of special requests. The staff answered some inquiries by sending a copy of a report prepared for some other agency. Unless the requesting agency specifically restricted distribution, the Board considered all its reports available to any agency.

No special effort was made to accumulate files of maps and photo- graphs, but, by the very nature of its activities, the Board came into possession of such materials. Through personal contacts the Board received from Amos Burg and Junius Bird a large series of South American pictures, all carefully labeled, which were turned over to the Army and Navy. Raymond Kennedy sent in a gazetteer and maps of the Southwest Pacific, and E. M. Loeb turned over photostats of his maps of the west coast of Sumatra. Archeologists sent in photo- graphs of the Dodecanese and other Aegean Islands which were gratefully received by the Navy, and Dr. Mary Swindler of Bryn Mawr loaned a set of Greek maps which the Army Map Service for a long time had been trying to locate.

In some cases the photographs and maps received by the Board were reproduced in the Smithsonian photographic laboratory and copies sent to the Army, Navy, or Map Service. Usually, however, the originals were sent to the Army or Navy where copies were made. The correspondence involved in these transactions, the necessity of keeping track of the materials, collecting and returning them to the owners, proved too much for the small staff to handle conveniently. This difficulty was solved by the later arrangement, already described, of enclosing Army and Navy franks and asking the owners of such materials to send them in directly to the offices of Military or Naval Intelligence.

The Board also filled a number of requests for the originals of il- lustrations used in its own and in the Smithsonian publications.

54 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

ORIENTATION

As a byproduct of the information service, the Board was able to assist in the orientation of individuals and agencies, an important function in the Washington confusion. In answering a specific ques- tion it was often possible to point out other agencies or individuals with similar interests. Some of the orientation was even more direct. The Federal Communications Commission was referred to the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs and to the Latin American Division of the Office of Strategic Services for infor- mation on the distribution of Germans and Italians in Latin America. Dr. Collins explained to Navy Intelligence that he had not looked for the book Java from the Air since all the pictures had already been copied by the Navy, Army, and Office of Strategic Services. A man from the Board of Economic Warfare was told where he could find a copy of his own agency’s African personnel list.

The Board was able to eliminate some duplications by timely in- formation. A conference, which allowed examination of the Area Roster, convinced the Department of Commerce to cooperate rather than start a roster of its own. A Naval Training Division lieutenant who inquired about motion picture strips to use in training flyers, was informed of identical work being done by another lieutenant in the same Division. Many agencies were told to consult the Inten- sive Language Program, particularly when they were considering starting one of their own. The Board, on special request, furnished the Joint Editing Board of the U. S. N. and U. S. A. a list of all agencies working on the problem of survival. In one case the Arctic, Desert, Tropic Information Center brought in a list of proposed projects and asked the Board to check it for duplication of effort.

Individuals were assisted in going about their jobs. A man from the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs was told how to go about getting a permit to allow Army Engineers to make some maps of Costa Rica. One officer, before going to West Africa was not only given pertinent mimeographed materials, but also introduced to several Government employees who knew the particular region. The Director commonly told Army and Navy officers about the ser- vices available to them through their own liaison.

The Board brought together people with similar interests, and thus stimulated new and useful work. The dinner conferences were most effective in this and important enough as a technique to merit sep- arate description. However, there are other illustrations of this ser- vice. For example, the Board learned of the coordinated manuals

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BENNETT 55

on Arctic plants which were being prepared for the Canadian Army. Arrangements were made for a military officer to attend a confer- ence on this subject in order to ascertain whether such manuals could not be prepared at the same time for our own army.

PLACEMENT

Inevitably the Ethnogeographic Board became a placement bureau for area specialists, particularly unemployed anthropologists. This service was conducted largely on a personal basis and not formally recorded. Undoubtedly many individuals received appointments through the good offices of the Board. However, this was not considered as a primary function, and it was recognized that the Councils, especially the Washington office of the Social Science Re- search Council, were in a much better position to handle this type of activity.

ADVICE

The Board sometimes assisted individuals and agencies in formulat- ing or executing projects. This is exemplified by the advice on how to build up a comprehensive bibliography of agriculture in the Central Pacific islands ; the best means for obtaining meteorological informa- tion for the Bering Sea region; and the methods of compiling sources of information on topography, that is, such things as questionnaires, analysis of published data, and the like. The Board also suggested ways and means of locating rare Japanese geological and geographi- cal publications, and a complete set of Shibaura Review (of the Shibaura Engineering Works, Ltd., Tokyo).

Some sought the Board’s opinion on such things as to whether a manuscript was worth publishing, whether it was possible to prepare anthropology books for pre-flight (high-school level) training, whether outlines for scientific study of such things as botany and geology would have morale value in remote army posts. The State Department even asked for a list of places which a Chinese scholar should visit in the Midwest.

In-some instances the Board offered assistance as well as advice. Operation Intelligence wanted certain detailed information and photographs on foreign areas. The Director not only suggested that the American Museum of Natural History might be will- ing to undertake the assignment, but also confirmed this by a con- sultation with the Museum. The Weather Bureau wanted advice

56 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

on how to get information on weather conditions in certain remote areas. Dr. Collins sent a sample of observations on Alaska taken from his own diary and added a list of names of others who might have similar data on many parts of the world.

One case illustrates advice followed by the actual execution of the project. Military Intelligence came to the Board for advice on how to test the linguistic proficiency of several officers before select- ing them as Russian translators. The problem was complicated by the need for speed and by the fact that the testing would have to be done in the vicinities of Seattle, Camp Wallace, Tex., Rapid City, S. Dak., and Las Vegas, N. Mex. The Board undertook to do this. Names of competent testers in these four regions were supplied by the Ameri- can Council of Learned Societies. The Assistant Director telegraphed the testers, stating the request, the dates, the hours. The tests were given and the reports made by telegram. The original request was received on November 28, 1942, and a letter thanking the Board for the job is dated December 2, 1942.

ANALYSIS

The volume of the Board’s information service is reasonably im- pressive. Some 460 question and answer records are on file, and it is estimated by the staff that the unrecorded questions would more than double this total. Furthermore, the great volume of this service was concentrated in the first year and a half. A simple graph of the recorded “spot” requests by 6-month periods shows a steady down- ward trend from the second half of 1942 to the first half of 1945. During the first six months recorded questions averaged about 28 a month, as against 5 a month in 1945.

Following the categories under which the information service was described, an analysis shows that personnel and source requests were the most popular (about 30 percent each), requests for facts and materials were next (about 15 percent each), and the categories of orientation and advice split the remaining Io-percent. It is impos- sible to estimate the amount of placement service owing to the lack of records. Some shift in emphasis can be noted in the 3 years under observation. In the first half of this period, questions about personnel definitely dominate. In the second half, sources lead, personnel is less important, and materials are more in demand. A shift is also noted in the nature of the questions, from immediate knowledge about war areas to interest in postwar planning.

A review of the agencies which submitted the requests for infor-

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—-BEN NETT 57

mation shows immediately that the most extensive use of the service was made by the Navy and the Army, particularly the Intelligence Divisions. This can probably be attributed to the facts that the Board itself was most eager to serve these organizations, that the War and Navy Departments had the greatest needs for the area information, and that effective liaison was established from the beginning. All the emergency agencies made some use of the Board, principally in re- spect to personnel. Some of the civilian agencies did likewise but with less frequency. Outside of Government there were occasional requests from the Councils and the universities, and, rarely, an in- dividual scholar. Again the outside requests were generally about personnel. On the whole the academic institutions had their own facilities for seeking bibliographical and factual information, and it is doubtful that the Board would have cared to handle many such requests for them.

The staff itself, with its Area Roster and information files, an- swered most of the questions. The Smithsonian’s staff was second as a source of answers. In fact, many of the questions that were channeled through the Board would probably have reached the Smithsonian in any event. The Sponsors, particularly the American Council of Learned Societies, furnished the answers to some ques- tions, and the cooperating committees handled a few. Only rarely was the Board forced to seek an answer outside of Washington. This can be interpreted either as a tribute to the versatility of the staff or as a reflection on the complexity of the questions, The former is naturally more flattering.

EvALUATION

This description of the information service seems in many ways like an account of the 3 years’ experience of a group of good ref- erence librarians. In fact, some of the large museums might match the quality, quantity, and variety of the requests, and show an equally good record of obtaining answers. In over-all review, some of the questions were petty, some vague, and some a reflection of laziness on the part of the asker. Few questions really taxed the resources of the Board and its Sponsors. A majority of the questions could undoubt- edly have been answered with equal competence in a dozen other places, particularly with the aid of an Area Roster similar to the Board’s. Was there, then, a need for this service?

The answer lies again in wartime Washington. To be sure there were a dozen places where a question might be answered, and the

5

58 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

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 offered 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.

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 59

DISTRIBUTIONS

The Board acted as a center for distributing mimeographed and printed materials to interested agencies in Washington. It has al- ready been mentioned that duplicate reports were sent to more than one agency unless specifically restricted. Aside from these, in which the distribution was at best limited, the Board gave wide circulation to certain materials prepared by its staff or by its affiliated organiza- tions. These items are described briefly by sources of origin.

PREPARED BY THE ETHNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD

’

1. “Survival on Land and Sea.” The preparation of this pocket- size, waterproof manual on survival was one of the major projects undertaken by the Board and will be described in greater detail later. The Board also gave some assistance to the Navy in its distribution.

2. Area (and Language) Notes. This mimeographed statement on area materials was sent to the teachers of area programs in the universities.

3. Partial List of Oceania Experts in Washington. The list was made at the request of one agency and then mimeographed for wider consumption.

4. List of Mimeographed Materials Available to National War Agencies upon Official Request to the Ethnogeographic Board.

5. I. Cross-Cultural Survey File on the Japanese Mandated Is- lands of the Pacific. II. World File of Area and Language Special- ists. This statement describes the Board’s two major files and in- vites Government agencies to consult them.

6. Reports on Area Studies in American Universities. The area studies survey is described in detail under Projects. Reports on six universities have been completed and distributed.

7. Conference on Bolivian Indians. The Board sponsored this prob- lem conference, to be described as a Project, and mimeographed the resulting report.

PREPARED BY THE COOPERATING COMMITTEES

1. Personnel List of Africa, Installments I-VI. A series of per- sonnel lists were prepared by the Committee on African Anthro- pology, and distributed by the Board. These are compilations “of persons familiar with the colonies, territories and countries of Africa and adjacent islands, with their address and data on their ex-

perience.” Each installment arranges the names of specialists first

60 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

by area division, then alphabetically. The information covers dates of travel, capacity, linguistic ability, area materials, address, age, and occupation. The sixth installment is an index to names, regions, languages, occupations, and materials.

2. Military Manpower of Africa. The Africa committee also prepared this special report on manpower resources.

3. Personnel List of Oceania, Installments I-VI. The Committee on the Anthropology of Oceania prepared a series of personnel lists similar to those on Africa but without the final index.

4. Personnel List of Asia. The Oceania committee assembled this partial list as a byproduct of its principal survey of Oceania.

5. Asiatic Geographers. The Committee on Asiatic Geography compiled a list of professional geographers with Asiatic field experi- ence. The list gives name, address, age, degrees, and travel.

PREPARED BY INSTITUTIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

I. Strategic Bulletins of Oceania. These bulletins were compiled by the Cross-Cultural Survey, Institute of Human Relations, Yale University. Seven were completed and with one exception distributed through the Board. The titles of the seven bulletins are:

. Gazetteer of the Marshall Islands.

. Meteorology of the Marshall Islands.

. Emergency Adaptations in Melanesia.

. Seaplane Landings in Northern Dutch Guiana (not for distribution). . Food and Water Supply in the Marshall Islands.

. Distribution of Diseases in Melanesia.

. Meteorology of the Caroline Islands.

N QAu BPW DN &

2. Resources of the Smithsonian Institution Library. A statement which describes the size, location, and general contents of the library.

3. “The Linguist as a Teacher of Languages,” by Mary R. Haas, reprinted from Language, vol. 19, No. 3, 1943. The Board ob- tained reprints of this article for distribution to the teachers of area and language programs in the universities.

SERIES WHICH THE ETHNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD ASSISTED IN DISTRIBUTING

I. Smithsonian Institution War Background Studies. Twenty-one numbers of this series appeared between 1942 and 1945. Since these are readily available in libraries the titles are not listed here. The accounts cover regions, peoples, and natural history of world areas. The Board transmitted many requests for numbers in this series to the Smithsonian, particularly from the Army and Navy.

NOD TT ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—-BENNETT 61

2. Smithsonian Mimeographed Materials on the Southwest Pa- cific. A series of short statements about plants, mollusks, birds, butterflies, and the like, was brought to the attention of interested agencies by the Board.

In total the Board had 35 separate documents of its own for dis- tribution and was allowed to assist in the distribution of some 35 others. These were sent out in sizable quantity to Government agen- cies and individuals in the Director’s Washington card file. Other copies were supplied on written or oral request.

The distribution of some of these documents is tabulated in the ac- companying table (No. 2). The Army and the Navy were the prin- cipal recipients of most of these, especially the Strategic Bulletins of Oceania. Other war agencies showed most interest in the person- nel lists. The civilian agencies seldom asked for more than file copies of anything. The Sponsors received copies of everything, and out- side of Washington a few individuals and libraries requested or were sent some of the materials, but the distribution was decidedly limited. Members of the cooperating committees naturally received copies of the lists which they had prepared but seldom any of the things pre- pared by others. More attention to extra-Washington distribution might have inspired the production of equally valuable materials.

TABLE 2.—Materials distributed by Ethnogeographic Board

June 1942-March 16, 1945

Personnel Lists of Oceania

Personnel List

I 2 3 4 5 6 of Asia

IMIS Sl areesersictorercreierseyeke eaters ce sieves Bo AOA SSdsn4o 21 PASEIINYONAS sictatelevstols ie evelese¥ax0 vrs eyo%er $8 9 9 9 9 9 9 5 ONIN Batogepis pono Sooner 43. 44. AT 48) 46 SO 27 INAVVaeractoistasiirs siaorns. poe sas re ne wie itt, AU I 2 2 10 Adt Intelligence jo... c0s0.<. 20. iio) ake i Se el 5 Its COLPSM acetate eine tea srotels 2 2 2 2 2 2 War Agencies:

IBID, (COMWOY Boagdeaoucde 1A A TA a 10

DAS oo Sais clei eigrasucists Sarees I I I I I 2 5

OSS iiarcrans oar crsi aici ete haves 27) 32h a2) ie 2A 238 26 32

ON sea Pao, tat oiater os crave ats I I I I I I 3

IVER Goat sieve eyenareveneie <iessj'evere 6 I I I I I I Govy’t agencies and departments.. 6 6 6 7 8 7 5 Others:

SPONSORS! wer teyackanerre sincere « « Tee eee Cel Ope TO 9

Inidividtalsiwere secre sce my 1%} n@ UG wey se 10

Otaltatriae cmos pe wae ckevors ae 214 196 192 171 178 189 143

62 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

TABLE 2 (continued ).—Materials distributed by Ethnogeographic Board June 1942-March 16, 1945

Strategic Bulletins of

Personnel Lists of Africa Oceania (Se eS Be 2S 13) vale 9 5). Geni. 20s Ase ee OMmne a, IND S arenes hina pe ak rust Soy Sie Gey (A (i 7) tle) Gia Og} Glo Ge} 1T@ ASTIN ia do HORE ae OeBa noes OO ZF Oy 28 VO). 0) 4 OM Ave ee OUNM Rein es sere tive siete 43° 43 43 42) OY 6081 85 “o2 1071 24eess INAWAVE Bie Ciokereite rout sree oeerotr MO is Eg ES oa Maree i SO RO aie ae OMS Aur Intelligence <5.25...5- BT MI aia ae Be ee eras eee PANDO COM NS: BO ee De eae a WS) FZ War Agencies: BEWe(@OEW))n asec Poi ey 6) © (0) 5! 95 On 53s sr Ata Saver eyetcnte ears i ee ee eM nae Th st! | i OS Sia noth 32.28 30.4.3. 13927) 17, p16) Aoi aeRO OWA aoa iss Seria epoceens es Sn ee Se es er een ea TT Gov't agencies and depart- IMIETIES scenario racusetetes ee os [OPE LO) FLOM OO set Oel etsy ee OMT OMmeTES Others: SPONSOLSMNE er ore erie. i) ie TN NG) HO) Tr Ge oO)! ir, Re Iindivadial steerer cee A PP A) PA ais) wl A Ai is) iy 1} Mota. atarc ty ctarthers: ecaceye 194 184 193 165 193 208 260 275 248 253 253 254

TABLE 2 (continued).—Materials distributed by Ethnogeographic Board June 1942—March 16, 1945

Oceania Resources

Bolivian Experts in Smithsonian Asiatic Indian Washington Library Geographers

IMVISTES Hierse see ee Rist ae Ses PA eye 2 56 35 3 JEN GL9R ReaD eas AO clos A Oe Coe 7 I 5 IN aes Series caterer terns 41 15 ie IN Aviva tier torve anc astinatons 6 3 Aitreintelligencessseacce sterner 2 ae I ENN COsHDSs Ae aoe O MOD GeO oc 3 War Agencies:

IBIBNWE (OIBNW)) “so0aoceoac 10 12 5 6

(CLUAVAG, Beata neee irae aicr arer 13 I 2

TEs Cee ree ess ON cern akenel Bere 5}

EAM ce sians os ctnorelcteyaeeete: ete 3 2

@SSeacriscptsutes aa ssaictor 12 19 25 30

COWIE M ohson tance onacasa ac 4 3 2

aes Bee eet arctells srsitncestos ape erst oe I aye

WWE ots eters) oveaevansiorserens) sve I 2 I I Gov’t agencies and _ depart-

ATLCMItSu tetershs eocaciors nines Chore heel 6 30 28 7

Others:

S POMSONS Meter e cere olor a enacts 13 23 9 9

inndivacdttalSweereseiaeieieeie ee 37 20 9 1G} Ota Net ericnlt eens stacreisielanyt ws 04 236 142 83

NOW ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 63

To be sure, most of these lists and reports were prepared for the use of Government military and war agencies, and widespread distri- bution was discouraged by the FBI, which tried to insist on limiting distribution to official requests.

The Board’s distribution service was well developed in the local sense, and interested agencies received everything that they could utilize. However, it is unfortunate that there was so little to distribute. Thirty-five items is certainly no sample of the scholarly resources of this country.

REPORTS

Besides furnishing information of the kind described and distribut- ing prepared mimeographed materials, the Board undertook certain as- signments of a larger scale which called for the preparation of reports. The dual function of the Ethnogeographic Board, to answer and to sell, is again reflected here. Some reports were prepared on the basis of written requests from the Government agencies, and others were prepared by the Board on its own initiative and then presented to the agencies. Behind this service was the concept that while exigency called for brief and hurried answers, many of the problems were worthy of fuller and more exact treatment and should, consequently, be farmed out to scholars. Unfortunately this sound principle was seldom put into practice.

Some of the longer reports were prepared on the basis of written directives. Both the Army and Navy Intelligence presented outlines of the types of information which they desired for various regions, and the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery did the same. They are heavily weighted on information of a strictly military nature and take no account of the abilities and limitations of scholars. (See samples of these outlines in Appendix D.) Undoubtedly many more reports could have been handled if the division of labor had been adequately defined. During the first year and a half, 37 reports were completed. These fall rather clearly into four categories.

I. STRATEGIC AREAS

Thirteen items are described in one of the Director’s statements as “confidential reports on areas of strategic importance.” These refer to the Bering Strait region, Seward Peninsula, St. Lawrence and Nunivak Islands, Alaska, and Kamchatka; the eastern Nether-

64 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

lands East Indies, the Moluccas, and Netherlands New Guinea in the Pacific; Rodriguez Island in the Indian Ocean; and the Strait of Magellan.

All the Alaska reports and the one on Kamchatka were prepared by Dr. Collins, a specialist on the north. The first two Alaska re- ports were prepared at the request of the Navy shortly before the Ethnogeographic Board was established. Based largely on Dr. Collins’ field observations, they describe and illustrate with photographs and maps parts of the still uncharted and little-known coast lines of the two islands. The reports were given to the Army Air Corps on June 30, 1942, when Dr. Collins was called to a conference in Gen- eral Arnold’s office. At the time there seemed a possibility that one of the islands had been occupied by the Japanese. The other two Alaska reports, accompanied by 209 photographs, describe the Bering Strait area, with primary emphasis on terrain suitable for airfields. All other known sources of information, both personnel and litera- ture, are given in these reports.

The most impressive documents are the three on the eastern Neth- erlands East Indies. Military Intelligence asked the Board to fur- nish a detailed study of the topography and ethnography of Halma- hera and adjacent Islands, Ceram and Boeroe, Kei Islands, Aroe Islands, Timor, and the string of islands eastward of Timor. The request was made on June 13, 1942, and the final report was needed before August 1. The Director turned this assignment over to Raymond Kennedy, of Yale, one of the few in the country capable of handling it. The Army outline called for:

I. Topography (with map-tracings or photostats) : a. General description. b. Main ridges, elevations, and physical divisions. c. Beaches—detailed descriptions, etc. II. Ethnography: a. Linguistic and ethnic groups. b. General living conditions.

c. Attitudes Etc.

The first section (52 pages) was sent in by July 20, and the second section (50 pages) by August 11. The quality of these reports was so impressive that a follow-up request was made jmmediately for a more detailed description of the geographical features of the Aru, Tanimbar, Kei, and Banda Islands. This resulted in an addi- tional report of 55 pages. This report, like the other two, utilized all available sources in the literature and described coast lines, anchor-

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—-BEN NETT 65

ages, possible landing beaches and sites for airplane landing, forests, swamps, trails, and other topographic features. Maps were not in- cluded, but sources were indicated. The staff obtained the books, had the maps reproduced by the Smithsonian and Military Intelligence, and attached them to the report.

Another important report was prepared by M. W. Stirling, Chief of the Bureau of American Ethnology, on the Moluccas and Nether- lands New Guinea. This contains valuable geographical data, photo- graphs, maps, and notes of a very practical nature based primarily on a field trip made by Dr. Stirling in 1926.

The remaining reports on strategic areas are composed of bibli- ographical references, pertinent quotations from the literature, gen- — eral summaries without much detail, and photographs with titles for identification.

In résumé, I1 of the major reports total 275 pages, or an average of 25 pages each but with a range of from 4 to 55. Most of them are illustrated, and all have the virtue of being produced within short deadlines. If judged objectively instead of in terms of the immediate military need, only the Kennedy and Stirling reports have sufficient merit to warrant publication when declassified from the confiden- tial list.

2. SURVIVAL

Ten of the items are described as “reports on survival in the Pacific region.” The titles of some of these reveal their nature:

Sago Processing.

Seafood in the Indo-Pacific Area.

Birds and Animals as a Source of Food in the Indo-Pacific Area.

Tropicana (“Dangers of the Tropics”).

Trematode Diseases and Their Molluscan Intermediate Hosts in the Islands of the Southwest Pacific (an important contribution).

Obtaining Water from Vines.

The Stingarees, Much Feared Demons of the Seas.

These were prepared by the Smithsonian staff or others outside the Board. They were illustrated by drawings or photographs and edited by Dr. Roberts into simple, direct English so as to be of service to the field forces. The 10 reports total 128 pages, with a range of from 2 to 21. Most of them were published in one or more service journals, such as Tactical and Technical Trends; Arctic, Desert and Tropic Information Center, Informational Bulletin; ONI Weekly ; the Marine Corps Gazette; and the Air Pilot Manual of the Pacific Islands.

66 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. I07

The Board placed no restrictions on the use of these articles, al- though it did ask to read galley proof and suggested that a credit line and the author’s name would be courteous. In fact, the Director con- stantly had to struggle to keep these practical survival articles from being classified as restricted or confidential. For example, one article which the Army marked confidential was “‘How to Identify Stale Fish.” Confidentially, it stinks, said the Director, and tried to get it declassified. The humor is tempered when the weeks of struggle to achieve this are recalled.

3. EDUCATIONAL

Five somewhat miscellaneous reports consist of outlines for quick identification, statements on how to do things, and the like, as the titles indicate :

Oceania, a Tabular Outline. (The races, languages, and attitudes of the natives in each of the Pacific Island groups, in tabular form.)

Memorandum Concerning the Possible Use of Wooden Signal Drums in Jungle Warfare. (All that remained of a general request on the value of primitive methods of warfare for modern jungle fighting. )

Quantitative Distribution of Chinese in Southeastern Asia (living outside China) with Numerical Tables Regarding Dialects Spoken.

Coral Reef Navigation. (Some practical notes.)

Japanese Physical Characteristics versus Other Orientals. (Some notes on identifications. )

4. PERSONNEL AND SOURCES OF MATERIALS

The remaining nine reports are lists of specialized personnel who might have photographs, maps, or other materials for various areas. All but one of these have already been mentioned in the discussion of the use of the Area Roster. The exception was a request for a list of American and British expeditions to the Southwest Pacific since 1920. This involved Dr. Collins in a bit of library review of Museum Director’s reports and notes in scientific journals.

The following summary gives a clear picture of the sources of re- port requests:

Military Intelligence Divisiony...2...........+-.. 6 Other: Army: Divisions ..2 ce yecee oesictan see aiee 5 Office of Naval Intellisenceszeosseoe cee. cee sae 6 Other Navy Divisions, Secu eacrdee wae ec ons 3 Aare Intelligenicepcnrsnouecte nae Coe eee 3 Originated by Ethnogeographic Board............ 14

In brief, only the Army and Navy made use of the Board’s report service, although it was in no way so limited by policy. Apparently

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BENNETT 67

the Government agencies were either unaware of, or not interested in, this function of the Board. Nor did the situation ever arise whereby a Council or academic institution asked the Ethnogeographic Board to prepare a report on some aspect of Government.

The Board was not forced to go far afield in preparing its reports. Fifteen were written by the staff itself. Another 12 were handled by the staff of the Smithsonian, 2 by committees of the National Research Council, and 1 by the Office of the Geographer of the Department of State. Only 6 were sent outside of Washington, and all of these to one place, namely, Yale.

The reports were sent to others besides the requester unless spe- cifically restricted. In most cases everything was sent voluntarily to the Intelligence branches of both Army and Navy and to other war agencies on request. The published survival articles naturally re- ceived a wide distribution.

The Board’s report service was well received. The Kennedy and Stirling manuscripts provoked a truly enthusiastic response and the letters of acknowledgment show that the other area reports were appreciated. The survival articles were considered significant enough for rather extensive publication. The remaining reports, about a fourth of the total, were of more limited value.

The chief criticism of the report service is its limitation. Thirty- seven reports, regardless of their individual merits, are but a small number. Furthermore, the staff of the Board and the Smithsonian, and a few professionals at Yale, competent as all of them may be, do not represent an adequate sampling of the scholarly resources of the country. The Board was, of course, faced with the problem of how many and how large jobs it could handle without becoming a small branch office of the Army or Navy. However, the report service should have been one of the most effective means of bringing the specialized talents of many scholars into focus on the war effort. The Board members did nothing to assist the Directorate to increase its report service.

CONFERENCES

The American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council have for many years used the informal luncheon or dinner conference as a technique for making their activities known and for bringing, together individuals with common interests. Some of these conferences are oriented around a discipline, or a specific problem, others are regional. For example, the Joint Committee on

68 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

Latin American Studies at each Washington meeting has arranged a luncheon with various Government officials interested in Latin America. This has served the dual purpose of enlarging the scope of the discussion and of making the work of the committee known to the Government.

When the Ethnogeographic Board was founded, the Councils urged that the conference technique be utilized as a means of cutting across departmental lines. The Director was invited to attend a number of conferences in order to learn the pattern, and also to speak for the Ethnogeographic Board. During its first year, the Board arranged 10 major conferences of its own, based specifically on regions. Indi- viduals from various Government agencies and from academic insti- tutions were invited to each. The primary purpose was orientation, that is, introducing Government people to each other and to scholars with corresponding interests. At each dinner some problem of a re- gional nature was presented for discussion. This conference technique proved particularly useful in a wartime setting but would certainly be equally useful in any period. Consequently, it seems worth while to describe the conferences sponsored by the Ethnogeographic Board as a basis for an over-all analysis. The description follows a chrono- logical order.

I. AFRICAN SPECIALISTS (SEPTEMBER 21, 1942)

A dinner was held at the Cosmos Club for the purpose of bringing together representatives of Africa sections of different Government agencies. Sixteen people attended, representing, informally, the Board of Economic Warfare, Office of Strategic Services, Military Intel- ligence, Commerce, State, and the Councils. The invitations were issued by telephone, and no agenda was prepared. No records of the discussion were kept because the meeting was considered confidential. The Director made a few notes on the attitudes of the participants for future reference.

2. FAR EASTERN GEOGRAPHERS (OCTOBER 5, 1942)

George B. Cressey, of Syracuse University, felt that there was a need for an Asiatic Geographical Institute. The Board offered to arrange a dinner conference to explore and discuss the possibilities. Twenty-four attended, representing the Office of Strategic Services, Board of Economic Warfare, State, Army, Navy, Lend Lease, the

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BENNETT 69

Institute of Pacific Relations, the Councils, and several universities. Everyone invited received the following letter in advance: DEAR SIR:

On Monday, October 5, 1942, the Ethnogeographic Board, at the suggestion of the American Council of Learned Societies, is holding a dinner conference of

Far Eastern geographers. We hope to stimulate discussion around the following points:

1. What are the immediate needs in the field of Oriental geography?

2. Would it be worth while to make an attempt to establish a Central Institute of Oriental Geography ?

3. Are there any specific tasks in this field which might be planned and administered from Washington but undertaken and carried through at various universities, libraries, and other institutions throughout the country?

4. Given the acute shortage of Oriental geographers, could a training program be devised for the emergency?

5. And any others which may seem worthy of discussion.

You are cordially invited to attend this dinner which will be at 7:00 o’clock at the Cosmos Club (cocktails at 6:30). We would appreciate hearing at the earliest possible opportunity whether it will be possible for you to attend. If you care to suggest any addition to the list of those invited which accompanies this letter, please do so.

Very sincerely yours, Wo. Duncan Strone, Director.

As a direct outcome of this conference a Committee on Asiatic Geography was established in the National Research Council for con- tinued exploration of the problems raised.

3. NETHERLANDS EAST INDIES DINNER (OCTOBER 12, 1942)

Following a preliminary discussion with Cora DuBois and others interested in the East Indies, the Director invited 15 people for a discussion dinner at the Cosmos Club. Among the attendants were representatives of the Army, Office of Strategic Services, Board of Economic Warfare, Tariff Commission, Library of Congress, Bu- reau of American Ethnology, Institute of Pacific Relations, East In- dies Institute, Netherlands Embassy, Board of Economic and Finan- cial Affairs in Netherlands Surinam and Curacao, Chief Liaison for Netherlands East Indies in Australia and New Zealand, and the Councils. No record was kept of the informal discussion.

4. NEAR EAST DINNER (OCTOBER IQ, 1942)

At the instigation of Philip W. Ireland, Department of State, the Board and the American Council of Learned Societies joined to give

7O SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

a dinner at the Cosmos Club for 19. The purpose of the conference was to discuss such Near East problems as personnel lists, the value of a directory like the ‘Fairbank Directory of Organizations in America Concerned with China,” and the possibility of an Institute for Oriental Studies. Guests represented the Army, Navy, State, Office of Strategic Services, Board of Economic Warfare, Agricul- ture, Library of Congress, and one university. Following this con- ference a group was formed to promote the establishment of an In- stitute for Oriental Studies.

5. DINNER FOR PROF. PAUL RIVET (DECEMBER 30, 1942)

The Board arranged a dinner in honor of Prof. Paul Rivet, noted French scholar and director of the Musée de l Homme at the Troca- dero. Eighteen individuals were invited representing Latin American and Free French interests. General problems were discussed.

6. ETHNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD DINNER (JANUARY 9, 1943)

A dinner for the staff, liaison officers, and respective wives served to unite the organization of the Washington office.

7. LORD HAILEY DINNER (FEBRUARY 13, 1943)

The Washington visit of Lord Hailey, expert on Colonial Africa, gave occasion for an informal dinner conference to discuss colonial problems. Nineteen attended, representing the Navy, Army, State, Office of Strategic Services, Board of Economic Warfare, and the American Council of Learned Societies.

8. POSTWAR NEEDS IN ANTHROPOLOGY (APRIL 12, 1943)

The National Research Council asked the Board to call an informal conference of six anthropologists to discuss future needs in that field. This meeting resulted in two general statements for circulation among the profession.

Q. LAND TENURE PROBLEMS (APRIL 28, 1943)

At the suggestion of Willard Z. Park, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, the Board and the Social Science Research Council held a dinner for a general discussion of land tenure prob- lems, particularly in Latin America. Sixteen attended, representing the Army, Office of Strategic Services, Board of Economic Warfare,

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 7A

Agriculture, Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, Department of the Interior, Smithsonian, and the New School for So- cial Research. Dr. Park acted as chairman and kept informal minutes.

10. COLONIAL QUESTIONS CONFERENCES (APRIL 20, 1943; MAY 4, 1943; MAY II, 1943)

This series of three conferences was arranged by the Board and the Analysis Section, Military Intelligence Division, G-2. These were all-day conferences, and at the close of one session the Board invited the group to be its dinner guests. The discussions were directed to- ward broad colonial problems. The first session was devoted to Oceania and Indo-China; the second, to West and Equatorial Africa ; and the third to general problems. About 20 people attended each session, although the representatives were not identical at all three. The Army, Office of Strategic Services, Board of Economic War- fare, State, Tariff Commission, Commerce, and Archives, were always represented, and some special speakers from the universities were invited.

A detailed agenda for discussion was sent out in advance of each meeting. For example, the discussion outline for the second session was the following:

I. Strategic importance of West Africa. II. Economic importance of West and Equatorial Africa. A. Commerce. B. Investments. C. Aviation. D. Access to raw materials.

III. The question of nationalism. IV. The possibility of international controls.

At each meeting the major topics were first introduced by three speakers and then opened to general discussion. All discussion was considered confidential, but detailed minutes were kept. At the end these were summed up in a confidential document entitled ‘Political Possibilities in the Relation of the United States to the World’s Colo- nial Systems.”

The dinner conferences held by the Board were very successful in their primary purpose of bringing together people with mutual in- terests. Specialists in one agency met colleagues in another agency, and these introductions were frequently followed by personal meet- ings and discussions. Furthermore, the conferences were excellent publicity for the Board in its early days. Restrictions on food and res-

72 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

taurant facilities made it impossible to continue the dinner conferences after the first year. However, the need for orientation is constant in Washington, even though a bit more obvious when the confusion is greatest. Regional problems are still abundant, and their solution depends on keeping the various specialists in touch with one another. Moreover, if the problem is considered the primary factor, there is even greater justification for renewing such conferences as soon as conditions permit.

Some general observations on the conference technique grow out of the Board’s experience. A non-Governmental agency can arrange a conference without getting involved in the suspicions and rivalry of the agencies themselves. However, such a group must have suf- ficient prestige to be assured that its invitations will be accepted. The Board relied at first on the prestige of its Sponsors, although later it was able to operate independently.

An advanced statement about the purpose of the conference and the major topics for discussion has definite advantages. The out- line should be kept broad and flexible but be serious enough to at- tract interest. If the problem is too limited, many of those invited may refuse because of lack of interest or because it lies outside of ‘their specialty. The detailed problems should grow out of the con- ference as topics for follow-up discussions. It is advisable, espe- cially for orientation, to send an advance list of the names and affilia- tions of those who plan to attend.

A good chairman is important. Although the Director of the Board was able to assist at all times, some of the conferences were on fields outside his special competence. It is usually possible to find some interested specialist who will assume the responsibility of lead- ing the discussion. Special speakers are useful for introducing a topic, but conferences of this kind should avoid too many or too lengthy speakers, since the purpose is primarily exploratory. The guests should be chosen because of their abilities and interests, rather than because of their affiliation. If this is clearly understood the dis- cussion is freer, since no one is constrained on the grounds that he must speak as an official representative of some agency.

The ideal number for such a dinner conference is around 18. Many less than that makes it too intimate and does not bring in enough new people. Many over that makes open discussion difficult. The num- ber should be such that a guest can meet, identify, and remember everyone present, and if the number is too large, no one bothers to try.

Probably records, such as minutes, notes, or summaries, should not

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 73

be kept for the initial meetings. Discussion is freer among strangers if the meeting is closed, and if there is no fear of being held respon- sible for comments at a later time. In subsequent meetings the ques- tion of the type of record can be decided by the participants.

With the exception of the Colonial Problems Conferences, in which the Board was but a collaborator, no follow-up conferences were held. A single meeting is insufficient even for orientation, and in dealing with problems a series of conferences would be more advantageous than a single one. The follow-up conferences need more careful plan- ning and selection of participants. It is not difficult to determine at the first meeting which guests are contributors and which essentially dead weight. A blanket invitation to reconvene at a later date blocks the possibility of eliminating participants and makes it difficult to add new guests without overloading the practical size of the group. Con- sequently even follow-up conferences should be by renewed individual invitations. The point may seem obvious, but the mistake is commonly made.

The above suggestions apply to dinner conferences aimed pri- marily at stimulation and exploration. The Ethnogeographic Board participated in some problem conferences, and called one of its own on the Bolivian Indians. This type of conference is described in a later section.

FROJECES

Five major undertakings were of sufficient magnitude to be desig- nated as projects rather than reports in the sense used here. All these involved either the cooperation of a number of specialists or were assigned to one man for execution. Each.project is a distinct unit: The preparation of a booklet on survival ; a problem conference ; two surveys ; and an analytical history. Besides these, the Board par- ticipated in a few large projects sponsored by other groups.

“SURVIVAL ON LAND AND SEA”

At the request of the United States Navy the Ethnogeographic Board and the staff of the Smithsonian Institution prepared the 187- page, pocket-size manual “Survival on Land and Sea” (Publication Branch, Office of Naval Intelligence, United States Navy, cover map and 64 text figures, Washington, 1943. Not for sale). By December 1944, 970,000 copies had been printed on waterproof paper for dis- tribution directly to the armed forces in the Pacific theater. The

6

74 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

first edition of 200,000 was revised on the basis of criticism and experience before the second edition was issued. The Bureau of Aeronautics brought out a special edition which added 16 additional pages of specific survival information for airmen. Many subsequent books and booklets on survival have utilized portions of the text and many of the illustrations of this manual. In brief, this was definitely the most important project undertaken by the Board.

The Board’s special interest in the survival problem has been pointed out in the description of the survival library, the survival reports, and the many spot questions about this subject. To reiterate, ethnologists were stirred by accounts of airmen dying of hunger and thirst in jungles because of ignorance of the edible food plants. This feeling was expressed strongly in a letter from G. P. Murdock to the Director, who in turn sent it on to both Army and Navy In- telligence headquarters. As a result the Office of Naval Intelligence requested the Board to prepare a series of short articles on survival in the Pacific area. The articles, prepared by the Board and the Smithsonian staff, and edited by Frank H. H. Roberts, have already been described.

Meanwhile, over 38 distinct sections of the Army, Navy, and war agencies were working independently on the preparation of larger survival manuals. Many individuals came to the Smithsonian and to the Board’s office seeking information. The staff assisted by making all their materials available and, of even greater importance, by introducing the various agency representatives to each other. For some time the Board could do no more than act as a center of orien- tation and assist the various projects wherever possible. Still the survival manuals themselves did not in many cases appear, owing to standard red tape and interagency complications.

In the first month of 1943 the Navy Department, through the Bu- reau of Medicine and Surgery, officially requested the Board to pre- pare as rapidly as possible three separate manuals on jungle, desert, and Arctic survival. The Bureau offered to lend its services for some of the technical sections. Certain items were considered to be “musts,” from the Bureau’s point of view,.and for these Dr. Roberts would be given all possible aid, or, if necessary, the Bureau would write them it- self. The need for speed is indicated by the Bureau’s guarantee that when the manuscript was submitted for review it would not be held for more than 24 hours.

Complications still continued in spite of the good faith. Even- tually the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations took charge of

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BENNETT 75

the situation. After a number of conferences the following memoran- dum was dictated on June 8, 1943:

The Ethnogeographic Board is to start at once to prepare an orientation and survival manual for the Navy (and possibly the Marine Corps) covering adaptation to the ocean, tropic, desert and arctic environment. This is to be a straight, highly condensed text, with irony or natural humor if fitting, but primarily factual. It will refer to a concluding section on all matters of technical medical care, and as the text is written these questions will be segregated for transmission to... the Bureau of Medicine. The work will be farmed out between members of the Ethnogeographic Board and the Smithsonian Institution. It will also include an index and a brief bibliography referring to such specialized survival manuals as that of Merrill, etc. Illustrations will be prepared by the Navy Department, and a list of desired illustrations and maps (for the covers) should be submitted ... as soon as possible. In addition to the concluding section on medical care, the Navy Department will provide a section on “Navigation Without Instruments.”

With this clear-cut mandate, calling for one booklet rather than three, the Board was able to proceed freely. The memorandum was sent on June 8. On July 21, a bare 6 weeks later, the Board and the Smithsonian had completed their part of the manuscript. This is re- markable speed when it is remembered that 15 members of the Smith- sonian staff were contributors (see Appendix E), and that many of the extant survival manuals had to be consulted.

The manuscript was submitted to various branches of the Navy and to a selected number of civilian scholars for criticism and suggestions. The Navy added its sections, illustrations were prepared, and the first edition was in print by December 1943. Six months for a finished job of this type is a remarkable record.

The manual was well received. A naval captain wrote from the Central Pacific (June 26, 1944): “All officers who have read it are enthusiastic about the book. It should be gotten in the hands of every enlisted man and officer, and one copy put in each life boat and raft.” The Director of Naval Intelligence wrote as follows (November 30, 1943): “It is, I believe, the most successful treatment of this difficult subject which has appeared thus far in the war. As such it may well be a determining factor in saving the lives of many men.”

CONFERENCE ON BOLIVIAN INDIANS

At the first meeting of the Ethnogeographic Board in August 1942 the research function was discussed at length. Among other things, it was felt that various universities might be willing to sponsor certain problem conferences and to prepare special summary reports. Al- though requests for such services might come from a Government

76 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

agency, this was not a vital necessity in that anticipation of needs was in itself important. Three trial projects were suggested at that meet- ing, and one was selected for immediate execution, namely, a confer- ence on Bolivian Indians. This was not only considered to be impor- tant in itself, but would also serve as a model for other such projects.

The proposal was to assemble a number of scholars who had spe- cialized knowledge of Bolivia in order to discuss those factors in the Indian’s culture which were pertinent to the problems of (1) utilizing the Indians as industrial labor in the mines, (2) inducing the Indians to increase the agricultural output of Bolivia. The importance of the first problem was self-evident, particularly in 1942 when the produc- tion of tin was a paramount war necessity, when several groups were considering social insurance and security factors for the new tin con- tracts, and when the Indian laborers had still not expressed their own dissatisfaction with mining conditions by the series of strikes which followed later. Needless to say, it took merely an informal discussion to induce the Office of Strategic Services to request the project.

Since this project was to serve as a model, it was organized with overemphasis on formality. The Director wrote to the Provost of Yale University requesting sponsorship of the conference, the Ethnogeographic Board to cover all necessary expenditures. The Provost agreed. A letter of invitation was sent to five specialists (Bernard Mishkin, Weston LaBarre, Ernest Maes, Alfred Métraux, and Wendell Bennett), together with an outline of the purpose and of tentative points for discussion. The conference was held in New Haven in September 1942. Its chairman wrote up an account which included not only the concrete conclusions, but also a general résumé of Bolivian Indian culture as a background for nonprofessional readers. This was sent to the conference members for corrections and additions. The final report of 35 pages was mimeographed and distributed by the Board. Total time, 6 weeks; total cost, about $100.

Even the final report was considered to be only a preliminary state- ment intended to provoke further discussion. A total of 94 copies were distributed, as shown in the table on page 62. The report went to Government agencies with Latin American divisions, to the Spon- sors, and to a number of individuals representing such organizations as the International Labour Office, the National Planning Associa- tion, and the Inter-American Indian Institute. Although intended as a sample of the type of work which academic institutions might undertake, only the immediate sponsor, Yale University, received a copy.

NOS I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BENNETT 77

A number of polite letters acknowledged the report. Two took exception to some points and made valuable suggestions for a follow- up statement. All United States’ members of the Joint Bolivian- United States Labour Commission, who went to Bolivia following the tin miners’ strikes, carried copies of the report and its influence is reflected in their publication: Labour Problems in Bolivia (Inter- national Labour Office, Montreal, 1943). Dr. Maes submitted a special statement, which emphasized the concrete proposals of the conference, to the National Indian Institute, Department of the In- terior. In spite of all this publicity, no one suggested a follow-up meeting or further discussion. Even the Ethnogeographic Board showed no further interest, although here was an excellent oppor- tunity for one of its famous dinner conferences.

The research technique, if such a conference can be so labeled, was successful in the sense that it produced a preliminary report on an important problem. In spite of this, no others were held. An abor- tive attempt to hold a conference on “Ethnic Conditions in the Amazon Basin” was abandoned because the various persons asked did not see how to organize it. The Provost of Yale, in commenting on the procedure in a letter to the Director, thought that the univer- sities would be receptive to proposals of this kind, but that there would be difficulties in finding key men sufficiently free from other duties to give much energy to such enterprises.

SurvVEY OF AREA STUDIES IN AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

The Ethnogeographic Board, with its area interests and academic affiliations, was in an excellent position to undertake an objective survey and analysis of the foreign area courses offered at many uni- versities. Historically speaking, however, it got involved in such a sur- vey somewhat accidentally.

At the September 1943 meeting of the Board the Director pointed out the desirability of hiring a competent assistant who could organize the regional materials acquired by the Board, obtain additional infor- mation from the universities and the scientific world, and make all this available to the area training programs of both universities and the armed forces. This idea was approved, and Elizabeth Bacon was employed for the purpose. Since many universities would have to be visited Dr. Fenton, whose work on the Area Roster was no longer too demanding, was also assigned to this task. The survey was ini- tiated in January 1944.

Dr. Fenton was delegated to represent the Ethnogeographic Board

78 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

at a 2-day conference in Pittsburgh at which the Provost Marshal General conferred with the university directors of the Civil Affairs Training Schools on the question of curricula for Europe. Later both the Director and Dr. Fenton conferred with the chief of the Army Specialized Training Division to inform him of their plans. He was far more interested in an appraisal of the area training aspects of the Army Specialized Training Programs and the Civil Affairs Training Schools. Although it would be difficult to give formal authorization for such a review, the Board’s investigators would be given introduc- tions and the other facilities to aid their work.

A list of the universities with important programs was drawn up, and the two surveyors started out with this dual concept in mind, namely, to offer concrete services in the way of materials and informa- tion, and to evaluate not only the programs but the whole concept of area training. This double purpose resulted in a certain amount of confusion about methods and objectives which was never adequately clarified by the Director.

In March 1944 the Rockefeller Foundation held a conference in Philadelphia on area studies in general, which was attended by the rep- resentatives of the Board and by individuals from a dozen univer- sities. Because of the survey, the Board was asked to submit a report on the future possibilities of area studies. The confusion of objec- tives was clearly reflected in this report, and the need for reorganiza- tion was patent.

On June 1 Dr. Bacon accepted an appointment in one of the war agencies, and Dr. Fenton undertook the completion of the survey by himself. Under a new directive, the survey now aimed at an objec- tive analysis of the way in which the universities operated their pro- grams and of the thinking done by the faculties on the area approach. The reports were to be confidential and limited in distribution.

The survey has covered a total of 27 universities from the Pacific to the Atlantic coasts. Reports on about one-third of these have been completed, and six (California, Chicago, Cornell, Carnegie Institute of Technology, Grinnell College, and Harvard) have been mimeo- graphed and are available for limited, not-to-be-published distribution. The information included has been gathered by personal visits, inter- views, and participation, and by examination of the published articles, President’s reports, and the like. The report on each university dis- cusses the types of programs conducted ; the faculty, both permanent and acquired; the resources of the institution, such as libraries and others; the planning and integration of courses; the administration of the programs; the teaching techniques; the actual curricula; and

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 79

other aspects of the programs. The attitudes of the participating faculty and the administration is discussed, both in relation to the programs operated, and to the future of area studies. Throughout, an objective appraisal is inserted. When a report is completed in first draft, it is sent to the universities for review. This has caused some outbursts but has also produced additional information. The final re- ports, even though not emasculated, have been well received.

The first four accounts average some 36 single-spaced mimeo- graphed pages each and go into considerable detail. Probably all 27 universities will not be written up, since a sampling will be adequate for generalizations and for a final over-all statement. However, all the notes have been systematically filed at the Board and are avail- able for future consideration of area training. One general report was drawn up for the Army Specialized Training Division on the basis of a series of questions which they presented. On the whole, this survey of area programs stands out as a major achievement of the Ethnogeographic Board, and one of the few directed essentially at the problems of the academic institutions.

Since the survey was completed, Dr. Fenton has continued, his analysis of the materials. One article, “Integration of Geography and Anthropology in Army Area Study Curricula,” appeared in the Bul- letin of the American Association of University Professors (vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 696-706, 1946). A full report, ‘““Area Studies in American Universities,” will soon be published by the Commission on Implica- tions of Armed Services Educational Programs under the auspices of the American Council on Education, Washington. This will be ap- proximately 80 pages, and will cover the above-described survey, and present a final appraisal.

War DocUMENT SURVEY

In June 1945 the executive committee considered a survey of war documents. During the war, Government agencies have accumulated valuable reports, special studies of foreign areas, photographic files, and useful research tools, such as dictionaries, maps, reprints, gram- mars, and the like. Many of these have already been declassified and others will be in the postwar period when the agencies are discon- tinued. The problem of the final disposal of such materials is of real concern to the scholars and academic institutions of the country. A copy of everything ultimately finds its way to the National Archives or the Library of Congress, but neither of these agencies is prepared to distribute the duplicates to academic institutions throughout the country. A preliminary survey of the quality and quantity of such

8o SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

materials is needed before intelligent action on the over-all problem can be recommended.

The Board wanted to initiate this extensive survey by employing some individual for a preliminary period of some 3 months. Several offers were considered, and one individual was actually assigned to the job. However, before he really began work he was taken into the State Department on a more permanent assignment. The Board then assigned Homer Barnett to survey the documents which concerned the Pacific area. This work, initiated late in 1945, is one of the con- tinuing commitments of the Board. It has the advantage of uniting the War Document Survey and the temporarily abandoned Pacific Survey Project to be described later.

History OF THE ETHNOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD

The present analytical account of the Ethnogeographic Board should be listed as a project, although one which needs little elabora- tion. At the fourth meeting of the Board in March 1944 the members discussed the desirability of an account which might guide the estab- lishment of a similar organization in a future emergency. This pro- posal was accepted enthusiastically by the Sponsors who enlarged the concept of what such a history would cover. The Board debated at length the selection of an historian. The staff members felt too deeply invofved to be objective about the Ethnogeographic Board. A person previously unfamiliar with the Board would have objectivity but might be overwhelmed by detail, meaningless if the framework were not appreciated. Whether the selection of a Board member solved the difficulties, remains an open question.

PARTICIPATION

Besides its own projects, the Board participated in a number of others, some of which have already been mentioned in other sections. The Board assisted in the preparation of the manual “Jungle and Desert Emergencies,” which the Air Corps places in all emergency kits. The Quartermaster General’s Office worked with the Board on a “Reconnaissance Report on Concentrated Rations of Primitive Peo- ples.” The Board cooperated with the American Council of Learned Societies on a program for training personnel in the Russian language. There are many others in which the Board played a minor role.

GENERAL

An over-all evaluation of these projects can be little more than a summation of opinion about each individual one. The merits of a

NOI ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 81

project depend largely on the competence and integrity of the indi- vidual or group which undertakes it. The few projects sponsored by the Ethnogeographic Board have been competently handled and have resulted in contributions of long-term value. Only five were completed in a period of over 3 years, although several others were initiated and then discontinued. Most projects are expensive, and during a war competent personnel is difficult to find. Both factors help to explain why there were so few projects. If the formulation and direction of projects had been a function of the Board as a whole, more might have been carried out. The Washington office was too occupied by other activities to pay much attention to projects. The true need fora clearly defined division of labor between Board and Directorate is demonstrated in the next chapter which reviews the incompleted projects and the failures.

DEAD ENDS

The previous chapters have described the concrete activities of the Board; its files, materials, techniques, services, and projects. Some left-overs remain, some tag ends, miscellaneous in character, of proj- ects and programs initiated but not completed, of research proposals neglected or rejected, of techniques considered but never actually tested. All these are brought together under the lugubrious title of “Dead Ends,” because an examination of the contents of this figura- tive wastebasket is an important part of the analysis. Was anything thrown out that might have been of value? What were the blocks that killed some projects and made other proposals unacceptable ? Some of the rejects are important enough for individual discussion ; others can be grouped.

PaciFic SURVEY PROJECT

The most ambitious project undertaken by the Ethnogeographic Board was the organization of a comprehensive survey of all branches of science in reference to the islands of the Western Pacific Ocean. The Board struggled with this for a year, during 6 months of which the full-time services of Homer Barnett, research associate, were assigned exclusively to the program. Then the Board withdrew, leaving the project still in the discussion stage. An explanation of this requires a brief historical summary.

The Committee on the Anthropology of Oceania had considered the need for a survey at several of its meetings. The interest in this

82 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. 107

grew, so that the National Research Council called a conference on Pacific Scientific Problems in July 1943 to discuss the present and future needs of Government and scholars on the Pacific region. The conference included representatives of the Committee on Pacific In- vestigations, the Oceania Committee, the Ethnogeographic Board, and various Government agencies. The conference, after long delibera- tion, adopted a motion requesting the Ethnogeographic Board “to or- ganize, implement, and make available a topical survey of the present state of scientific knowledge with respect to the various areas of the Pacific region for immediate practical use and as a basis for future scientific development in the study of the region.”

This was no small order. The members of the Board admitted the importance of the project, but were careful to consider the limitations of responsibility which they could assume. It was finally agreed that the Board would act as a coordinating agency for the survey in the initial period, provided that a suitable executive could be found. It as- sumed no responsibility for publication, nor any financial obligation beyond the immediate administrative expenses.

The Board appointed a special committee on scientific research in the Pacific Island area, and secured the services of Dr. Barnett to act as the executive secretary. The first problem was to outline the scope and contents of the survey. It has not yet been solved. Some wanted a topical outline based on the earth, biological, and social sciences with suitable subdivisions. Others stressed the integration of data on cross-disciplinary lines. After several meetings, and numerous tentative outlines, the committee agreed that a scientific guide book, rather than an organized handbook, should be the first objective.

The executive secretary reorganized the outline according to in- structions, wrote some sample sections, and set out to look for potential contributors. This was discouraging. Many of the best men were either in the Pacific or so engaged in war work that they had little time or interest. Others were frankly dubious about the value of a “guide,” if its usefulness were measured against the time and energy necessary to produce it. On the other hand, everyone realized that a satisfactory “handbook”’ required years of preparation, considerable financial resources, and more extensive personnel than was then available. The problems of publication could not be avoided. Would it be one volume or one hundred? Would all sections have to’ be completed before any were published? Where was the money? The Board suggested that finished sections might be published in the scientific journals, and reprints obtained for final assemblage.

The executive secretary kept in touch with such organizations as

NO. I ETH NOGEOGRAPHIC BOARD—BEN NETT 83

the Committee on Asiatic Geography, and the East Indies Institute, hoping not only to coordinate all activities, but likewise to obtain in some fashion a finished section or chapter which could be used as a model and an incentive for others.

At the end of 6 months Dr. Barnett reported the status of his frustrations to the Board. His committee members had either been scattered by war duties or had become too occupied to think about the project between meetings. The potential contributors were con- fused or indifferent. The Board tried once again to salvage the project. It proposed that the survey be divided up. The Board and the Smithsonian would work on an anthropological guide for Oceania under the supervision of Dr. Barnett, who would become a member of the committee rather than its executive secretary. The fields of biology, geology, and geography would be assigned to various in- terested groups. Unfortunately Dr. Barnett could not be persuaded to continue under the circumstances then prevailing.

The Board was still willing, however, to consider the allotment of limited supporting funds, although it decided not to reassume re- sponsibility for the project as a whole. Actually certain funds were allotted in late 1945. The committee continues to struggle, vir- tually independent of the Board, and some work on the earth and biological sciences has been advanced. On the whole, however, the project is dormant.

The fate of the Pacific Survey Project can be attributed to war- time conditions, lack of personnel, and above all to the difficulty of definition. The sincerity and energy of the executive secretary can- not be questioned, and the Board, too, contributed considerable time and thought to the