American Indians in the Pacific. The Theory behind the Kon-Tiki Expedition. By Thor Heyerdahl.

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..

The Collective Biography of Archaeology in the Pacific: Seven Years of the CBAP Project

“…Ballesteros Danel wrote on Spanish-language sources concerning ideas of contacts between Polynesia and the Americas from the 16th century on (Ballesteros Danel 2018, 2021; Ballesteros Danel and Arango Jaramillo 2023). Melander's thesis (see also Melander 2017Melander , 2019a covered the genesis and early development of Thor Heyerdahl's views on the putative settlement of Polynesia from the Americas up to Heyerdahl's massive tome American Indians in the Pacific (Heyerdahl 1952). Ricardo Ventura Santos and Douglas (2020) examined the recent claim for a supposed Polynesian genomic input into Botocudo Indian populations in Brazil, tracing the idea's long and tangled history.…”

David’s Weapon of Mass Destruction: The Reception of Thor Heyerdahl’s ‘Kon-Tiki Theory’

“…His attempt at taking a reversed theoretical position was not scorned but celebrated by reviewers and critics. Reed and Ekholm praised Heyerdahl's chapters on Peruvian navigation techniques (Ekholm 1954;Reed 1953); Smith (1953) spoke admiringly about the importance the Kon-Tiki Expedition could have for anthropology (see also Evans 1958); Skinner (1954: 83) stated that the publication of American Indians was ' an important event in the study of Polynesian history'; and Bennett wrote: 'The quantity and quality of the materials which Mr. Heyerdahl has assembled are too great to be ignored. Henceforth, American contributions to the Polynesian cultures will have to be considered' (1953: BR1).…”

“…His lack of formal training was as evident in 1952 as it had been in 1941. This is perhaps most unambiguously expressed in the fact that Heyerdahl's more than 800-page argument for the theory lacked not just a summary, but also a concluding chapter -something reviewers did not fail to note (Nordbeck 1953;Reed 1953). Heyerdahl remained an analytical amateur.…”