XXVI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas

- 318
pearances in [he \Vor:d of the so-called beehive huts represent the results
of numerous independent c1evelopments, but in view of no proof to the
' c.on..trary, such a possibility ShOllld be regarded as plausible,
However, the problem at hand is whether there is any support to the
llaill1 that the dome-shapecl dwellings oí Fuegia have bem derived from
the "beehive-shapecl" Al1stralian huts and to this inquiry the only reasonable
answer is in the negative. Aside from the general simp;icity in
form there is no satisfactory basis for comparison, for the Fuegians'
dwellings are covered with skins, the Al1stralians' with grass, bark or
earth.
In adclition, it shol1le! be notee! that if it is permissible to assume
historical unity between these appearances in spite of these e!ifferences,
then it is equally r easonable, if not more logical, to believe that the
Fllegian huts are historically related to the other types of "beehive" hut in
South America with which if there is not greater simil;:¡rity, there are at
least no greater e!ifferences.
It is arguee! by Koppers, folloving the principIes of identi fica Lion o f
Graebner ancl Schmidt, thaL the beehive huts of Tierra del Fuego ane!
Australia have be en e!erived from a common source in Asia ane! in support
of this contention the various circum-Pacific appearan