Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In 1947 Norwegian writer and explorer set sail in a balsa raft to prove that Polynesia was populated by the people of ancient Peru. It was an amazing achievement to drift across the Pacific but did it in the end prove anything other than you could drift across the Pacific?
In 1947 Norwegian writer and explorer set sail in a balsa raft to prove that Polynesia was populated by the people of ancient Peru. It was an amazing achievement to drift across the Pacific but did it in the end prove anything other than you could drift across the Pacific?
No. Those types of expeditions are always interesting in terms of adventure. However, they prove little scientifically. Let's just take it on the face value. Heyerdahl knew there was something to the west to run into. Ancient Peruvians had no such knowledge, as far as we know. So, proving that one can drift 5,000 miles across the Pacific does not prove that ancient people actually did it. I don't see anyone undertaking a journey like that without a strong compulsion to do so. That is where Heyerdahl's theory falls apart long before you get into mtDNA. Why would ancient Peruvians drift out to sea on a giant canoe?
So, great story and a great adventure, but I don't find that any of these "build an ancient style boat and sail across the ocean" escapades actually prove anything.
So, great story and a great adventure, but I don't find that any of these "build an ancient style boat and sail across the ocean" escapades actually prove anything.
And a great adventure it was. I of course read the book when I was a school boy but last night I wandered across the 2011 movie depiction of the voyage and it piqued my interest about the story again. For Thor Heyerdahl to take this voyage in 1947 is still remarkable, as an adventure despite its dubious scientific trappings.
He never said that he proved that Peruvians DID sail to Polynesia, but only that they COULD have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
Why would ancient Peruvians drift out to sea on a giant canoe?
What reasons did the Norsemen have for sailing to Iceland, Greenland and Labrador, If they didn't already know they were there and expect to make landfall? Or, if the Polynesians originated in Asia, what reason did they have for aimlessly sailing into the vast Pacific in the other direction?
I think Heyerdahl gets a bit of unfair criticism for his work. At the time, his hypotheses were presented using the standard approach and methodology of anthropology/archaeology at the time. A little over a decade later, the New archaeology and anthro methods had been updated to require more discrete analysis of data and scientific method to reinforce conclusions, and the 'wild' hypotheses of earlier anthropologists was not only dismissed, but denigrated.
However, his voyages -did- provide legitimate data, it is just his conclusions based on the data that are now regarded as innacurate. His bad rep comes from the fact that his was the last high-profile anthropological work to be set on a high pedestal and when the field advanced, it really came crashing down. And the Kon-tiki is not the only controversial work of Heyerdahl. He made some interesting comments regarding I-E migrations and mythology, too, if I recall, but that was way more academic and lacked the adventure aspect that made his oceanic migration experiments widely known.
I saw him give a presentation back in the mid 90s shortly before he died. He was generally well received, but there were a couple of smartarses in the anthro department who decided to give an old man a hard time during the question and answer session even though during the presentation he completely laid out his thinking at the time and admitted that his conclusions were no longer valid. He was quite contrite as I recall.
He still has his fans in experimental archaeology, though.
I've read work by Jack Forbes that mentions natives from South America could have sailed to the Pacific on their own but that, in and of itself, does not mean they had a major cultural and biological influence on the region.
So, great story and a great adventure, but I don't find that any of these "build an ancient style boat and sail across the ocean" escapades actually prove anything.
They prove it's doable, which is all he was trying to prove. It's interesting about the other part of his discovery, though. He found human remains in caves on the Marquesas that were of a completely different type than the people inhabiting the island. To this day, no DNA samples have been taken from those remains. Anthropologists and geneticists have avoided taking samples from those skeletons, though they've taken samples from the living inhabitants. It looks like they don't want to risk vindicating Heyerdahl's claim.
Elsewhere, I've read that there was a trade in sweet potatoes going on between the coast of South America and the Marquesas, but I don't recall the source. But the style of stone-working in monumental stone construction in both areas is the same. That style is found nowhere else.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 12-11-2013 at 02:16 PM..
Heyerdahl was essentially black-listed by the anthropologists of his day because his theories supported cultural (and faunal) diffusion vs. independent development of cultures. That was considered a racist theory after it was first developed to explain how high civilizations in Africa and the Americas came about. When ruins in southern Africa and Central America were first discovered, they were attributed to Europeans or Egyptians, since at the time Mayan and Aztec Indians, and the peoples of South Africa and Zimbabwe were believed to be incapable of conceiving of and developing an advanced civilization. Heyerdahl proposed his theories after the anthroplogy and archaeology establishment had decided that any diffusionist theories were racially motivated.
It's unfortunate, because there is good reason to believe Heyerdahl was right. But the fields of anthropology and archaeology are very polarized. It's hard to get alternative theories any consideration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
