XXVI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas

- 317 ­
result of the relatively recent wanderings presumably of Melanesians,
ii related to the Admir,:lty appearances, :who at present are not knawl!
to have come to this region, or to other recent peoples unidentified.
On the basis of the evidence presented by Rivet it thus appears that
\Ve have no reason to suspect that the Australians as such ever left
Australia or participated in any expansion program in the Pacific or
that their ancestors ever occupied any areas other than those located
between Australia and Asia, such as N ew Guinea and various islands
of the East Indies. lndeed there is available no actual cultural proof
that they passed through this chain of territory but only the general
assumption, admitted by a[[, that they came originally from Asia via
this loute. However th ese ear[y migrants obviously could not have
brought with them traits subsequently devetoped in Austra[ia nor those
posse.'s: d by other invaúrs of the is[ands 'Who diffused thtm to the
continent in later times. It ,vou[d seem therefore that Rivet's attempt
te beJ s. er his a rgument for a trans-Pacific migration by infering maritime
activities of . Australians in the .nearly waters ha-s not been success fll!
and this matter should be kept in mind in our consideration of his major
thesis, that they reached South America.
The traits appearing in Tierra del Fuego which ,\ e are asked to be[ie ve
to have been introduced by Australians include beehive huts, skin
mant[es, apparently ha!f-hitch coiled basketry (la technique du tressage
au cordon) ancl bark canoes made of sev era! pieces of bark. Rivet also
calls attention to the resemblances notecl by Graebner, Schmidt and
Koppers as substantiating evidence for his claims, although he does not
mention these traits by name nor comment on the arguments advanced
by Koppers to show their derivation from Asia via Bering Stlait.
Beehive Huts.-The term beehive hut has been employed by many
writers as a convenient catch-phrase for dome-like dwellings ",ith variousl)'
constructed frame-works covered with grass, skins, bark, earth
or other materials. Although it seem s obvious th at such huts may have
nothing in common other than a simp!e hemispherical form, the numerous
differences in various parts of the vvorld have been minimized 01"
disregarded and theories of historical rela tionship have been advanced
solely on the similarity of shape.
Of we assume él unitary origin, it is an easy matter lO argue that
details of constrllction and the materials used have be en changed to suit
the different needs of local conditions of c1imate, flora and culture.
However, there seems to be no reasonable explanation as to why the
same general simplicity in form should persist nor has anyone offered
satisfactory evidence why a simple hemispherical shape should be regarded
as so unusual that it could Ilot have be en developed independently
by various peoples. The writer makes no c1aim that the many ap­