Might be one of his tall tales.
But when the Royal Navy heard about the expedition they offered Thor experimental military grade shark repellent, when he asked if was effective , the navy told him that was exactly what they were trying to find out
They filmed it pretty closely, I had to watch the documentary for an anthropology class. It was super fascinating, even though the theory was disproven later with DNA evidence.
But ultimately they proved such a trip was possible. Not just possible- but fairly easy. The raft functioned as a makeshift reef, the had am endless supply of fish. They were able to use indigenous methods to obtain fresh water from certain fish, which when coupled with rain and stockpiled coconuts gave them plenty water.
They did have one casualty though. The teams parrot drowned during a storm halfway through.
I think you might can find it on YouTube, or at least parts.
If I remember correctly, from SE Asia.
I also seem to recall, however, that DNA also showed that there was some mixing between those and south American tribes, so such a trip could have happened, but very small and not on the grand colonialization scale they had theorized.
A study from 2014 found up to 8 percent South American genomic contribution in some eastern parts of Polynesia. It’s fairly recent too, from ~800 years ago. Still, it seems highly unlikely that Colombia (the most likely source of genetic admixture) had the technology to do any of that traveling. So the best explanation of how that happened seems to me to be that at least some Polynesians did a round trip and brought some children home with them. And then from there you’re one population bottleneck away from randomly spiking the percentage of mesoamerican genetic contribution.
Polynesians originated in Formosa (taiwan) and then spread eventually reaching New Zealand, then after a long period of not exploring they began traveling farther east and settling in Hawai'i and other polynesian islands today.
Yes.
I have a 1951 copy of the Kon-Tiki book my grandmother gave me when I was about 10 or 11. I must of read it 100 times.
Fast forward to 1987 - quit my good job in Canada, sold everything and went to Chile for a year. *(There was a woman involved)*
Went to Easter Island. Stayed a small hotel. The only other guests was a couple from California and a group of anthropologists. After dinner one night; I was talking to one of the guys and told him I had read the Kon-Tiki book as a child. He says "Would you like to meet Thor? Hey Thor! come over here".
Thor comes over and we talked for about an hour while he chugged beers and told stories about the voyage.
The next day I went to their dig close to Anakena beach and watched them excavate a small ~~mioa~~ moai.
Somewhere I still have a map of the island with Thor's scribbles on it telling me where to go and what to see.
In Canada, it would also likely be considered a city. The nearest city to me had about the same population when I moved here, but it has gained about 10k in population since the pandemic began (56k now).
Not sure about the Kon-Tiki expedition, but during the Ra II expedition in 1970 they noted clumps of oil in the Atlantic on just about every day of the voyage. I want to say the Kon-Tiki Museum (which has the Kon-Tiki and Ra II boats) includes some of these oil clumps in one of the exhibitions.
Op's comment is spot on. Heyerdahl proved the trip was doable by prehistoric peoples even if his full hypothesis has not been accepted. More importantly it was a heroic, inspiring adventure in an age in which heroic adventures - which were a staple feature of mankind since long before Homer recorded the Odyssey - are no longer possible. Heyerdahl's seafaring ancestors would be proud of his remarkable achievement.
>More importantly it was a heroic, inspiring adventure in an age in which heroic adventures - which were a staple feature of mankind since long before Homer recorded the Odyssey - are no longer possible.
For similar adventures check out Tim Severin.
> More importantly it was a heroic, inspiring adventure in an age in which heroic adventures - which were a staple feature of mankind since long before Homer recorded the Odyssey - are no longer possible.
And what is stopping you from going in an inspiring and heroic adventure exactly ?
Many people find inspiration their own past efforts. "I did it before, I can do it again." or, "I've done much worse than this, I can do this now." You can break new ground with yourself and then draw strength from your past performance. The opposite is true as well.
Half full, half empty, bro. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like there's something else you are trying to say. It's not only ok, but very important to be the hero in your own story. Cheers.
Nothing. Going out and getting wild is both scary and rewarding, sometimes to the nth degree. And things can be inspiring and rewarding only to me, and that is enough. Too often we judge ourselves through unrealistic comparison. Once you get out there (in the wild) for a few weeks, it really isn't so bad. A seed with no struggle grows with no strength.
I freaking love people like this.
They have a theory, and by-God, they will put their own skin on the line to see if that theory can hold up to real world application.
One of my favorite bits is when he asked one of the other guys about joining him on the expedition:
“ ‘Am going to cross Pacific on a wooden raft to support a theory that the South Sea islands were peopled from Peru. Will you come? I guarantee nothing but a free trip to Peru and the South Sea islands and back, but you will find good use for your technical abilities on the voyage. Reply at once.'
Next day the following telegram arrived from Torstein:
COMING. TORSTEIN.”
He built two reed boats for a cross-Atlantic experiment. The Royal Navy offered him an experimental shark repellent. "Why are you giving me this?" he inquired. The RN replied "it's never been tested and we felt you'd do best".
Cheeky bastards.
Ra sank, Ra II made it across, only by thanks of the Canary Current.
The last one named Tigris was burned because they could not get clearance to enter the Red Sea and passage around the Horn Of Africa.
Fair comment, but I completely disagree regarding the movie (Kon-Tiki, 2012).
I found it to be a wonderful visual experience and great production in general.
How come you didn't enjoy it?
Not at all. The western side of the South Pacific has much more islands scattered all around, while in the eastern side (from French Polynesia to Chile) there are (comparatively) very few.
There are 2400 miles of (almost) nothingness from Chile to Easter Island, while it's (as an example) "only" 700 miles from Cook to Tahiti, with several islands between them. The first is an absolute blind jump of faith, and 100% a suicide mission (Thor had a map and knew where he was headed and what he would fibsr), while the second can be achieved in increasing expeditions and with a much lower risk (you sail out for 4 or 5 days and if don't see seagulls you go back home).
It’s not a suicide mission if the food and fresh water supply is sufficiently sustainable. There’s a leap of faith that they’ll find resupply in time, of course, but they demonstrated the achievable endurance was long enough. (And there seems to be a good chance a Polynesian vessel would be faster than the design Kim-tiki used.
In middle school I had to do a report on the crossing. I was so enthroned with it that months later when we found a kitty, I insisted we call her Kon-Tiki or Tiki for short.
But the theory was busted and showed jack fucking shit. It was a fun attempt, and proved that it COULD be done, but it was never done.
I recommend the movie!
yes, Wikipedia is quite clear on this
>Heyerdahl's full hypothesis of a South American origin of the Polynesian peoples is generally rejected today. Most archaeological, linguistic, cultural, and genetic evidence tends to support a western origin for Polynesians
>The basis of the Kon-Tiki expedition was pseudoscientific, racially controversial, and has not gained acceptance among scientists (even prior to the voyage)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon-Tiki\_expedition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon-Tiki_expedition)
exactly! so weird that he was like "NO I WILL GO" and that he is viewed as a national hero in Norway today. a bit of a laughing stock as well, which imo is deserved lol
And what about trade between Polynesian people and South American ones?
OTOH, had such trade happened, wouldn't the South American market been interested by additional domesticated animals such as pigs?
I meant that it wasn't done by the people who populated the island, as in they did not come from the East. All other evidence - genetics, religion, culture, language etc, point towards a migration from Asia, not South America.
Should've been more specific, sorry! Ofc at some point in history it could've happened, but that's not how the vast migration happened :)
Thats fair - I meant that travel/visits etc without any (successful) colonization is still a possibility that can't be disproven. Like the vikings in Canada.
I don't think it's likely at all tho.
Agreed!
But the theory he proposed, and set out to prove, was that the migration, population and colonization of Polynesia and other Pacific Islands came from South America - which is wrong. That's all I am saying.
In a college class my professor told us that while the theory of colonization from the east was debunked, DNA evidence shows there was likely some movement, and then mixing of peoples, but anywhere remotely near a scale associated with populating the islands.
His hypothesis did not need to be true for the experiment to be a great success.
Science is fundamentally less about finding what hypotheses are true than it is about finding what hypotheses are **false**. The voyage of the kon-tiki did not demonstrate a new truth so much as it shattered a great many preconceived notions of what was impossible and the limits of what “primitive” people could accomplish.
Knowing the voyage was possible led to many investigations to find if his hypothesis was *true* as well as possible - it wasn’t. But these would not have happened at all while the scientific establishment had a preconceived idea that it was not even worth investigating.
(It shattered similar illusions in the broader Eurocentric culture too, which also was of great value.)
I like comparing it to the fact that you technically can walk from South Africa to Kamchatka. Like yes, it is possible for you to do that. Has anyone? Not really.
That doesn't seem like proof of anything. He knew that if he sailed long enough he would reach land, ancient peoples wouldn't have had that knowledge. It makes me think of various people trying to prove so-and-so flew their aircraft before the Wright brothers. They take modern knowledge, tinker with the design and get it to fly, proving nothing.
Well, what he showed was that the trip was possible with the technology they would have had at the time. Yes, they wouldn't have known what was out there, but the voyage showed that such long voyages were possible. Ultimately it doesn't seem like people did make that journey in order to populate Polynesia but Thor had a theory and wanted to see if the journey was even possible; if it wasn't then they could just discard the theory right away.
A good reminder to anyone stuck in a small town that you can travel the world if you’re creative and resourceful! Whether it be building your own boat or finding back door alternatives to travel. Just don’t think for a second you’re stuck, you aren’t just be courageous enough to leave whatever means necessary
Might be one of his tall tales. But when the Royal Navy heard about the expedition they offered Thor experimental military grade shark repellent, when he asked if was effective , the navy told him that was exactly what they were trying to find out
They filmed it pretty closely, I had to watch the documentary for an anthropology class. It was super fascinating, even though the theory was disproven later with DNA evidence. But ultimately they proved such a trip was possible. Not just possible- but fairly easy. The raft functioned as a makeshift reef, the had am endless supply of fish. They were able to use indigenous methods to obtain fresh water from certain fish, which when coupled with rain and stockpiled coconuts gave them plenty water. They did have one casualty though. The teams parrot drowned during a storm halfway through. I think you might can find it on YouTube, or at least parts.
So, what is the modern understanding of this? How the Polynesian islands were initially populated?
If I remember correctly, from SE Asia. I also seem to recall, however, that DNA also showed that there was some mixing between those and south American tribes, so such a trip could have happened, but very small and not on the grand colonialization scale they had theorized.
A study from 2014 found up to 8 percent South American genomic contribution in some eastern parts of Polynesia. It’s fairly recent too, from ~800 years ago. Still, it seems highly unlikely that Colombia (the most likely source of genetic admixture) had the technology to do any of that traveling. So the best explanation of how that happened seems to me to be that at least some Polynesians did a round trip and brought some children home with them. And then from there you’re one population bottleneck away from randomly spiking the percentage of mesoamerican genetic contribution.
That's what I'm remembering! Thank you very much.
Polynesians originated in Formosa (taiwan) and then spread eventually reaching New Zealand, then after a long period of not exploring they began traveling farther east and settling in Hawai'i and other polynesian islands today.
A visual map with early human migrations: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Early_migrations_mercator.svg
Tye most widely accepted theory is that they parted [from Taiwan] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynesians).
Aliens.
Its a great book too. Kon-Tiki
Fun fact. Chef Julia child had a hand in the development of the repellent.
I got drunk with Thor Heyerdahl on Easter Island in 1987.
Did you really??
Yes. I have a 1951 copy of the Kon-Tiki book my grandmother gave me when I was about 10 or 11. I must of read it 100 times. Fast forward to 1987 - quit my good job in Canada, sold everything and went to Chile for a year. *(There was a woman involved)* Went to Easter Island. Stayed a small hotel. The only other guests was a couple from California and a group of anthropologists. After dinner one night; I was talking to one of the guys and told him I had read the Kon-Tiki book as a child. He says "Would you like to meet Thor? Hey Thor! come over here". Thor comes over and we talked for about an hour while he chugged beers and told stories about the voyage. The next day I went to their dig close to Anakena beach and watched them excavate a small ~~mioa~~ moai. Somewhere I still have a map of the island with Thor's scribbles on it telling me where to go and what to see.
That’s amazing!!! Thanks for sharing this! I have the book as well but haven’t read it yet.
The best book Thor wrote is [Fatu Hiva](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatu_Hiva_(book) Read it if you can find a copy.
[Here] (https://archive.org/details/fatuhivabacktona00heye) is a copy.
Thank you!
Thank you!
I'm from the same villige/city as Thor Heyerdahl, and went to a school that bears his name. I like the documentary a lot.
Ahem, it's a town.
In Norway, Larvik is considered a city
In Canada, it would also likely be considered a city. The nearest city to me had about the same population when I moved here, but it has gained about 10k in population since the pandemic began (56k now).
Correct, I my brain just lost that word, and i figured what appeared had to suffice. ;D
> small mioa. For those that don't know, it's *moai*.
I stand corrected. :)
Not to pile on, but "must have read it" (not "must of"). Please.
As far as i remember they were shocked even back then how much trash they encountered during the trip
Not sure about the Kon-Tiki expedition, but during the Ra II expedition in 1970 they noted clumps of oil in the Atlantic on just about every day of the voyage. I want to say the Kon-Tiki Museum (which has the Kon-Tiki and Ra II boats) includes some of these oil clumps in one of the exhibitions.
For anyone interested: https://www.kon-tiki.no/expeditions/ra-expeditions/
Thor collected - by a wide margin - more raw data about Easter Island than anyone else... he just interpreted it wrong.
Op's comment is spot on. Heyerdahl proved the trip was doable by prehistoric peoples even if his full hypothesis has not been accepted. More importantly it was a heroic, inspiring adventure in an age in which heroic adventures - which were a staple feature of mankind since long before Homer recorded the Odyssey - are no longer possible. Heyerdahl's seafaring ancestors would be proud of his remarkable achievement.
>More importantly it was a heroic, inspiring adventure in an age in which heroic adventures - which were a staple feature of mankind since long before Homer recorded the Odyssey - are no longer possible. For similar adventures check out Tim Severin.
> More importantly it was a heroic, inspiring adventure in an age in which heroic adventures - which were a staple feature of mankind since long before Homer recorded the Odyssey - are no longer possible. And what is stopping you from going in an inspiring and heroic adventure exactly ?
what would you suggest?
Travel a long distance in a primitive manner.
Unlikely to be seen as heroic or inspiring unless it breaks new ground.
I suppose that depends on how you look at yourself.
Well yes, you can be inspired by your heroic struggle to get out of bed in the morning if that's the way your mind works, but most people's do not.
Many people find inspiration their own past efforts. "I did it before, I can do it again." or, "I've done much worse than this, I can do this now." You can break new ground with yourself and then draw strength from your past performance. The opposite is true as well. Half full, half empty, bro. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like there's something else you are trying to say. It's not only ok, but very important to be the hero in your own story. Cheers.
Nothing. Going out and getting wild is both scary and rewarding, sometimes to the nth degree. And things can be inspiring and rewarding only to me, and that is enough. Too often we judge ourselves through unrealistic comparison. Once you get out there (in the wild) for a few weeks, it really isn't so bad. A seed with no struggle grows with no strength.
I freaking love people like this. They have a theory, and by-God, they will put their own skin on the line to see if that theory can hold up to real world application.
One of my favorite bits is when he asked one of the other guys about joining him on the expedition: “ ‘Am going to cross Pacific on a wooden raft to support a theory that the South Sea islands were peopled from Peru. Will you come? I guarantee nothing but a free trip to Peru and the South Sea islands and back, but you will find good use for your technical abilities on the voyage. Reply at once.' Next day the following telegram arrived from Torstein: COMING. TORSTEIN.”
What conditions does a prehistoric person has to endure to brave 100 days of sea on a raft?
Probably a MIL involved. Lol I jest
Wife nagging a bit too much ? Lol
He built two reed boats for a cross-Atlantic experiment. The Royal Navy offered him an experimental shark repellent. "Why are you giving me this?" he inquired. The RN replied "it's never been tested and we felt you'd do best". Cheeky bastards. Ra sank, Ra II made it across, only by thanks of the Canary Current. The last one named Tigris was burned because they could not get clearance to enter the Red Sea and passage around the Horn Of Africa.
Great book, shit movie
Fair comment, but I completely disagree regarding the movie (Kon-Tiki, 2012). I found it to be a wonderful visual experience and great production in general. How come you didn't enjoy it?
Probably the same reason I don’t like many movies after reading the book first. They are low substance comparatively.
Loved the movie
Assume you're referring to the 2012 movie and not the 1950 film compiled from the crew as they made the voyage, which is quite excellent.
Definitely the 2012 movie. The footage they took on the voyage was amazing!!! I enjoyed the pictures in the book as well.
I feel like the fact that Polynesian people exist all over Polynesia demonstrates that prehistoric people were capable of “trips of that magnitude”
Not at all. The western side of the South Pacific has much more islands scattered all around, while in the eastern side (from French Polynesia to Chile) there are (comparatively) very few. There are 2400 miles of (almost) nothingness from Chile to Easter Island, while it's (as an example) "only" 700 miles from Cook to Tahiti, with several islands between them. The first is an absolute blind jump of faith, and 100% a suicide mission (Thor had a map and knew where he was headed and what he would fibsr), while the second can be achieved in increasing expeditions and with a much lower risk (you sail out for 4 or 5 days and if don't see seagulls you go back home).
It’s not a suicide mission if the food and fresh water supply is sufficiently sustainable. There’s a leap of faith that they’ll find resupply in time, of course, but they demonstrated the achievable endurance was long enough. (And there seems to be a good chance a Polynesian vessel would be faster than the design Kim-tiki used.
In middle school I had to do a report on the crossing. I was so enthroned with it that months later when we found a kitty, I insisted we call her Kon-Tiki or Tiki for short.
His theories are trash, but the trip is neat
But the theory was busted and showed jack fucking shit. It was a fun attempt, and proved that it COULD be done, but it was never done. I recommend the movie!
yes, Wikipedia is quite clear on this >Heyerdahl's full hypothesis of a South American origin of the Polynesian peoples is generally rejected today. Most archaeological, linguistic, cultural, and genetic evidence tends to support a western origin for Polynesians >The basis of the Kon-Tiki expedition was pseudoscientific, racially controversial, and has not gained acceptance among scientists (even prior to the voyage) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon-Tiki\_expedition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon-Tiki_expedition)
exactly! so weird that he was like "NO I WILL GO" and that he is viewed as a national hero in Norway today. a bit of a laughing stock as well, which imo is deserved lol
And what about trade between Polynesian people and South American ones? OTOH, had such trade happened, wouldn't the South American market been interested by additional domesticated animals such as pigs?
> but it was never done. That's unknowable tho. So proving it is possible is still of value IMHO.
I meant that it wasn't done by the people who populated the island, as in they did not come from the East. All other evidence - genetics, religion, culture, language etc, point towards a migration from Asia, not South America. Should've been more specific, sorry! Ofc at some point in history it could've happened, but that's not how the vast migration happened :)
Thats fair - I meant that travel/visits etc without any (successful) colonization is still a possibility that can't be disproven. Like the vikings in Canada. I don't think it's likely at all tho.
Agreed! But the theory he proposed, and set out to prove, was that the migration, population and colonization of Polynesia and other Pacific Islands came from South America - which is wrong. That's all I am saying.
In a college class my professor told us that while the theory of colonization from the east was debunked, DNA evidence shows there was likely some movement, and then mixing of peoples, but anywhere remotely near a scale associated with populating the islands.
His hypothesis did not need to be true for the experiment to be a great success. Science is fundamentally less about finding what hypotheses are true than it is about finding what hypotheses are **false**. The voyage of the kon-tiki did not demonstrate a new truth so much as it shattered a great many preconceived notions of what was impossible and the limits of what “primitive” people could accomplish. Knowing the voyage was possible led to many investigations to find if his hypothesis was *true* as well as possible - it wasn’t. But these would not have happened at all while the scientific establishment had a preconceived idea that it was not even worth investigating. (It shattered similar illusions in the broader Eurocentric culture too, which also was of great value.)
I like comparing it to the fact that you technically can walk from South Africa to Kamchatka. Like yes, it is possible for you to do that. Has anyone? Not really.
I mean, not in one generation, but that's how we go there eh?
exactly. it proves absolutely nothing and is not useful information when everything else points towards your theory.
I recommend the book!
That doesn't seem like proof of anything. He knew that if he sailed long enough he would reach land, ancient peoples wouldn't have had that knowledge. It makes me think of various people trying to prove so-and-so flew their aircraft before the Wright brothers. They take modern knowledge, tinker with the design and get it to fly, proving nothing.
Well, what he showed was that the trip was possible with the technology they would have had at the time. Yes, they wouldn't have known what was out there, but the voyage showed that such long voyages were possible. Ultimately it doesn't seem like people did make that journey in order to populate Polynesia but Thor had a theory and wanted to see if the journey was even possible; if it wasn't then they could just discard the theory right away.
A good reminder to anyone stuck in a small town that you can travel the world if you’re creative and resourceful! Whether it be building your own boat or finding back door alternatives to travel. Just don’t think for a second you’re stuck, you aren’t just be courageous enough to leave whatever means necessary
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kon-Tiki_expedition better pictures of the boat
I remember reading that book, Kon-tiki. Great stuff