XXVI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas

- 312 ­
regards them as th e surviving common components of what previously
had been identica!.
Rivet, On the other hancl , considE'rs the Fuegian similarities to be the
direct results of a movement of Australians from their historic habitat,
Australia, to Tierra del Fuego. He has proposed two routes of migration,
the first via the islands of Melanesia and Polynesia 3,000 years
ago,. recen tIy abandoned in favor of the second, via Antarctica 6,000
years ago. Rivet conveniently meets the difficulty presented by the
complete Jack 01 seagoing craft in Australia by enclowing gratuitously
the ancient Australians with craft capable of meeting all exigencies of
such a journey regarclless of what these ma)' llave been. It is obvious
that such a claim, based entire;y upon fanc)' and withollt the slightest
fact to support it, cannot be answered with specific data. Nor cloes
r,ivet seem to ftel that the burclen of proof for this contention rests
upon himself. But he never has permitted practical difficulties to stand
in the way of theories of transoceanic migrations and has advocated for
years such movements of various Oceanic peoples. Convinced of the
validity of lhe lalter apparently it was not a difficult matter to apply
the same reasoning to the more primitive Australians.
The theory that Australians ha ve migratecl to Tierra del Fuego is
based upon three types 01 evidence, physical, linguistic and cultural.
Not only is it maintained that the Australoid features of the Fuegians
are the result of A ustralian admixture \Vith Indians, but apparently al!
Australoid appearances in South America are attributed to this allegecl
invasion. At least Rivet some years ago submitted evidence, accepted by
Hrdli¿ka as con'Vincing, which showed that the Australoid Lagoa Santa
type is represented in the ancient and modern populations from Ecuador
and Brazil to Tierra del Fuego. However, the age of the prehistoric
finds never has been satisfactorily determined. One wonders what explanation
would be offered if it should be found that Australoid remains
were present in this general arta several thousands of years prior to
4,000 B. C. Rivet also ignores the presence of Australoid features in
N orth America and northeastern Siberia, used by Koppers to strengthen
his own argument, but stresses the appearances in South America, Australia,
Soutbern Asia and South Africa which fit into his particular
scheme.
For linguistic support Rivet offers his theory of Tson-Australian
relationship which he seems convinced is impeccable. Nevertheless the
conclusions expressed are not shared by other competent scholars 'who
are critical not only of this specific case, but al so of the basic methodolog)'
employecl (Dixon, II; J. A. Masen).
It weuld appea r, tberefore, that the final word has not been written
for either the physical or linguistic evidence. 1 therefore leave their
consideration to the spec¡;¡]i~ts in those fielcls. But even if it should