XXVI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas

- 319­
at all times has been relatively less hospitable than that 01 Tasmal1l;,
and Australia. From this point of view \\'e ll1ight expect robes to hale
been first developed in Fuegia rather than in Australasia, if a sll1g.\
origin of these two modern appearances is in sisted upon.
However, lhe Australian mantles are not the only robes \vith \\'hich
a historical relationship wi:th the Fuegian cloaks has be en sought, for
Lothrop has put forth a claim in behalf of the pelicanskin mantles oi
the Nort American Seri uf the Gulf of California. A1though the writer
regards such a theory as equally far-fetched and Ul1 supported by pertinent
evidence, it must be admitted that if a choice had to be made, the lattu
theory would be the more reasonable in view of the land connection
between the two regions. At any rate, Rivet is thus faced with a
dilemma, for if it can be admitted that the Seri robes are the results
of independent origin, a similar reasoning holds equally wel! for the
Fuegian and Australian appearances. On the other hand, if it is denied
that such simple garments could have been invented independently by
either of the latter peoples, it follows that a claim of historical relationship
between the Seri robes and the others is likewise valid, os should we sa),
not less valido
There is no objection to the belief that ski n mantles may have been
prescnt in Australia 6,000 yea rs ago. Their ::tppea rancc in T,;smania is
support for such a belief. However, such cannot be regarded as substantiating
in any "vay the migration theory of R i vel. Indeed i t seems
plausible to believe that if these simple mantles h,iVe not been developecl
independently by various modern peoples bL1t are [he survivals of a
common origin that their beginning may also antedate Horno Sapiens
and as sllch the present appearances could not be accepted as valid evidence
to show relationship between specific modern cultures,
It is interesting to note that Koppers \\ ho seizes every possible similarity
or distant resemblance i11 Fuegian zlncl Au ~ tra l i;'lI1 cultures in his
efforts to show historical unity j'ejects skin l11antles as of too questionab~e
a nature to serve his purposes.
HaJf-hitch Coilecl Baslwtr)'- Jt is assl1med that this type 01 basketry
IS implied by la teclmique c/u Iressage ail cardan. To my mind thi s
is the only trait listed for the two areas the charJcteristics of which are
sufficiently specific to permit a fair and cJefinite comparison. Although
it cannot be g ranted that a theory of a unitary origin is the only reasonab'e
explanabon for these appearances, tbe technique involving two
simple and widely distributed elements, multi-strand coils and halfhitcbing,
which conceivably could have been combined independently in
two or more regions, it can be admitted that such a theory is reasonable.
It do es not follow, however, that such an admission supports the contention
that Australians are responsible for the presence of this technique