I’d bet that lots of people have noticed the resembalance but put it down to nothing more than coincidence. There is also pottery from Northern Peru that resembles Jamon pottery from Japan - but is it a resembalance and nothing else. There are other instances of things with similar looks from different places.
Could ancient South Americans have made it to Easter Island? Yes, of course they could have made it, but the odds and the evidence are against it being the case. The migration / colonization of the Pacific is truly one of the great human feats, but it took thousands of years. The people who set out from SE Asia set out into an ocean that was, IIRC, 200 ft or m. lower than sea level today. That means that there were a lot more stepping stones islands for them to move to (some are now underwater). As they got further out the distances grew as did their sailing and navagational skills. One doesn’t set out into open water and hope for the best. The people who got to Easter Isand and set up shop had with them all the stuff that islands further east had. They had some of the same plants (plaintains for example that were not native to EI) They also brought pigs and things that show up in the archaeological record like fish hooks formed from bone and pottery with that distinctive Lapita Cultural Complex look. And my favourite example, is the obisidan that was shown to be from a source thousands of miles to the east. What came from South America? Well, there is a reed that grows in the volcano crater lakes on EI, and the only other place it grows is on Lake Titicaca. That is about it.
Heyerdahl was a trained zoologist and archaeologist who lived in Polynesia 1937-1938 while he was doing research on the islands’ animal life. While anthropolgy was not his profession, he did learn about the Polynesian cultrue, and lived like them while he was there. I wouldn’t exactly call him an amateur.
It seems to me that he followed the scientific method:
[ul][li]**Obsrevation.**First, he observed that when he went out to sea to fish, he always faced easterly winds. He also observed what he thought were similarities between Polynesians and South Americans.[/li][li]Hypothesis. Heyerdahl thought that voyagers would have had trouble sailing east for thousands of miles against the wind and current, so he hypothosised that they came from the east (South America) and sailed west, taking advantage of the wind and currents.[/li][li]Prediction. He predicted that a westward trip, using rafts similar to the ones used by Peruvians, would be successful using the prevailing winds and currents in reaching Polynesia.[/li][li]Testing. He tested his prediction by building a raft and sailing it to Polynesia.[/ul][/li]
Of course his thoeries and the results of his voyage have not withstood deeper scrutiny, as pointed out in this thread. Still, he came to a conclusion that seemed plausible at the time, and he did test his ideas by making the journey himself.
Besides; even though he was wrong, you’ve got to give him props for undertaking such an adventure.
Unfortunately, Heyerdahl did not do the same for the South Americans. And he cheated by having his raft towed out to sea, thereby making his hypothesis confirmable in a way that it would not have been had he stuck to reality. He came to the conclusion that he had already decided was true.
His adventure was a grand and glorious adventure, no doubt. It just wasn’t science, even at the time.
And it is truly bizarre that people are still trying to make it so.
Well, he did one experiment. But proving something is possible is a long way from demostrating that it actually happened. (And as others have said, Heyerdahl cheated a bit, and as Exapno points out, he only tested one alternative.)
Heyerdahl himself (well, the narrator-as-Heyerdahl) says that the voyage does not prove his theory; just that it was possible.
Anyway, I never said that Heyerdahl’s theory is correct. In fact, I said that I accept he was wrong (in my first post) and also said he was wrong in my second post. I just wanted more information on why he was wrong; which was given.
The man had class. He had more class than a High School.
He was willing to entertain strange theories - and then go out and find out whether or not it was true. Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn’t.
Nobody gets it all right, and many famous figures got it all wrong. But we don’t give Newton the finger because his ideas were completely wrong for many low-level and high-level applications. Same principle, different gameplan.
Hayerdahl did an awful lot more. He talked natives of many islands into demonstrating some native skills thought long lost or simeply ignored. He was often willing to go and just ask. This was a pretty good trait in an era when historians tended to be decidedly of the “armchair” variety. In fact, archeology is one of the disciplines where so-called amateurs repeatedly outdid the so-called professionals, simply because they were willing to go look.
He might have been right or wong. Now, we’ll never know because the best evidence (i.e., having been there) is no longer possible. But his idea was far beyond quackery.
Why should we lay off? Do you have a crush on Heyerdahl? Was he your Idol?
I can certainly discredit someone’s theories if they present something that flies in the face of pretty well established evidence. Hell, even Captain Cook figured out that the Polynesians didn’t come from South America because he saw no cultural similarities between the two groups, and that was a couple hundred years ago.
The theory to me was like setting the house on fire to uncover the foundations - uneccessary when pretty glaring evidence was right there, easily seen.
What we’re saying is his theory was faulty. Even if he opened up minds, that doesn’t mean we shouln’t talk about how poor his theory was no matter what good he did.
No, his idea wasn’t quackery, and though he only said it was possible to get from South America to Polynesia, it’s still a cracked theory. Pretty much everyone here has said that it’s possible cultural contact was made (and the sweet potato is likely evidence of that).
However, his theory lost all credibility when he cheated by getting his raft towed out, using modern survival equipment, rather than using survival techniques the natives in South America might’ve used on long trips, etc. etc. That may not be quackery, but that’s a very very poor way to go about proving a theory, even if you’re just talking about the probablility of getting from South America out into the Pacific.
Oh, and you can have all the class in the world, but if what you say is absurd, I’m not going to get down on my knees and attempt to give your the best blow job of your life, whether it’s physical or mental.
You know, I’m setting myself up for being accused of ‘having a crush on Heyerdahl’; so I just want to make sure my comments are taken in context.
**I do not believe Polynesia was populated by people from South America. I do believe that Heyerdahl’s theory was wrong. **
It is perfectly proper to point out that it was wrong. That’s how things work. Remember cold fusion? Some guys had a theory, and they conducted experiments, and they announced their results. Then other people tried their experiments, and showed that they were flawed. Fine. Move on. But it seems to me that people wre piling Heyerdahl because his theory was proved wrong. He said that his voyage didn’t prove anything except it could have been done. I’m sure Heyerdahl himself accepted that he was wrong. I just don’t think it’s fair to be calling him names.
All I’m saying is that he had a theory and he tested it. I think I have his book around here somewhere. It’s probably packed away in a box. I’ll need to see if I can find it, since the documentary Kon Tiki necessarily contains less information.
In the film, Heyerdahl (through the interpreter/narrator) says that the Kon Tiki was towed out of the harbour so that it would not interfere with shipping. The film does not say that the raft was taken ‘50 miles out to sea’. Perhaps the book says how far out they went. The film does say that the ancient Peruvians took their rafts ‘miles out to sea’ when fishing. Miles? How many? One? Three? It doesn’t say.
According to the film, and from what I remember from the book, the U.S. Navy (or was it just ‘the military’?) sent survival rations along on the trip. Two crew members were to eat only the rations, in order to test them. The other members of the crew took foods that the natives would have had fifteen hundred years ago. That is, they took edible roots, nuts, coconuts, and fish. They also brought along about 2,000 pounds of water. They also had a ‘galley’ consisting of a Primus stove and a couple of pans in a wooden box. The guy who did the cooking tried to cook in the European fashion; but they did attempt to live like the natives, except for the two guys who were testing the U.S. military rations.
The film shows them fishing using native implements. They said that they were told that there would be no fish far out at sea, and yet flying fish and cuttlefish would appear on their decks overnight. They caught dolphin (Mahi-Mahi) and other fish, including sharks. (I have a problem with their shark fishing. They said that they caught them not just to taste shark, but to get the sharks before the sharks could taste them. Seems silly nowadays, but that’s the way people used to think.) They did bring lots of water (as the natives would have), but it was more than enough because they captured plenty of rain water.
Did they ‘cheat’? Maybe they did, and maybe they didn’t. But the purpose of the trip was to see if a ‘rongo-rongo’ raft could go from South America to Polynesia. They could have brought along a generator and a freezer full of steaks, for all I care; as long as it would fit on the raft. It’s not as if they had an outboard motor.
The fact that his theory was wrong does not, for me, diminish the adventure.
Just to be clear, I have a lot of respect for Heyerdahl as a person, and I really enjoyed his books Kon Tiki and Aku Aku. However, his importance was much more as an adventurer and a writer than as a scientist. I will give him credit for having demonstrated, both with Kon-Tiki and his other projects, that crossing large expanses of open ocean was possible using very primitive technology. However, it’s unfortunate that that has often been interpreted by the popular press and the general public that particular voyages of this kind actually took place when they they are not supported by significant credible evidence.
Well, no, I’m not aware that Heyerdahl ever rigorously tested any of his theories in a scientific manner. Can you give some examples?
I haven’t really seen people “giving Heyerdahl the finger” in this thread. The OP was mostly dedicated to asking about the the validity of Heyerdahl’s theories, and that’s what most people have been discussing. And the theories are wrong.
No, we know very very well that he was wrong (about the idea that Polynesia was mainly settled from South America) because of the vast preponderance of a large amount of hard evidence. Haven’t you been reading this thread at all?
The people I admire are the Polynesians (or, more generally, the Austronesians) who, over a period of a couple of thousand years, hopped from island to island in the Pacific using what seems to us to be horrendously primitive sailing vessels. They had no radios to communicate with or planes that could look for them if they were lost. They didn’t expect to come back to civilization where they could speak in front of admiring crowds and write bestsellers. With no motivation except perhaps that of “This island is getting crowded, so let’s find a new one to live on,” they managed to conquer the Pacific, inhabiting nearly all the islands of any reasonable size.
Sure: Hayerdahl wanted to see if it was possible to get get across the ocean on an old-style boat and did so, proving that it was within the realm of possibility.
The evidence being against is not the same thing as knowing it is not true. It means we should not accept it as true without other evidence. But we’ll never know, and it’s a valid theory. I this case, it’s arguably much more a matter of interpretation than most history, owing to the lack of records. Moreover, our knowledge of how the Americas were settled is still confused. “Probably”, Hayerdahl was wrong. So what? The idea, and the willingness to explore, still makes him great.
Exapno Mapcase, for one stands around calling him a cheater. That’s about equivelant to giving him the finger in my book.
Every scientist/explorer/inventor has bad theories. There’s no reason to harp on about how they’re wrong. And again, Hayerdahl changed the nature of the game by being willing to apply scientific testing. He was willing to go check things out. The fact that his idea might not be correct is practically beside the point.
There is a huge difference between an adventurer and a scientist. Most of the people in this thread have accepted and understood that.
Adventurers are free to do as they please. Scientists are not. If they want to claim that something is science they have to follow a set of rules, one of which is that the test must be as close to the original conditions as possible. Deliberately flouting that rule is scientific cheating.
Nobody, including me, is giving Heyerdahl the finger. But he did not “apply scientific testing.” What he did - even at the time - was not good science, nor was it based on science. The evidence against him is overwhelming, and it comes from a half dozen fields he never even considered.
He was an adventurer. That’s a fine thing and worth celebrating. It’s only when you cross the line and start talking about him as a scientist that everyone here refuses to play along.
Why aren’t you celebrating instead the real scientists who have been studying these fields for the past 50 years?
I’m not sure you understand science at all. We have mainly been discussing the “theory” (actually a hypothesis, in scientific terms) that Polynesia was colonized from South America rather than the west. The Kon Tiki voyage was an experiment designed to test one necessary requirement of that “theory,” that a voyage was possible. However, it did not actually prove anything one way or another about the hypothesis itself, and hence was not a particularly good experiment. If Heyerdahl had failed, it would not have proved that such voyages never took place (although it might have made them seem more unlikely), and the fact that he succeeded did not do anything to actually prove that they did take place.
This is so garbled I can’t really tell what you’re trying to say, so I won’t attempt to answer it. But it again it appears that you don’t understand much about the way science works.
What does this have to do with the settlement of Polynesia?
Once again, the question in the OP was not about the personal qualities of Heyerdahl, but whether or not his ideas were correct. They were wrong, and the evidence for that is about as certain as anything gets in this particular field. The “idea” was not Heyerdahl’s own - it had been advanced by others before him, notably the Spanish priest Joaquin Martinez de Zuniga in 1803, and John Lang later in the 1800s - so I’m not sure how that makes him great. In any case, Heyerdahl’s greatest contribution may have been that, by publicizing the South American idea, he stimulated a great deal of new archeological research that definitively proved it wrong.
As for the “willingness to explore,” I don’t think anyone here denies him credit for being a brave man.
You are evidently a person of highly refined sensibilities. The fact is, Heyerdahl didn’t adhere strictly to the protocols necessary for replicating an aboriginal voyage. Whether or not that makes him a “cheater” is a matter of opinion.
Except that was the specific question that the OP asked: what was the evidence that demonstrated Heyerdahl wrong.
Heyerdahl’s experiments in voyaging, construction methods, etc., while interesting, certainly didn’t “change the nature of the game.” Science has always been about “checking things out.” And as I said before, they did little to either confirm or refute any specific hypotheses.
Aside from the fact that it was the specific question asked in the OP. :smack:
> The fact that his idea might not be correct is practically beside the point.
Heyerdahl might be the nicest person ever to live, but his hypothesis about the Polynesians coming from South America is wrong. It wildly contradicts everything we knows about historical linguistics and several other sciences. It’s no more likely that his hypothesis was right (in which case we will have to rebuild linguistics and several other sciences from scratch) than it is that Einstein was wrong about relativity (in which case we’ll have to rebuild physics from scratch).
To his credit, Heyerdahl did open the eyes of the global community to the archeological and anthropological wonders of Easter Island and helped to restore several moai to standing positions.
I don’t recall seeing any monuments or markers on Easter Island to Theyerdahl however.
There is a video store there whose logo completely rips off Blockbuster. I hope they don’t get sued for trademark infringement. I would really think it would be bad if you confused the Easter Island video store with the Blockbuster that’s down the street.
Having watched the DVD yesterday, I see that the voyage did not take the team to Easter Island. I mentioned Easter Island in my first post, mis-remembering where he made landfall. (I might have had it in my mind because of the previous post.)
Incidentally, I liked Rapa Nui. I have it on VHS, as it’s not available on DVD.
Probably Heyerdahl’s most significant contribution to Pacific anthropology was his work on Easter Island in 1955-56. This included the first excavations ever attempted, and established the outlines of Easter Island history, including overpopulation, environmental devastation, warfare, and decline described in Jared Diamond’s most recent book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.
A very detailed description of how ideas about the colonization of the Pacific have developed over time, including Heyerdahl’s role, can be found at this site (click on the links successively for the full story).
Yes I bloody well do! His idea was that people from Polynesia arrived there from SOuth America. His Hypothesis was that it could be done. He tested it. He didn’t go any further. It’s still science even if you don’t completely prove the idea.
I said we can’t go back and check for sure. We say Heyerdahl’ wrong now, and it would be foolish to say he’s right. It would also be foolish to assume that everyone from now on will agree with us.
Who said I was talking about the OP? The idea that Heyerdahl cheated is insulting and misleading, and that’s is what I was bugged about. For some ungodly reason, everyone always insists on putting their own ideas in mny mouth. I say what I mean and correct myself when I don’t.
He did for historians. He wasn’t the first amateur to challenge the establishment, but from my POV, Hayerdahl changed archeology and history studies considerably with Kon Tiki. Before it was often confined to dusty stacks. Now it’s a pretty exciting field.