XXVI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas

- 32 7 ­
fies that the ancient cultures were alikein toto and derived from a common
source.
These remarks should not be construed to mean that we rule out the
possibility of some ultimate historical relationship in Asia between some
culture traits of Fuegia and Australia. However, it appears that Koppers
has been given to suggesting historical relationship in the most
unvvarranted instances. He rightfully exeludes hom consideration as
doubtful such general traits as may be the result of similar economic
influences in primitive hUl1ting, fishing and food collecting, but ineludes
various other traiis also simple and showing only superficial resemblances
which to him suggest a common origino Furthermore, he admits
that many of these traits are questionable, although he does not specify
which, and maintains that if a few were to be eliminated as the result
of objections raised, there still would be a large number remaining and
that these would prove his argument. But tl1is does not follow, for a
theory of cultural unity based on superficial resemblances, or implied
resemblances denoted by generalized terms, by no means is strengthened
by the number of questionables or uncertainties. The resemblances in
the t"vo areas listed by .Koppers inelude:
NIousterianoid Slone ImjJleJnem's. -- That certain Australian and
Fuegian stone artifacts can be described as Mousterianoid con be granleel.
However it must be kept in minel that ·we are concerned here with
very simple objects treated in very simple fashion. In addition our
knowleelge of the archaeology cf both Australia and the Americas has
not reached the point where we can say that the type of objects in question
was possessed by the original invaelers of each region. Indeed the
most ancient iithic remains so far discovered in North America as shown
by Howard cannot be elassified as Mousterian-like. For these reasons
we must still admit the possibility of local development ofMousterialJlike
artifacts in South America or Australia or in both regions.
The proof that the appearances in both areas had been derived from
Asia, however, could not be considered as satisfactory evidence to support
the broader contention that Fuegian and Australian cultures are
of unitary origino Mousterian industry apparently antedates the oldest
knO'wn remains of Homo Sapiens by a considerable period of time ancl
thus Mousterian or Mousterianoid objects or techniques c:ould have
been a common heritage of the direct ancestors of all modern races. As
such, present NIo.usteriana.rtig appearances may indicate merely that cer~
tain pleoples have retained for a longer period of time a common ancestral
possession relinquished by others, and such retentions in themselves would
prove nothing in respect to the historical relationship of other e!ements
in the cultures of such peoples.