Talk:Thor Heyerdahl

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 04:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is already rated as a B-class Mecil 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Why is Heyerdahl identified as an anthropoloigst, rather than as a geographer? What did he receive his PhD. in? In what academic departments has he worked? SR

See the new external link I just posted. It doesn't appear that he's ever received a PhD, at least none is listed, but he's received awards from, published and lectured in the fields of archeology, geography, anthropology. One bio I just read said he studied zoology for a time before he apparently dropped out to pursue his own research. I think he was part of the first team to do an archaelogical dig on Easter Island as well. Wesley

I removed the PhD, as I could find no mention of it in other sources. -- Gustavf 16:57, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

If we ignore some dynamite using archaeologists of the 1880s, then the first Archaeological expedition to Easter Island was that of Katherine Routledge in 1914/1915. Alfred Metraux and the Franco Belgian expedition of the 1930s were mainly ethnographic, medical and anthropological but they did survey the rock art and other sites, it was Metraux's analysis that placed Easter Island stonework in a Polynesian context and not a South American one. So Heyerdahl could claim his was the second Easter Island dig, or the fifth. Mulloy and others who he brought to the island on that expedition are still respected today, even if Heyerdahl isn't.Jonathan Cardy 23:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No mention of his wives?

Does anyone know any information about Thor's wives? The article seems me rather incomplete without their existence even being mentioned... TShilo12 08:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

(slanderous comment deleted) Kraxler 01:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Every anthropologist he talked to discounted his theories based on the now demonstrably false proposition that a raft could not navigate the Pacific. If he hadn't actually _done_ it, it's quite likely that people would still be arguing about it today. He wasn't the greatest scientist, but in many ways he was something better.

Absolutely.--Wiglaf 20:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he proved that people can cross oceans on small rafts. Where is the science in that? Remember that Heyerdahl constantly referred to himself as a scientist (yet, he had no scientific background) and presented his achievements as science. He also presented his theories as if they were his own. In fact, similar theories had been around since the mid 19th century. The man was brave, yes, but a fraud! Grumpy444grumpy 15:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have read most of Heyerdahl's work, it is true that he did not have any archeological or antropological background, but he was an marine biologist. So totally whitout scientific background, he was not. In one of his books, he describes experts as scientists, who has dug themselves so deep into the ground in search of the details that they could not get the overall picture. While he as a "jack of all trades", could look over their shoulders and work out theories, based on the work of many different experts. He also opposed the dogmas of science, refuced to accsept arguments like "that's just the way it is" and forced people to think outside the box. Still there are riddles yet to be solved surounding Easter isl. for instance. All in all not the work of a fraud!

--Njård 21:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He studied for 3 years at the University of Oslo, and for an unknown number of years at various institutions around the world. Despite never receiving a doctorate in any field he still called himself a doctor and a scientist. A result of his unscientific background was that he did not follow a scientific way of thinking, the paradigm. This can constitute: Having a hypothesis. Gathering information to check whether the hypothesis is right or wrong. If you're wrong, ADMIT IT. This final point is what Heyerdahl never did. Because of his rather arrogant view of proper scientists, he saw any criticism of his work (which is a normal occurrence in science) as an attack upon himself as a person. Check out the scientific critique of his last project under the article links. The man called himself a scientist, but wasn't. OK, maybe not a fraud, but a liar he was! Grumpy444grumpy 09:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

How is this attack on Heyerdahl helping the development of the article at all? --AySz88^-^ 02:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is merely a reply to the above praise, simply stating facts. It may help the article in showing that Heyerdahl ignored important sources and was therefore largely excluded from academic/scientific circles. So, all in all, it helps the article as much as statements defending him. Grumpy444grumpy 08:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Grumpy indeed... --Smilingman 04:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

---

A few years ago I read a lengthy article, perhaps in New Yorker magazine, about how in later years, Thor Heyerdahl was caught faking artifacts. He had paid a local native craftsman to manufacture some items and place them in a cave (or some similar place) where Thor could "discover" them. Unfortunately, I don't remember enough specifics to be able to add to this article. It would be interesting to track this down. Riordanmr 03:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

merge

I removed the "merge" tag from the article, because I couldn't tell what it was referring to. If anyone knows, please return it. Joyous 21:01, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

The article it was supposed to refer to, Heyerdhal [sic], was deleted. – Pladask 09:25, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Kon-tiki

I have inserted some material which was incongruously part of the Tiki culture article, which is about an American restaurant fad of the 1950s. It is not that I support the Kon Tiki theory in any way, it is just that the material seems more in keeping with this page. Kahuroa 22:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Heyerdahl a scientist?

I'm not sure Thor Heyerdahl was a real scientist, rather an adventurer, and I removed this article from category:Norwegian scientists. Before somebody put him back to a scientist category, it would be nice if we could agree upon a definition of the minimum qualifications needed to be categorized as a scientist in Wikipedia in general. Norwikinator 20:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he was a scientist. If the section about his 'interpretation' of Incan and Polynesian myths is anything to go by, he couldn't believe that any people could achieve anything unless White Men came from over the Sea and showed them how, or unless they were descended from White Men (or Semites apparently). I think that says a lot about him. Kahuroa 05:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

He might not be a very good historian, but he has much knowledge of botany, it seems. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 03:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because you disagree with someone's conclusion doesn't mean he doesn't get to call himself a scientist. The statement that "he couldn't believe that any people could achieve anything unless White Men came from over the Sea and showed them how," is simply unfair. It's a straw man. It is not found in Heyerdahl's book. The theory that a white race ruled Easter Island a long time before explorers of the colonial period comes directly from the oral history (which is thought to correspond to the written "Rongo Rongo" history) of the Rapa Nui people. This is all well documented in his book. Heyerdahl used the methods of anthropology and archaeology to scientifically corroborate the Rapa Nui's own story. He pioneered the field of experimental archaeology when he sailed from South America to Easter Island. He is a scientist. ocanter Wednesday, May 31, 2006 at 18:28:39 (UTC)

As someone who has only recently begun studying anthropology, the conversation surrounding Heyerdahl fascinates me. He seems to bring out the worst in normally intelligent people. Perhaps someone with a little more knowledge on the subject could explain the vitriol surrounding the man's work. From my point of view it seems like nothing more than an extension of the isolationist vs. diffusionist argument, with Heyerdahl propped up as a figurehead by one or both sides. I think the entry would benefit from an exploration of this controversy.Tsm sf (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on. The only straw men around here are the ones holding Heyerdahl's tenuous and far-fetched theories together. The Pacific is full of pre-existing people invented in the 19th and early 20th centuries by well-meaning but misguided 'scientists'. All have been discredited. I would have to see the actual texts that comprise the oral history in the Rapa Nui language, the full texts, before I believe that they say anything even remotely approaching what Heyerdahl says they say. And I thought the jury was still out on deciphering the Rongorongo? Kahuroa 19:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Heyerdahl's book contains a rather extensive discussion of the topic. Have you looked at it? You should probably do so before you go around alleging that he believed something that he never actually said. He is not the first to document these stories, but he may be the most famous, particularly because he used the scientific method to examine the oral history that most people simply disregarded because they didn't think the natives were capable of keeping a true history. The history of human migration in general is still not very well understood, and probably won't be for a long time, in part because of politically motivated antagonism to legitimate scientific examination of the data. I'm not saying Heyerdahl had everything right, but he did the research. He talked to the people, he excavated the island, he ran the carbon dates, and he published his theory. You won't even go to the library and check out a book. Rongo Rongo has not been deciphered. However, tradition among the Rapa Nui people has always held that certain inscriptions tell the history of the Rapa Nui people. When Heyerdahl asked an Easter Islander to translate a photograph of a wood Rongo Rongo tablet, the man immediately recited an episode from the people's oral history. It became apparent, however, that he wasn't actually reading the glyphs, but simply telling the story associated with the inscription, the same way you might tell the story of Jesus if you saw a book with gold pages and a cross on it. There's a picture of a "Long Ear" in Heyerdahl's book. A color picture. The dude is white. He's got red hair, just like the monumental statues (they were originally topped with a red stone that simulated a crop of hair). Some of these still exist. Of course, there are other explanations, but we can't ignore the possibility of a fair-skinned race having found its way there. Stranger things have happened. People come and go. That's what people do. Peace, ocanter Wednesday, May 31, 2006 at 23:54:21 (UTC)

I have read the book actually. And I have read Rapa Nui traditions in the original language.

• There seems to be an assumption in some of the things you mention, that red hair is unheard of among Polynesians. This is not the case at all. Just look at New Zealand as an example. The Maori language has several old words for light-haired or red-headed. And there is even a slang term in New Zealand English to describe Maori people with red hair. We Maori are an Eastern Polynesian people and our language is closely related to Rapa Nui.
• Why should the colour of the stone used to make the topknots for the mo'ai statues have anything to do with a 'fair-skinned race having found its way there'? What about the colour of the rest of the statue - grey! - does that have no significance? If we need to explain the colour of the topknots, there are a lot of more common sense ones to do with workability and availability of materials on a small island, plain old aesthetics, or the significance of red in Polynesian cultures generally. No need to look for strange explanations at all.
• As for the colour photo of the 'long ear' with red hair and white skin - well the red hair could just be Polynesian, and there was variation naturally in skin colour. Besides, by the time colour film was available, there had been plenty of time for admixture of races - Easter Island was part of Chile by then! Kahuroa 05:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful information. I think we're finally getting somewhere. I do not believe that the red stones that crop the statues prove that the Long Ears existed or that they had red hair. My only point is that the archaeological evidence here is consistent with the people's oral history. Of course there are other explanations. I meant only to show that Heyerdahl's theory about the settlement of Easter Island was based on real archaeological and ethnographic evidence. If you read his book, you must have read the pages and pages of interviews, the descriptions and drawings of the first European explorers, the records of his excavations, and the experimental resurrection of the monuments. All this constitutes ethnographic and archaeological evidence. I felt it wasn't fair, then, to say that there was "no ethnographic evidence" for his theories. Of course there are people besides Europeans who are light-skinned. I've seen Maori who are light-skinned. I never said the Long Ears were European. But their existence certainly seems consistent with the oral history, the archaeological record (as much of it as was available to Heyerdahl), the physiological traits of the people, and their artistic traditions. Did you see the stone walls? They look exactly like the fine stone walls of the contemporary Paracas culture, which look exactly like the later stone walls of the Inca. There is even a picture in Heyerdahl's book of Rapa Nui masons working on stone with basalt chisels precisely the way Inca stonemasons are thought to have carved the stones for their great walls. The only thing missing in Heyerdahl's work is linguistic and DNA evidence. The Rongo Rongo is probably the only source that might offer linguistic evidence, because of the changes that occurred, as you mentioned, after Chilean annexation. The DNA evidence might still be there, in the blood of the few surviving Rapa Nui, but I question whether an objective interpretation is possible, because of political pressure. If you know of any recent biological anthropology that has explored the issue, please share. I know somebody was trying to test the Paracas mummies (some redheads among them, I understand), but I don't know what ever happened. I would also be curious what your sources are for the "Rapa Nui tradition in the original language." Have you deciphered Rongo Rongo yourself? Or are you basing that assessment on a recently documented source of the oral tradition and the assumption that there has always been only one language on Easter Island? If you are assuming that, it's a petitio principii. I love the stories people tell, though, history or myth, science or politics. The best stories, of course, are the ones that turn out to be true. Please share your sources. ocanter Thursday, June 1, 2006 at 17:36:35 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more with this attitude of ocanter's; I wish he'd revise the article in this light. It's pretty unscientific to go around calling people unscientific without even an argument, which seems to be the rule on this page. Anyone care to link to an outside argument against Heyerdahl's diffusion theory? It's tiresome just to hear it said that it's "been rejected by most experts." Which experts? I'm not doubting they exist - I genuinely want to know. For one thing, IIRC, the tradition on Rapa Nui (as reported in Aku Aku) is that the Short Ears, oppressed by the Long Ears, massacred the Long Ears some time after arriving on the island. This describes a very ethnically divided society, in a very alien world; it seems to me that haplographic DNA evidence might not be the best guide in this case, since it only works on a reasonably large population and Rapa Nui was almost completely depopulated by slave traders at the end of the 19th century (down to 100 remaining Rapa Nui, IIRC). But I'm digressing -- could anyone add a link to an alternative explanation (again, I'm sure it exists, but I don't know where) for the amazing similarities between Rapa Nui architecture and statue-building and the Peruvian stuff? It looks to this non-expert as though one had found the Venus de Milo in Peru and 500 Greek statues on Rapa Nui and people were wondering if there might be a connection, somehow. Jackmitchell 20:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have read the material in Heyerdahl that you mention. I am unable to agree with your faith in his methods, to me, they are not convincing in any way - and I dont think that I am the one out on a limb here. I really don't think its worthwhile devoting any more space to this. He should have stayed closer to home - who knows what he could have come up with for the Icelanders or the Greenlanders. Kahuroa 19:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote by Thor

Borders! I've never seen one, but I've heard they exist in the mind of some people.

Another good one: "A man that set foot on a continent is a man that has not traveled the world." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.93.35.177 (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The sections Thor Heyerdahl#Heyerdahl's theory of Polynesian origins and Kon-Tiki#Anthropology seem to be covering exactly the same ground. I propose that they are merged. Matt 14:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC).

Could use a onceover.

It appeared that some of the info presented in the text was taken from a message board. Specifically, I could find no source commenting on Heyerdahl's views on the likelihood of travel of Egyptians to the Americas. I googled the language, and it directed to a a message board, so I removed it. It also looks like at least some of the article has been plagiarized (the part about the diversity of the Ra II crew). Google the text there. It seems to come from the source I added -- the official Norway site. The article could use a good onceover, checking for plagiarized text and adding citations. deeceevoice (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal icon placement

FYI, you can add a link to Portal:Norway in this article, by placing {{Portal|Norway|Nuvola Norwegian flag.svg}} at the top of the see also section (or the external links section if the article has no see also section). This will display

Cirt (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Important Facts Left Out...

"Kon-Tiki demonstrated that it was possible for a primitive raft to sail the Pacific with relative ease and safety, especially to the west (with the wind)"

Let us not forget that Heyerdahl's vessel was continuously carried north along the South American coast by coastal currents numerous times before it was able to actually get on the Humboldt current. The fact that Kon-Tiki had to be towed 100 kilometers out to sea by a tugboat to catch the Humboldt current destroys any claim that Kon-Tiki proved the possibility of westward migration.

With no objections I'll edit accordingly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacaveli (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Source?

"Genetic research has found that modern-day Polynesians are more closely related to Southeast Asians than to American Indians. Easter Islanders are of Polynesian descent." Can anyone find a source for this? 219.69.19.14 (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)gpm

Resistance

I see no mention in here of his work with special Resistance units in Norway and Finland during WW-2. The man was an authentic hero in addition to everything else. I will do some research and find some cites on this and amend this article. --BenBurch (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Odditiy...

This article links to itself... if you click on the "Ra II" link in the section on the Ra ships, it links back to this article and takes you to the top of the page... 99.249.168.4 (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)