Kon-Tiki Travel
Kon-Tiki Travel
On August 7,1947, a strange vessel crashed on the coral reefs of the Raroia atoll within the Tuamotu Islands. Its tanned and weather-beaten crew of six Scandinavians survived the experience and cheerfully planted a souvenir from the source of their journey, a coconut palm carried on board their vessel from South America. This extraordinary voyage across the Pacific on a raft of balsa wood named “Kon-Tiki” would have an enduring impact on each the scholarly globe and well-liked culture. Fifty years later, the name “Kon-Tiki” is still recognized by millions and the expedition’s leader, Thor Heyerdahl, remains 1 of the most well-known and well-liked people of the 20th century. Despite its public popularity, the original aims and accomplishments with the expedition have been somewhat obscured by the sheer epic drama of the event. In some segments of the academic globe, a long pattern of misinformation has created a negative mythology about the Kon-Tiki and its captain which has been perpetuated now for decades. This write-up will consider the origins with the expedition, its outcomes, and its instant and long-term effects. In performing so, it is hoped that a much more fair appraisal with the Kon-Tiki will probably be reported.
Thor Heyerdahl was born in 1914 and raised in Larvik, Norway.1 In his youth, he was significantly attracted towards the outdoors and also the wonders of nature. Not surprisingly, he chose to study zoology while attending the University of Oslo. With an interest within the island biogeography of plants, animals and humans, along with a longing for a taste of a simpler life, Heyerdahl and his new bride stranded themselves for a year on the island of Fatu Hiva in the Marquesas to collect zoological specimens and to experience Polynesia (Heyerdahl 1938, 1941b, 1996b). It was during that stay in 1937 that he became particularly impressed by the impact of the natural forces with the winds and ocean currents which tended to flow from east to west. At the same time, he was also exposed to local stories that suggested that the islanders’ ancestors may have followed such routes to colonize the islands from the east, a scenario in total contradiction towards the prevailing scientific viewpoint with the day.
Heyerdahl returned to Norway with an impressive collection of specimens such as human crania, and actively began to pursue an idea that continues to provoke controversy to this day – the idea that numerous of the people who settled the islands of Polynesia did so by travelling from or by way with the Americas. With the comprehensive Kroepelian Polynesian Library in Oslo at his disposal, he immersed himself thoroughly within the study of cultural parallels, winds and currents, plant and animal dispersals and of course, the early physical means by which the Pacific might have been traversed.
Although a connection with South America was his original concentrate, he never rejected the Southeast Asiatic origins of the historically known Polynesians. After his first year in Polynesia, he travelled to British Columbia to search for feasible traces of the route he favored, from the Philippine Sea to Polynesia by way with the Pacific Northwest Coast. The onset of World War II temporarily allayed his inquiries, but not prior to he published the earliest formal expression of his ideas about American connections within the colonization of Polynesia. The article was called “Did Polynesian culture originate in America?” and was published in 1941 in a severe and very well-refereed new journal called International Science. The journal was apparently an additional casualty with the War and couple of scholars today are aware of this early write-up by Heyerdahl which clearly spells out the scientific foundation from which the Kon-Tiki travel would ultimately be derived. In this first paper, he stresses the theories he has subsequently maintained – that the South-American element in Polynesia was a sub-stratum, and that the present Polynesian populations entered the Polynesian territory by way of Hawaii from the north.
Kon-Tiki Travel
After the war, Heyerdahl further elaborated his ideas in a scholarly manuscript entitled “Polynesia and America: a study of prehistoric relations.” Travelling to the United States, he presented his manuscript to a variety of scholars and his ideas were very poorly received. Many of the scholars were particularly convinced that he was mistaken on the basis of a central question, the ability of South American seafarers to survive the needed voyage or voyages in vessels perceived as primitive. The work of Samuel Lothrop was often cited. In his 1932 function Aboriginal navigation off the west coast of South America, Lothrop concluded that the balsa rafts noted by the early Spaniards would absorb water and sink nicely before ever reaching an island in the Pacific.
Having been issued a challenge, Heyerdahl initiated what would be known as the Kon-Tiki travel expedition. This classic case of experimental archaeology would, as accurately as feasible, replicate and test a South American balsa raft sailing vessel. The experiment would test suggestions each about the seaworthiness of the vessels and also the directional forces of currents and winds to propel such a vehicle to Polynesia.
With a foundation of big balsa logs retrieved from the jungles of Ecuador, Heyerdahl set out to build the raft he named “Kon-Tiki”. The raft left the Peruvian port of Callao on April 27, 1947 with Heyerdahl along with a crew of four fellow Norwegians along with a Swede. The Kon-Tiki performed admirably, safely whisking its human cargo westward across the Pacific (Heyerdahl 1950a, 1950b). Large waves could break and wash neatly correct through the deck and also the raft remained reassuringly buoyant and intact via storms and the passing of many days. On July 30th, land was lastly sighted, the island of Puka Puka in the Tuamotu Archipelago. A week later, following 101 days at sea, the raft crashed onto a reef at the Raroia atoll. The Kon-Tiki had traveled 4300 nautical miles at an typical speed of 42 ? miles per day. Apart from the harm incurred on the reef, the vessel remained seaworthy and the crew intact, therefore negating the views with the skeptics who thought such a voyage impossible. Not surprisingly, there were numerous reactions from the scientific community.
Prior to the expedition, American archaeologist Ralph Linton, perpetuating the notions of Lothrop, advised Heyerdahl that a raft voyage could be harmful as the balsa logs would soon absorb water and sink. After the successful voyage, Linton would erroneously claim that the expedition was invalid simply because balsa could not be discovered on the western side with the Andes. In a rebuttal to Linton, Heyerdahl wrote:
Kon-Tiki Travel
“Before the Kon-Tiki expedition, it was stated that neither the Indians nor we would be able to survive an overseas voyage of this type, simply because the raft was made of light and porous balsa wood, which was only suitable for coastal sailing because it absorbed water. After our voyage was successfully completed, it was stated, also correct away, that we had succeeded because our raft was made of balsa, a type of wood which was suddenly supposed to have been unknown to the Indians of the western coast of South America” [Evensberget 1994:104-105; Jacoby 1968:198-199].
Even still, there are some skeptics that preserve that the Kon-Tiki raft was modeled after a non-Peruvian vessel or perhaps a post-Spanish raft with post-Spanish sails and that the South American seafarers had been actually shore huggers (Bahn and Flenley 1992:46-48). The validity of these claims is quite arguable (Heyerdahl 1952:513-620, 1996a).
Some criticized the fact that the Kon-Tiki had to be towed well away from the coast before it could begin its voyage. Heyerdahl, nevertheless, was needed to do so to steer clear of port visitors in his untested vessel. Secondly, the knowledge of how to steer the raft using the centerboards was unknown at the time thus steering the raft away from shore was a dubious process. Subsequent experiments demonstrated the magnificent versatility of these centerboards along with other raft voyagers following Kon-Tiki would be able to maneuver directly from their departure points utilizing this method. There were also complaints that the Kon-Tiki crew invalidated their experiment by carrying along such modern survival conveniences as a life raft, canned food provisions along with a radio. Such comments seem to ignore the reality that the intent of the expedition was to test the seaworthiness with the vessel, and not a culinary test to see how Scandinavians cope with native food. In Heyerdahl’s own words: “We did not mean to eat aged llama flesh or dried kumara potatoes on our trip, for we were not making it to prove that we had once been Indians ourselves”(Heyerdahl 1950a:27). The tiny rubber dinghy, by the way, was quite inadequate for saving the lives of six individuals but could be used for filming or for exploring landing situations (Thor Heyerdahl, personal communication, 1997).
Other early critics included the eminent Polynesian scholar Sir Peter Buck who referred to “that Kon-Tiki raft business” as “a good adventure. But you do not anticipate anybody to call that a scientific expedition. Now do you?” ( Evensberget 1994:102-103; Jacoby 1968:198).
Kon-Tiki Travel
Finnish anthropologist Rafael Karsten, intimated that the expedition had been a hoax such as the claim that the raft had been “specially constructed-among other issues, built in such a way that it could overturn and correct itself.” There were further insinuations of deceit with such comments as: “In general, it may be stated that if half of what has been told concerning the expedition is accurate, then it must be regarded as a miracle that the travellers got via it at all. But, as we know, miracles occur rather seldomly” .(Evensberget 1994:103-104; Jacoby 1968:201-203).
Heyerdahl’s synopsis with the ideas behind the Kon-Tiki travel expedition within the pages with the Geographical Journal prompted vigorous responses from the Austrian scholar Robert Heine-Geldern. (Heine-Geldern 1950, 1952; Heyerdahl 1950b, 1951). Heine-Geldern was himself an advocate of transoceanic contacts using the New World, but from the west to the east, from Asia to the Americas. If anything, he argued, the Polynesians most likely visited the New Globe and not the other way about.
The international public, however, loved the expedition book Kon-Tiki which has sold numerous millions of copies and has been translated into nicely more than 50 languages. The Kon-Tiki film was likewise popular. This film, skillfully edited from the outcomes of a simple hand-held camera, won an Oscar Award for Best Documentary in 1950. The book and film, although describing the theoretical underpinnings of the project, mainly emphasized the adventure aspects of the expedition. This may have unintentionally dampened the scientific motivations with the expedition in the minds of some readers.
Whilst there remained skeptics in the scientific world, Heyerdahl urged them to await the publication of a full explanation of his theses, a book entitled American Indians within the Pacific: the scientific theory behind the Kon-Tiki Expedition (Heyerdahl 1952). This big book, over 800 pages of single-spaced print and more than a thousand scholarly references, would spell out his suggestions in detail. Not surprisingly, the book, like the expedition itself, received widely mixed reviews. French ethnologist Alfred Metraux, who had earlier referred to Heyerdahl as a “mauvais savant”(bad scholar), later praised him in a book review of American Indians within the Pacific and was particularly impressed by his interdisciplinary approach to the topic (Evensberget 1994:106-107; Jacoby 1968:206-209). Other people had been not so complimentary (e.g. Firth 1953; Linton 1953).
Heyerdahl didn’t shy away from scholarly debate and within the summer of 1952 delivered lectures on his suggestions prior to the 30th International Americanist Congress in Cambridge (Heyerdahl 1953a,b,c) and the 4th International Congress of Anthropologists and Ethnologists in Vienna. Within the years that followed, he would read papers at a number of similar forums, most of which have been published in Congress proceedings or in volumes of his collected works. Invitations to speak prior to scholarly societies became extremely common. Heyerdahl’s initial major recognition for his work came in 1950 when he was awarded the Anders Retzius Medal by the Swedish Society of Anthropology and Geography followed by numerous other awards, decorations and degrees for his achievements which continue to this day. He would also be elected to the Academies of Sciences in New York, Norway and also the USSR. In 1961 he was honored having a doctorate from the University of Oslo, the first of a number of from a variety of universities. That exact same year, Heyerdahl addressed the scholarly 10th Pacific Congress held in Honolulu 1961. During that Congress, the following resolution was passed acknowledging a South American contribution to Pacific prehistory:
“Southeast Asia and the adjacent islands constitute a main source of info concerning the peoples and cultures of the Pacific islands, as does South America on the other side with the Pacific, exactly where analysis has advanced more rapidly” [Tuthill 1963:48, Resolution 3].
This declaration seems to have since been ignored, lost or forgotten by numerous scholars.
In spite of the existence of considerable explanation, there continue these days many misconceptions about the Kon-Tiki expedition. One with the more misinformed notions is that it was a publicity stunt carried out by an amateur or professional sailor seeking attention. A prominent senior American archaeologist in a fairly recent major publication refers to Heyerdahl as a “professional sailor predisposed by his coaching and encounter to use a navigational instead of a linguistic approach [to his Polynesian theories]” (Rouse 1986:23). Another writer commented, “The Kon-Tiki travel expedition proved absolutely nothing apart from that Norwegians are good sailors” (Thor Heyerdahl, private communication, 1997).2 In the time with the Kon-Tiki expedition, Heyerdahl, barely able to swim, had small if any seafaring encounter and only 1 member of the crew, Erik Hesselberg, could be regarded as competent at sea.
Kon-Tiki Travel
An additional misconception will be the notion that Heyerdahl believed that the expedition proved that get in touch with really took location in between South America and Polynesia. This, of course, is nonsense. The expedition clearly demonstrated the possibility that such contacts could have taken place by disproving the prevailing notion that early South American watercraft had been incapable of surviving an ocean voyage.
Heyerdahl explained his motivations behind the Kon-Tiki expedition in American Indians within the Pacific:
…I decided to construct a replica with the a lot disputed balsa raft for a double purpose: to ascertain its behavior and qualities at sea by practical observation, and to show the correctness of what I felt could be indirectly deduced from other facts – that Polynesia was nicely inside the natural range of the aboriginal Peruvian craft [pp.601-602].
The perceived results with the expedition are well-articulated in the exact same volume:
“The discoveries with the expedition having a bearing on the problem below discussion may be summarized as follows: 1. Polynesia was nicely inside the range of coastal craft in aboriginal Peru. 2. Weather-driven balsa rafts trapped in the Peru Present will automatically convey crew and cargo from South America to Polynesia, and food and water may be replenished in the course of the transfer. 3. The South American balsa raft was capacious, commodious, exceedingly seaworthy and safe for down-wind sailings and drifts within the high seas even when carrying a numerically inadequate crew or a crew wholly inexperienced in maritime activities or raft navigation” [p.602].
Perhaps most pervasive amongst scholars is the erroneous notion that Heyerdahl believes that the Polynesian individuals are South Americans. A serious reading of his suggestions will demonstrate that he does clearly advocate South American populations and influence in the Pacific, in some instances as a pre-Polynesian substratum. Nevertheless, he also argues that the Polynesians are indeed derived from Southeast Asia, but a different route is proposed and from a direction contrary to convention; a route from South East Asia – 1 which follows the currents and winds to Polynesia by way with the Pacific Northwest Coast of America. This idea regarding the Northwest Coast is a lot much less well-known than the South American aspects which had been emphasized by the Kon-Tiki together with some of Heyerdahl’s subsequent archaeological expeditions.
Heyerdahl’s interest in Polynesia didn’t finish using the Kon-Tiki expedition. There was yet no definite archaeological proof of South American seafaring away from the coast and well into the Pacific. In 1952 he conducted the very first archaeological expedition to the Galapagos Islands, 600 miles off the coast of Ecuador, and situated a big quantity of pre-European South American aboriginal pottery at various sites (Heyerdahl 1955, 1963). The material was positively identified as such by the world’s leading authorities on the pottery of the Northwest coast of South America in the Smithsonian Institution (Heyerdahl and Skjolsvold 1956). These discoveries seem to indicate that pre-European mariners had at least survived voyages on their vessels this far into the ocean, if not getting produced round-trip journeys. This essential work in the Galapagos is apparently either little recognized or regularly ignored as it is rarely mentioned within the literature.3 A recent comprehensive survey of South American prehistory appears to be unaware of the analysis and states: “there is no evidence of any aboriginal use or occupation of the Galapagos Islands. Also, we know little to nothing about ancient navigation methods” (Bruhns 1994:36).
On the return from the Galapagos, the expedition members conducted a useful experiment. A small balsa raft was constructed and six centerboards or “guaras” had been inserted between the logs. These centerboards had been noted as steering devices by early observers of South American vessels. Such centerboards had really been incorporated into the design with the Kon-Tiki but in the time Heyerdahl and his companions were unfamiliar with their use and were unable to use them to navigate through the waters, nor to avoid a crash onto a coral reef. The experiment on the little raft, nevertheless, demonstrated that by lifting and dropping the numerous guaras, the raft could be skillfully maneuvered in any direction, independent of, or even against, the wind (Heyerdahl 1957, 1959).
At this point, it might be appropriate to note the numerous Kon-Tiki imitators that arose within the wake with the effective expedition. Even though one or two met with failure, most had been very successful such as balsa rafts that traveled from Peru to Australia and an expedition which involved a flotilla of small rafts (Heyerdahl 1978:39-44). Apart from voyages from South America into the Pacific, there have been numerous expeditions which were formed as a type of response towards the success of the Kon-Tiki. Eric de Bisshop attempted unsuccessfully to demonstrate that a raft could progress across the Pacific from west to east (Bisschop 1959; Danielsson 1960). Much more recent and famous cousins of the Kon-Tiki can be seen with experimental voyages of replicated Polynesian voyaging canoes like the Hokule`a (Finney 1979, 1994). Like the Kon-Tiki, they offer helpful and provocative exercises in the realm of experimental archaeology and are topic to comparable standards in regard towards the notion of “proof”.
After the Galapagos, Heyerdahl’s subsequent expedition would take him to Easter Island in 1955/56. With an international team of archaeologists from Norway, the United States and Chile, the expedition conducted the first scientific excavations on the island. The finish result with the expedition would be the publication in 1961 and 1965 of two large volumes of collected reports edited by Heyerdahl and expedition member Edwin Ferdon. These reports would offer a substantial foundation for the numerous archaeological endeavors which would take place on Easter Island within the decades to come. A third book by Heyerdahl, The Art of Easter Island, published in 1975, would further compliment this work. Heyerdahl also wrote a popular book about the expedition entitled Aku-Aku (1958). Like Kon-Tiki, Aku-Aku proved immensely popular.4
During the 1960’s, Heyerdahl continued to conduct Polynesian research, writing a number of scientific articles and presenting papers at international archeological forums. A collection of some of his works would be published in 1968 under the name Sea Routes to Polynesia. Further function was conducted on Easter Island within the 1980’s by Heyerdahl and also the Kon-Tiki Museum and function in the website of Tucume in Peru was conducted between 1988 and 1993 (Heyerdahl et al. 1995, 1996). Discoveries at the latter seem to confirm that the extent of ancient Peruvian maritime culture might have been hitherto woefully underestimated and several findings may provide a link to Easter Island (Heyerdahl 1997).
In examining the work of Thor Heyerdahl, beginning with the Kon-Tiki, 1 can discern a distinct Heyerdahl research methodology. His approach is interdisciplinary and he does not shy away from practical experimentation whether it involves the replication and testing of ancient watercraft or the looking for of insights to such problems as the carving and moving of the moai of Easter Island. An additional important facet is that he considers and respects nearby traditions as potentially valuable sources of historical info (Heyerdahl 1996c). Furthermore, when he initiates archaeological research, he seeks expert field archaeologists to conduct the work and encourages them to come to their very own conclusions (Smith 1993). Lastly, Heyerdahl’s approach is that of an independent thinker who’s unafraid to take a stand against the majority if he feels that he is on the right path.
Despite a lifetime of important and interesting function, Heyerdahl isn’t universally appreciated by the archaeological community today.5 In a summary of a recent book, a distinguished scholar of Polynesia, wrote that among the essays included within the volume “should lay to rest forever the Heyerdahl impertinence, which sought to persuade Polynesians that their greatest achievements were not their very own, but imports from South America” (Sutton 1994:243). Robert Langdon’s response to the scholar’s charge of impertinence is worth quoting:
Unlike some academics, Heyerdahl has usually pursued truth as he sees it fearlessly, and occasionally in the risk of his own life. Even if he were completely wrong about who was who and who did what in prehistoric Polynesia, to suggest that he should not have even tried to demonstrate his version of truth is an appalling impertinence come from an academic [Langdon 1994:318].
You will find some who even group Heyerdahl, due to his non-establishment viewpoints, with the pseudo-scientists and so-called “cult archaeologists” who promote lost continents and ancient visitations by alien astronauts (e.g. Theroux 1992:437; Wauchope 1962:103-114). Such a comparison is patently unfair. Heyerdahl’s function, although often controversial, is grounded in scientific evidence and constrained by the physical laws of the earth. He can, however, be accused of possessing a belief in human possible such as the opinion that humans in the past had been intelligent, creative and capable.
One might propose that the distaste for some of Heyerdahl’s work is symptomatic of a wide anthropological disdain for diffusionist and migrationist ideas partially because of their overuse and abuse as wholesale explanations during the last century and early part of this one (Adams 1978; Fingerhut 1994:169-196; Williams 1991). Both of these concepts, however, unappealing as they may be to some modern scholars, are well-recognized cultural processes that have shaped the course of human history for ages.
Sadder yet are snide comments suggesting some sort of deceit, as exemplified by a letter published not lengthy ago in an important and respected journal dealing with Polynesian archaeology. The cynical writer refers to a recent experimental boat expedition as an additional example of “the Kon-Tiki con” (Bock 1995:38). In response, I can provide two small known personal facts about Thor Heyerdahl that ought to be mentioned which speak to his integrity of purpose. Initial, within the instant aftermath of the Kon-Tiki expedition and then within the decades that followed, Heyerdahl has turned down what would amount to a really big private fortune by not accepting a wide variety of commercial endorsements. He never wanted to be accused of performing what he does for monetary acquire. Much of his income has been derived from the books he has written and from his expedition films. Furthermore, Heyerdahl has consistently reinvested his earnings back into his archaeological analysis. The subsequent expeditions towards the Galapagos in 1953, Easter Island in 1955/56 and other scientific efforts were personally funded by him using the financial fruits of his earlier function.
I find it curious that books such as Kon-Tiki and Aku-Aku have invited scorn in some scholars, perhaps due to the disdain amongst some toward the popularization of their discipline, and Heyerdahl has even been accused of widespread dissemination of “misinformation” to the public. Due to his private recognition and the reality that his books are so widely read, some may claim that the public is generally unaware with the “mainstream views” of Polynesian archaeology.6 To the contrary, one can argue that these well written and exciting books have had a very good effect and no doubt stimulate an interest in Polynesia regardless of whether or not 1 chooses to accept Heyerdahl’s views (e.g. Ryan 1997:15-16). I frequently wonder how many of Heyerdahl’s detractors had been originally attracted towards the field of Polynesian analysis by reading Kon-Tiki, Aku-Aku or maybe Fatu-Hiva! And how many of them are aware of the numerous scientific publications by Heyerdahl that serve as the scientific foundation behind his popular works? How numerous have had their attitudes passed on to them by others in lieu of their very own independent assessment?
Conclusions:
Fifty years following the expedition, the Kon-Tiki nonetheless lives and most archaeologists, informed or otherwise, nonetheless preserve strong opinions on the subject. The actual raft itself still survives within the Kon-Tiki Museum in Oslo, Norway. The Museum is among the positive and lasting legacies with the expedition and today serves as a analysis center for Pacific prehistory. The Museum maintains a magnificent Polynesian library and has sponsored a number of major archaeological expeditions (e.g. Skjolsvold 1994).
The Kon-Tiki has also survived in well-liked culture. The name has been applied to all manner of goods and services with the apparent intent to connote a sense of adventure or an atmosphere with the South Pacific. In 1997, a search with the name “Kon-Tiki” on the web revealed an amazing variety including the following: Scuba diving schools in Thailand and also the Philippines; solar energy goods in Slovenia, a brand of camper caravans and a style of yacht, a travel bureau in Yugoslavia, scouting groups in the Netherlands and South Africa, drinking establishments in the Virgin Islands and Arizona, a resort in Fiji along with a hotel in Turkey. These join a long list of poems, songs as well as grape varieties named following the Kon-Tiki (Evensberget 1994:101; Jacoby 1968:192). Heyerdahl is not related with any of these enterprises, and as I noted previously, receives no monetary compensation from such.
Although many critics remain, the public along with a goodly number of scholars continue to admire Thor Heyerdahl and his function. Today he remains 1 with the most honored and decorated living anthropologists. In Peru, for example, exactly where his suggestions had been once scoffed at, he has lately received his second honorary doctorate from Lima universities, and the Instituto de Estudios Historico-Maritimos has proudly published his book on seafaring in early Peru (Heyerdahl 1996a). South American influences within the Pacific are again becoming considered with new discoveries in Peru (Heyerdahl 1997; Heyerdahl et al. 1995, 1996) and human osteological evidence on Easter Island (e.g. Chapman and Gill 1997). Furthermore, there is a recent renewal of interest in the concept of a connection between the American Pacific Northwest and Polynesia.
Given all the controversy, why is he nonetheless so extremely well-liked? Thor Heyerdahl seems to appeal to a public sense of scientific adventure and to a sense of private decency in a world that is lacking in positive living public role models. His life today in numerous methods transcends his roots with the Kon-Tiki travel as he has become a spokesman for globe peace, scientific exploration along with a healthy global environment. His books have inspired more than one generation now, instilling wonder and excitement about science, exploration and also the human past (Ralling 1990:321-327; Ryan 1997).
A lot has changed in archaeology and scholarship since the Kon-Tiki travel and also the writing of American Indians within the Pacific. And although there persists a certain unwillingness by numerous to think about the concept of American influences within the Pacific, the subject remains, at least in my opinion, sufficiently provocative and viable to keep the door open. It’s clear that the final word on the human past in the Pacific and adjacent lands has yet to be written and our suggestions might fluctuate for many years to come as new evidence is produced and old evidence is discarded or reconsidered. Via it all, Heyerdahl is convinced that the story with the human past is far richer than we have ever imagined. I should agree. The Pacific Ocean is big enough for a variety of scholars to think about its great and mostly unknown history such as ideas involving the Americas, lost caravels (Langdon 1975) and also the Lapita (Kirch 1997). Whilst some might select other approaches to research, they ought to not deny Heyerdahl his. He has developed a distinctive niche of inquiry and methodology that has contributed mightily towards the debate, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the ideas and a few of the controversy surrounding the Kon-Tiki travel will persist for a minimum of another 50 years.
