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
I think the following is a good citation for the "when?" tag after footnote 28, last para under "Theory on Polynesian origins." Please forgive formatting - I don't do this much. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2814%2901220-2

Current Biology Volume 24, Issue 21, 3 November 2014, Pages 2518–2525 Genome-wide Ancestry Patterns in Rapanui Suggest Pre-European Admixture with Native Americans J. Víctor Moreno-Mayar, Simon Rasmussen, Andaine Seguin-Orlando, Morten Rasmussen, Mason Liang, Siri Tennebø Flåm, Benedicte Alexandra Lie, Gregor Duncan Gilfillan, Rasmus Nielsen, Erik Thorsby, Eske Willerslev, Anna-Sapfo Malaspinas 66.44.50.218 (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC) 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

The article refers to "two" balsa logs comprising the Kon Tiki. My recollection from reading the book about 55 years ago is that it had about seven logs 202.27.88.62 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

Creating fake artifacts
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)

Ahhh, this might be the article I was thinking of: Kon Artist?. At any rate, it tells of how Heyerdahl paid local craftmen to create artifacts that he passed off as ancient. Riordanmr (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2019 (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)

In Grade 8, our English teacher made us all read Kon Tiki. Enthralling stuff; and we got to watch the documentary film too (I believe it won an Oscar) that Heyerdahl had made. But I'm a little amazed that nobody has bothered to mention the one thing that instantly proved to me, even when I was 13, that Heyerdahl was wrong. In the book he says specifically that once they left Peru, they got caught in a sort of circulating current a little ways off the coast and for days just went round and round. Unable to break out, they hired a tugboat to pull them away from its influence. Since Heyerdahl says in the book that the current was more or less permanent, it means that the ancient Peruvians could not possibly have made the voyage, unless of course, they had tugboats to help them out too.Theonemacduff (talk) 06:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In the book, Heyerdahl says that the Peruvian minister of marine had ordered a tug boat to tow the barge out to where it would be clear of coastal traffic. Once the tug determined they were clear, it left them, and they had no other help from a tug. He says they were towed to a place where Indians used to fish in their rafts; hence rafts could get out that far from the shore without the help of a tug (p. 63, 65 of the 1950 English translation in hardback). The incident you describe does not exist in the book. Kinetic yankee (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2013 (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.  &rArr;  Jarlaxle Artemis   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)

/// "he should have stayed closer to home" so all this discrediting on his scientific background and suppositions on his beliefs come down to you not agreeing that people study cultures other then their own... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.182.134.36 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2013 (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 and Kon-Tiki seem to be covering exactly the same ground. I propose that they are merged. Matt 14:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC).


 * Very belatedly ✅. The two sections covered largely the same ground, and the validity of Heyerdahl's anthropological theory has little relevance to the actual vessel Kon-Tiki but plenty of relevance to this article, the biography of Heyerdahl. Surprised this wasn't done sooner. Euryalus (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2009 (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 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)

I object. Who says they couldn't use oars or a 'pack' of canoes to tow them toward the current? Kon-Tiki was their king, don't forget. Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it not a little far fetched to suggest a 100 km tow out to a current about which even the King could have known very little? Clearly the blasa craft could make it across an ocean but I have seen no evidence to suggest that there was a culture that was interested in anything other than coastal voyages for trade. Unlike the western Pacific the eastern part of the ocean is not fringed with small islands that provide a launch platform for a maritime culture. Heyerdahl's evidence that the South Americans even made it as far as the Galapagos is very slim and there is none at all to suggest that they settled there. The whole premise of Heyerdahl's argument is that because something isn't impossible it becomes more probable. However if something is highly unlikely in the 1st place it isn't made any more credible just because it is shown that it isn't actually impossible.

Also the article mentions that a small percentage of Pacific Islander's DNA seems to be of South American origin but could it not have been inherited through Europeans who had been in intimate contact with South Americans since the late 13th Century? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.217.34 (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2017 (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


 * I think it was mentioned in the 2009 BBC series The Incredible Human Journey and presumably in Dr Alice Roberts' follow-up book, but I have neither of the above so can't be certain. ISTR the origin of modern Polynesians was Taiwan.  Anyone? Mr Larrington (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Mr Larrington - Are you still here? I saw an episode of NOVA recently about Rapanui, the statues, the Pacific cultures, and migrations. DNA information is changing. Those kinds of statements need recent genetics papers as sources.
 * Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

Criticism?
Seems to be some relevant information: Tommfuller (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.brokenatlas.com/how-thor-heyerdahl-got-it-wrong/
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science-dna-shows-how-thor-heyerdahl-got-it-wrong-1137388.html


 * The first link of the two is now dead, as the site appears to be defunct. Here are two to replace it:
 * http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2010/11/04/thor-heyerdahl-and-hyperdiffus/\
 * http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/02/did-easter-islanders-mix-it-south-americans
 * Kaweah (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Legacy
The following text is slanted towards Heyerdahl:


 * Heyerdahl's expeditions were spectacular, and his heroic journeys in flimsy boats caught the public imagination. Although much of his work remains controversial within the scientific community, Heyerdahl undoubtedly increased public interest in ancient history and in the achievements of various cultures and peoples around the world — he also showed that long distance ocean voyages were technically possible even with ancient designs. As such, he was a major practitioner of experimental archaeology. Heyerdahl's books served to inspire several generations of readers. He introduced readers of all ages to the fields of archaeology and ethnology by making them attractive through his colorful adventures. This Norwegian adventurer often broke the bounds of conventional thinking and was unapologetic for doing so.

It's OK to quote a reliable source saying this stuff, but to just dump it in the article like this uncited would seem to violate WP:NPOV, especially for someone with significant critics and detractors. SlubGlub (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and updated the text to say this:


 * Heyerdahl's expeditions were spectacular and caught the public imagination. Although much of his work remains unaccepted within the scientific community, Heyerdahl increased public interest in ancient history and anthropology. He also showed that long distance ocean voyages were possible with ancient designs. As such, he was a major practitioner of experimental archaeology. He introduced readers of all ages to the fields of archaeology and ethnology.

SlubGlub (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC) I was inspired by him when I was young (1970's), but I agree that the former version was over the top.

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The article stated that the documentary on Thor Heyerdahls expedition had a Norwegian, Swedish and Scandinavian. Though I couldn't find a relevant source. In general it seemed strange, since Scandinavia commonly refers to Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and some include more of the Nordic countries. It seems unlikely that there would be a special "Scandinavian version", and since it was no citation in the text I removed it. Feel free to change it back if you find a source supporting if I am mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffeelskeren (talk • contribs) 13:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Deity?

 * Thor Heyerdahl (October 6, 1914, Larvik, Norway – April 18, 2002, Colla Micheri, Italy) was a Norwegian deity ...

In all the talk about whether or not he was really a scientist... how has it been overlooked that he is currently described as a god?? Am I missing something here, or has he been confused with his namesake. It doesn't seem to be a recent prank, at least, I couldn't find it in the recent editing history. --Annihilannic (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

More body
I think the opening paragraph should now be bigger commensurate with the size of the Page. I think that people need to remember that the Notability of the man does not neccesarily have much to do with whether he was right or not- the travels and the award-winning film and the sponsorship and support etc all stand whatever.

I also think that the article should have at least a little more about the man outside of his work- maybe family, early life, whatever people might want to know about him as a person.

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Güimar Pyramids
In the paragraph about the pyramids in Tenerife I think it should be made clear that evidence points to Heyerdahl's theories as being wrong and without base. --212.64.176.20 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Sorry, didn't realize I wasn't logged-in anymore... --Mariannep (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC) I'd say the entire page needs more of that. Demigord (talk) 03:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Link from Norwegian newspaper today
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article4210727.ece

The name of this article, translates into "DNA findings support Heyerdahl" ("DNA-funn støtter Heyerdahl" ).

If someone has any "English links" about these DNA findings, then please place the link here. Cheers,--Narant (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * and . Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The quote that's being added and removed
Can yalls discuss this here? Your edit summaries are confusing. Why should the quote be removed, and why should it stay? — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Origins of which Polynesians?
AFAIK Heyerdahl never claimed that all Polynesians, but only some of them, came from America. I don't think, for instance, that he disputed that Polynesian languages were obviously linked to Southeast Asia languages. So I don't think that it's really relevant to write that "Polynesia was settled from west to east, migration having begun from the Asian" or that "the mitochondrial DNA of the Polynesians is more similar to people from southeast Asia than to people from South America, showing that their ancestors most likely came from Asia": did Heyerdahl dispute the fact that most Polynesians have Asian origins? Apokrif (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Criticism of Thor Heyerdahl is not neutral or literally a legitimate criticism
Although this is cited from a book, it is rhetorical, ad hominem and defamatory in its obvious assertion that Mr. Heyerdahl was some sort of nazi sympathizer. A true criticism would have elements of critical thinking and reasonable parsing of facts (i.e. the date of Feb. 1938 would be an important factor etc..) and not "lack of objections to national socialism..." This citation should be removed or placed under an "Opinions" category at best. DixieDear (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The material you removed from the article was correctly referenced and should not have been removed. However, if you have other material that supports your view that Kvam's book is indeed "rhetorical, ad hominem and defamatory", then feel free to add to the criticism section citing reliable sources.  If you believe Kvam's book is not a reliable source, then bring your evidence here to this talk page.
 * Wikipedia strives for a neutral point-of-view using verifiable material that has already been published elsewhere, even if it is critical of the subject. With such claims, on both sides of such views, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  As to whether the "criticism" section should be renamed "opinions" or "legacy" or something else, I'll leave that for further discussion.  Astronaut (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that the criticism of Heyerdahl's visit with Hans Günther is more than trivial. Heyerdahl's hypothesis that the Polynesians were descendants of a "light-skinned" race has also been mentioned. Heyerdahl did not associate himself with Nazi's. The contrary seems more the case. He briefly served in the Norwegian army against the Nazis and included allied war heroes as participants on the Kon-tiki. The following is a quote from Andersson,


 * submitted by drs (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC) in response to RfC.

If you read my above edit then you'll see i didn't say anything about Kvam's book being rhetorical. The statement, 'lack of objection to the national socialist regime..." in the context which its used   does not constitute a literal and legitimate criticism. It is irrelevant who said it and from what source. it is rhetorical and (like i said) an opinion at best. DixieDear (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

•Interrupted by the outbreak of the Second World War, Heyerdahl returned to Norway to volunteer for the Free Norwegian Forces, eventually serving in a Norwegian parachute unit in Finnmark.

Trained as a saboteur (shot if caught). As far as the substance of the criticism, this would tend to challenge the validity of Mr. Heyerdahl's "lack of objections to the national socialist regime." DixieDear (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The "criticism" is irrelevant and several statements in the text were incorrect. Günther was a respected scientist at the time, who had researched race for decades (long before the Nazis appeared), and Heyerdahl was an anthropology student, who talked to him, bringing a gift from a trip abroad. The theories of Günther were appropriated by Hitler, and Günther let himself celebrate by the Nazis, ok, every University professor wants to be the leading men in his field. After the war, Günther was CLEARED of any participation in Nazi political or criminal wrongdoing. Besides, "lack of objection" is the choice of about 99% of the world's population concerning about 99% of issues, it means that one just doesn't want to opine either way, for whatever reason. The whole skull episode could be added in a single sentence at the chronologically right place. Kraxler (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't delete this until the RfC is concluded. Kvam seems to be a reliable source and I can see no reason why we can't use him. We make it clear that it is Kvam who is saying this, and on en.wiki we allow opinions, so that is not a valid objection. Nor is the comment 'it is not neutral' relevant - of course it's not neutral, but we don't exclude material because it shows praise or criticsm. How we word it is another issue. I'll also say that this does not belong in a separate criticism section as there is criticism elsewhere in the article. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to Kvam as a Historian one can safely assume he is accurate in his facts. The question is why would he (or his editor) include a statement like that? Sure he is entitled to his opinions and criticisms in his book but like you said "how we word it is another issue." His wording is rhetorical, non sequitur, out of context, non factual (as Kraxler points out and evidence shows) and so on. If Kvam would have worded it " In this author's opinion and to my knowledge Heyerdahl did not speak out or object to the nazi regime at the time (1938) but infact brought a scull etc etc..." This might qualify as a criticism. But instead he makes an inference (nazi/racist/white supremacy - let the reader decide) with no time constraints and "lack of objections to" qualifier followed by an accounting of his contact etc.. with the third reich in Feb. 1938.... I don't want to have to break out my Creative Writing (or Logic) Textbook(s) from College to have to pick this apart anymore, it grammatically doesn't pass the test (aside from the rest). DixieDear (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I agree with Dougweller - we should include Kvam and his criticisms, but weave it into one of the existing sections. The "Criticisms" section sticks out a bit too much in the current version, and as Doug points out there is already criticism included in some of the other sections. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not add this section again until this discussion is finished. It gives WP:Undue weight (being a whole section, and standing there alone) to an attempt to mark Heyerdahl as a Nazi, for no reason at all. Besides, Günther had a Norwegian wife, possibly an acquaintance of Heyerdahl, his parents or his teachers. He might have just called socially on Günther, and have small-talked about Günther's theory without taking any side on the issue. Kvam, as a historian, is inaccurate, tendentious and tries to create noise to sell his book. Per WP:Reliable sources, I would say he is an unreliable source. Please don't get het up about deleting some irrelevant, unencyclopedic trivia. Kraxler (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's deleting it during a discussion which is IMHO wrong, especially when you say (in your edit summary) "that we have a guidelines that "says to avoid controversial content". We have no such guideline, where did you get that idea? If that's your reason for deleting it it's just plain wrong. And your opinon on Kvam isn't enough to claim he isn't a reliable source, nor is your speculation. Dougweller (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Kraxler, I think you must have been thinking of someone else: I've never edited the article. As for the reliability of the source, I can see no reason to question it in particular (although it would help if I could speak Norwegian). Most importantly, Gyldendal, the publisher who published Kvam's books, looks perfectly respectable, so I think we should include it unless there is good evidence to the contrary. Note that saying we should include it isn't the same as saying we should present it in a favourable light - I suspect the devil will be in the details here. I'm thinking that we should weave it into one of the existing sections above, attribute it to Kvam (as it is already), and also include Andersson's thoughts on the matter (maybe a short paraphrase of the quote that drs included above). Let's just cover both sides of the issue and let readers decide for themselves. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kraxler (and to some extent with Mr. Stradivarius). The statement "lack of objections to" is ambiguous, vague and requires citations and/or definition to be used in any context as a qualifier. In this case its Mr. Kvam, more than Mr. Heyerdahl, that is suspect. DixieDear (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's my one and only contribution on this issue...

I'll unwatch because this is outside my area of expertise/interest. If someone wants me, please don't hesitate to post to my talk page. Please play nice and fair (because you're all doing a wonderful job providing information to WP's readers). GFHandel &#9836; 05:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The long-standing text should stay in the article until debate by locals decides the outcome.
 * Wikipedia should present at least some of the information in the disputed section because it is important to report all aspects of a subject (even if that's just historical movement and activity). Accordingly, I'm disappointed by editors who wish to delete (rather than rework).
 * I'd be comfortable with the removal of the "Criticism" section heading, and the integration of the information in that section into other areas of the article. "Criticism" is pejorative, and it would seem for this subject's life that isn't warranted. How about you guys rework the facts into other areas of the article so that our readers can make up their own minds?

I would just add that Kvam is the only quote under this "Criticism". I've made my case that it is not a criticism on the grounds of the rules of literature, grammar, logic, structure, reasoning etc... Kraxler has shown evidence in the factual (and other areas) also. Criticism, in written form at least, requires facts. Is it possible it could be an opinion, subjective, gut-feeling, he-knew-the-man, etc...? Of course. But alas fails that test as well in its present form - he doesn't commit - and leaves himself a disclaimer by the undefined "lack of objections to" and all the obvious/myriad interpretations of that i.e. "should he have objected-and to who?", "did he object but Kvam has no knowledge?", " he objected but not enough i.e. 'lack of' ".. and so on. Its word-craft at best the same way a politician would say " I'm not opposed to" is not committing. I stand by my claim that it is rhetorical, ad hominem (on several counts) and defamatory in its inference. Kvam is an Unreliable Source as his "criticism' totally lacks foundation. The whole quote should be removed. DixieDear (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing defamatory in a person's former support of fascism. Taken to extreme case: if Hitler was still alive, would the article about him avoid mentioning his support of fascism. Though this statement may seem demagogic, please, think it over before replying. I don't watch this page; if my response is needed, inform me with talkback on my talk page. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

All I can say to that is, wow. Anyway, can we come to some final agreement about this? I would say, remove the Kvam text and (if you must) add the Axel Andersson citation as he makes it clear he is speculating and there is no evidence other than circumstantial. Having said that, if this was a Court of Law a Judge would throw that out and strike it from the record on the basis of "opinion and attempt to prejudice the jury." DixieDear (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit concerned that Kvam's material on Heyerdahl doesn't seem to have much traction outside of Norwegian language material. What evidence is there that other people take this "criticism" seriously? Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well the user Czarkoff two comments above for one...but maybe he's Norwegian and not "other people." DixieDear (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * About coming to a final agreement - if you think this has been debated enough, then you can request closure by an administrator at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Best —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes i would say its been debated enough since no one has brought any evidence, what so ever, that supports a frivolous, slanderous inference labeled as "criticism." On the other hand the evidence is considerable and conclusive that Mr. Heyerdahl abhorred national socialism with all its aggressive, perverse and racial ideologies. Unless anyone has anything else to add, its unfortunate that we can't reach a reasonable consensus in this forum - and astonishing this text has remained in place as long as it has. DixieDear (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * From reading through this and then the article, I'm of the opinion that the section sticks out like a sore thumb and should be removed. The content of that section could either be deleted; or the parts about the meeting, the gift of the skull, and "...one of the leading men in the new Reich" could be incorporated in its chronological place in the article, though I don't think the reader would be missing out on anything if it was simply gone.  The stuff about Kvam criticizing him for not being more outspoken about the Third Reich, however, is out of place does not add anything factual about Heyerdahl.  It is just one critic's opinion.  If this was a widely discussed point of Heyerdahl's life...OR if Kvam was an extremely prominent critic...then sure, include it.  But as it stands it seems like a lot of discussion about a piece of info that is not a fact, but just one man's conclusion/opinion and is not verifiable unless another source comes to light.  Just because someone says something in a a book does not make it note-worthy.  This is like the opposite of undue weight.  It's trivia. Quinn &#9617; RAIN  19:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with that. I'm much more concerned with the lack of any mention of the concerns expressed below as these are discussed by several reliable sources. Dougweller (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Should there be a section on discussion by various scholars of possible racism?
Kvam attracted a lot of attention in Norway with these comments. But I think we have missed the real issue, and that is the issue of Heyerdahl's attitude towards race and the criticisms of racism that his work has received. For instance, Anderersson is quote above, but he also wrote about what he called Heyerdahl's "racist message".. We already have one quote by him and too many quotes can be copyvio, so I ask people to read the whole page, but the introduction says " Unfortunately Heyerdahl was almost never challenged when it came to the racism of his theories, neither at the time of the Kon-Tiki nor, surprisingly, at any time later. ... The racism in the Kon-Tiki theory that was so clearly articulated by Heyerdahl became invisible with a disturbing ease. That it also remained equally uncommented on throughout the second half of the twentieth century shows the stubborn persistency of racial theories. Now the time has come not to dismiss Heyerdahl as a racist but to uncover the sooty kernel at the heart of Heyerdahls fantasy, and our fantasy of Heyerdahl." He discusses this topic a number of times, eg p.93"Heycrdahl did, from the moment of his break-through, succeed in making 'invisible' both the construction of his epic plot as well as the racist and sexist premises of his story." He has a whole chapter on "Racism, sexism and Universality". Then we have the Encyclopedia of islands By Rosemary by G. Gillespie, D. A. Clague, University of California Press. "The suppo\ed Caucasoid features of Viracocha appealed to Hcyerdahl, who at one time w« a corre- spondent of Hum Gucmltcr. the author of Nazi racist anthropological texts that emphasized the superiority of the Nordic "race." The "red" heard and blue eyes of Viracocha are nowhere mentioned in Peruvian legends: these attributes were added by Heyerdahl to strengthen the Nordic connection."

The Statues That Walked: Unraveling the Mystery of Easter Island By Terry Hunt, Carl Lipo. "For Heyerdahl, simply tracing the "cause" of Rapa Nui culture back to Europe solved the apparent paradox of cultural achievement. Leaving its racist assumptions aside, empirical support for this argument is entirely lacking."

IIn 1954 in the journal American Antiquity Edward Norbeck wrote in a review of 'American Indians in the Pacific "It will be difficult for many persons to avoid reading racism from this work."

In 2004 in the journal Anthropological Forum: A journal of social anthropology and comparative sociology Graham Holton of the Institute of Latin American Studies wrote the article "Heyerdahl’s Kon Tiki Theory and the Denial of the Indigenous Past" where he said "The core of the Kontiki theory is that a white race came irom the Middle hast to the Americas and then on to Polynesia to leach the dark-skinned people the arts of civilisation (Heyerdahl 1952). Edward Norbeck attacked the book for Heyerdahl's assumptions, and asserted that it was 'difficult for many persons to avoid reading racism from this work* (quoted in Wauchope 1962, 120). Throughout the text, Heyerdahl uses concepts such as 'racial hygiene', 'racial cleansing', and 'race wars'. Heyerdahl's theory holds that a blond/red-haired, blue-eyed, dynastic 'race' of masons and miners migrated around the world civilising the dark-skinned 'races'" (I've read the book, by the way, and Norbeck is right, but that's OR).

That's just from a quick search, so there must be more. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there is. First of all "theory" is not used in scientific method (its hypothesis) until enough empirical (or compelling) evidence is gathered, tested in a real world environment and has enough peer review to qualify as a theory.
 * Second of all there is no evidence to support that he was a racist i.e. motivated by the premise  first - of 'light skinned people' civilized the world of "dark skinned people." Objectivity, facts, plus the time frame studied - alone disqualifies that.
 * Thirdly using terms like 'racial cleansing' etc.. does not make him a racist i.e. the people in his studies were seemingly engaging in these acts - unfortunately that continues even now.
 * Fourthly, being an Anthropologist he knew that thousands of years earlier it was "dark skinned people" who migrated north and east etc.. and the development of civilizations from there.
 * When you start trying to attach the nefarious label of racism to any subject is when you enter a realm no intelligent and reasonable person wants to go, and the least of which any scientist who wants to follow the evidence to advance his hypothesis. Mr. Heyerdahl, right or wrong, opened up a whole new area of thinking about the origins and migrations of different cultures. In other words: he challenged conventional orthodox thinking to offer another POV - to try and explain the mysteries of the →Similarities← between cultures, civilizations and races - his Life Mission. These mysteries are still unsolved but he offered new perspectives (if not the first to do so) which has lead to new and exciting hypothesis, theories and challenging new mysteries. If you want to bring the "racist issue" into it, go ahead. At least do it literally/grammatically correct such as the Andersson quote (which is still ad hominem) but one has to be very careful when picking up that racist stone (scholars or no) because it can bounce right back and hit you. BTW his Humanitarian Efforts. Where does that fit in to your racist hyperbole... hypothesis?  DixieDear (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A criticism section should be enough to capture the controversy. This is what the article should report, the controversy, with sound scholarly sources. It would be surprising if a "light-skinned, red-haired" hypothesis did not result in some racist charges. If the scholars discuss racism as part of Heyerdahl's ideas, then Wikipedia should report that. The issue is not whether he was a racist, or not, but what do the published authors contend, etc. Also, how much weight does the contention deserve. drs (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. Bring your reliable sources expressing all sides of the controversy.  If Kvam claims Heyerdahl was not critical enough of the Nazis, then let the article say that.  If some other reliable source says Kvam was talking out of his arse, then let the article cite that too.  And if Anderson wants to sit on the fence between the two, then there's room in the article to cite this middle opinion as well.
 * In my opinion, the sources found by Dougweller seem pretty useful too and are probably worthy of inclusion in an expanded criticism section.  Astronaut (talk) 13:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And, as I was going to say when I got up in an edit conflict when DixieDare amended xe's post, without comments on alleged hyperbole, possible racism of editors (if I understood 'bounce back' correctly', or argument about whether or not he was racist, etc. My attempt to make a shorter & better section heading was also caught up in the edit conflict which I've just noticed. When you have 140+ tabs open things get lost! Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then write your comment correctly the first time, make it complete with qualifiers and examples, and if you are able, short and concise. We are talking about accusing an Honorable Man (received many) of being guilty of one of the most base, pervasive and dark sides of human beings. "criticisms" and opinions are a dime dozen and probably the most pervasive of human nature. Simple cutting and pasting is not good enough (IMHO). This is an on-line encyclopedia try and be scholarly and editorial yourself as writing for an encyclopedia, please. DixieDear (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I did write it correctly the first time, it got caught in an edit conflict and by the time I noticed it was obsolete. I was cutting and pasting to show that there were sources, that's all. That is good enough to show that the issue is real and should be in the article. You can't dismiss it by saying opinions are a dime a dozen. If you are editing logged out, please let us know and try not to do it in the future, although most editors do it from time to time inadvertently. And we really should not be discussing other editors here, could you please stop doing this? And please indent, see WP:INDENT. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I got it and thanks.

This is my final comment for awhile. I plan to go and read Kon Tiki (again) but this time with the "seed" of racism that's been planted in my mind (and stomach) - for all the obvious "reasons." I would hope that reasonable people would do some serious research at this point as well. The "blue eye red hair" and "light skinned" monikers have been used over and over and over. I would just add at this point - to the best of my recollection - Mr. Heyerdahl got these terms from the Oral History of the natives he was studying. BTW he was the first to take into account Oral History as a serious element in research. Since then, and thanks to the use of Oral History (along with new ways of dating, examining data, bring in other sciences, etc..) there have been numerous discoveries and re-discoveries Worldwide. Many of these discoveries have turned conventional Anthropology and Archeology on their heads....but that's another discussion. DixieDear (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I remember, the "red hair" originated with the authentic and unquestionable red stone covers on the heads of Easter Island moais. Anytime I feel like wasting time I will answer (and refute) the above arguments about racism and Nazism (two VERY distinct things, in my opinion, or are/were white people in Alabama Nazis?). Kraxler (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Kraxler, please understand that although we can argue about what sources we should use and how we should use them, we should not be arguing about racism and Nazism (and note this is a separate subsection on racism alone). It's simply a fact that scholars have commented on what they see as racism in his writings. It's not our role to dispute this but to present in in a way that is congruent with our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Scholars (plural)???? I see in the disputed section one entry, one point of view, one factually incorrect statement. That's the reason for the POV tag. Who is Kvam anyway? A Scholar? Who says so? Do you speak Norwegian, to read his book, his credentials? Kraxler (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Kraxler, this subsection mentions a number of scholars and is not about Kvam. However I'm surprised you don't know who Kvam is. You can find his biography on the Norwegian Wikipedia, but let's not discuss him in this section. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're quite right, I won't discuss the talk page. I discuss the content of the article page, per wiki guidelines. As long as the section is POV, the POV tag remains, and it's ok with me. Rewrite the section, or eliminate it and add the criticisms at the proper place in the article, and we will see. Americans seem to be quite race-obsessed, like Obama's election was all about race not politics... I'll have none of it. Race is a fact, it's required to be stated by many government departments throughout the world, in Brazil there are now race quotas for access to federal universities ("affirmative action"), and so on. That anthropologists talk about race, and describe and classify them, is part of their work. Günther never advocated the extermination of any race, and he had researched human races decades before the Nazis ever appeared. To call him a "Nazi race researcher" is grossly misleading and slandering. Look it up at the English Wikipedia article on him. I've read Kontiki, Fatu Hiva and Aku aku, and at no time got any "racist message" out of it. Much to the contrary, Heyerdahl was there to elicit the true ancient history of these people, if possible, mingling with them and listening to them. Kraxler (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be discussing whether Heyerdahl was racist, and that's not what this page is for. This section is not discussing Gunther! Why do you keep using this section instead of the section above which is where this belongs?? Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dougweiler, you are discussing if he was racist, see your owns posts in this section above. And, I'm answering your posts, so I add at the bottom. My opinion on the section per se is added at the previous thread and was seconded by Quinn. What more do we need to just remove the section "Criticism"? It's unverifiable anyway, since nobody seems to speak Norwegian here. Kraxler (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not discussing whether he was racist, I am suggesting that we have a section where we use sources which discuss the possible racism in his work - sources such as the one above plus presumably others which offer a different pov. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment. It seems there are two questions. One is his relationship with Nazis in German in the 1930s, the second is the extend to which his books support  racist views generally.
 * On the first, the deWP which I generally trust, has the paragraph has a paragraph, reading in English (my translation) "A new biography the Norwegian writer  Ragnar Kvam accuses,  Heyerdahl of collaboration with the Nazis. He cooperated in 1938 with one of the leading race scientists, the German National Socialist Professor Hans FK Günther, and   enthusiastically commented in a letter on the 'character-solid German race'. [6]"  The reference is to a newspaper article, Welt Online -- English translation. This is not enough to truly show Nazi sympathies, but might be appropriate  in the article here, along with a ref to  Ragnar Kvam jr. Thor Heyerdahl, Mannen og havet. v 1., 2005. v II,  2008 . v 3 scheduled for  2011 but not yet published. I notice the book is in almost no US academic libraries, so I suppose it a work of popular journalism. see the Norwegian article on him.
 * As for the second, the theories seem not to have been sufficient racist to attract criticism at the time. In the more sensitive recent decades, an implied racism has been read back into them. There seem to be sufficient references to support it, but I think the words "hypothesized" and "implied" need to be used,. I also think it would be very improper indeed to summarize him as a racist in the lede or elsewhere.  DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly wasn't suggesting calling him a racist. That some scholars see some of his work as racist is obviously true, and there are reliable sources. I'm not convinced that those actual words need using. I need to find some time to work on this if no one else does. Dougweller (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the above, Kvam seems to be NOT a scholar, but a yellow press journalist... Kraxler (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Going back over this today, I just noticed DGG's comment "the theories seem not to have been sufficient racist to attract criticism at the time." This isn't correct, they certainly attracted criticism from Norbeck. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Fatu Hiva
"his book På Jakt efter Paradiset (Hunt for Paradise) (1938), which was published in Norway but, following the outbreak of World War II, never translated and largely forgotten."

It was translated and published in USSR in 1950s.

Here is a link to a text in Russian, with later edition cover.

http://www.bukvaved.net/roman/54726-vmpoiskakhmraja.html

I can look for it in my old library of 1950s-60s "geographical" paperbacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tengrie (talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

POV tag
I have added this tag to the article. There seems to have been a removal from the article of content critical of Heyerdahl. I'm not referring to the constant insertions and then deletions of the National Socialist claim. It appears to be a heavily whitewashed article that has removed all mention of his status as a pseudo-historian and the discredited nature of many of his goals and theories. The overly-long "Decorations and honorary degrees" section, complete with a large number of trivial awards, just serves to emphasise how skewed this article is. Meowy 20:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I discussed a lot of this above, with sources, but never got around to working on it, and should have tagged it. If you take a look at these May 2007 edits they removed a controversy section and some other critical material, added a long list of awards. Dougweller (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You think "his status as pseudo-historian" is NPOV? Cheers. Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the exclusion of sources which examine his status as a pseudo-historian is pov. Do you not? Meowy 14:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm agreeing with you I think. We need also to include the fact that a number of scholars find racist elements in his work - my posts above include some sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a really embarrassingly poor article which bends over backwards to excuse his racist theories, such as that the Polynesians arrived on Easter Islands as slaves to white people, the supposed white Viracochas from Peru, to whom he attributed the settlement of Easter Island (and indeed Polynesia as a whole). There is simply no doubt from the archaeological evidence (e.g. monuments, houses, material culture) that Easter Island was a Polynesian settlement, and the most recent DNA analysis (https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)31194-6), which is far more useful than the modern DNA study quoted here as it looked at pre-contact samples confirms this. Quote from the abstract: "Complete mitochondrial genomes and low-coverage autosomal genomes show that the analyzed individuals fall within the genetic diversity of present-day and ancient Polynesians, and we can reject the hypothesis that any of these individuals had substantial Native American ancestry. Our data thus suggest that the Native American ancestry in contemporary Easter Islanders was not present on the island prior to European contact and may thus be due to events in more recent history." European Prehistorian (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Overly respectful?
Information in earlier versions of this article alleging that Heyerdahl was duped by Polynesians in later years, creating "artifacts" to his yearnings, have been removed.

The article has become far more respectful, even reverential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.241.240 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * See my posts above. I wish I had time to work on this. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And still that way now. You almost have to read between the lines to find out how wrong so many of his ideas were. Demigord (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

War service
A few snippets: A little more detail would be nice if someone can dig it up. Snori (talk)
 * "From 1942 until the end of World War II, he led a military life - first in the Free Nowregian Air Force, then in a special parachute unit, and finally as a lieutenanat in an invasion unit operating in the Arctic Norway"
 * "From 1941, Heyerdahl fought in the free Norwegian military forces in Finnmark, at Norway's northernmost extremity. "
 * "Active service World War II Free Norwegian Army Airforce parachute unit (1942-45)"
 * "Knut Haugland first met Thor Heyerdahl in 1944 at a paramilitary training camp in England"

Given that Finnmark was fully occupied by German forces until liberated by the Red Army in 1944 the claim that Heyerdahl was fighting there from 1941 is highly dubious. This is completely unknown to me and doesn't fit with any other documentation I can find. Andre Bergkompani arrived in Kirkenes with the Soviet forces in 1944. This claim is also contradicted by the first claim here, that he didn't join up until 1942 and only later joined the forces set for Finnmark. The fact that he was at a training camp in England should also indicate that this claim is wrong. I will for now change the year to 1944.

Protection, google doodle
Thor Heyerdahl is todays google doodle so it is naturally attracting a large number of view and edits. I'm not sure what the general policy is. For FA on the main page I think we tend to leave them unprotected with an edit notice. Not all todays IP edits have been vandalism so the protection might prevent some good edits.--Salix alba (talk): 11:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Heyerdahl's Theory of Odin's Origins
Considering that Heyerdahl proposed Azerbaijan/Southern Russia to be the site of where Odin would have come from, shouldn't that be consistent with the Indo-European migrations?

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Thor Heyerdahl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719205425/http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/People/Faculty/Hunt/pdfs/Barnesetal2006.pdf to http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/People/Faculty/Hunt/pdfs/Barnesetal2006.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.norway.org/history/expolorers/heyerdahl/heyerdahl.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.novus.no/tidsskrifter/heyerdahl.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thor Heyerdahl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID%3D31401%26URL_DO%3DDO_TOPIC%26URL_SECTION%3D201.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002210937/http://www.forskning.no/temaer/thor_heyerdahl to http://www.forskning.no/temaer/thor_heyerdahl
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211045916/http://www.blueworldexplorer.co.uk/explorers/heyerdahl.htm to http://www.blueworldexplorer.co.uk/explorers/heyerdahl.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thor Heyerdahl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930054834/http://www.apollon.uio.no/vis/art/2007_1/Artikler/paaskeoya to http://www.apollon.uio.no/vis/art/2007_1/Artikler/paaskeoya

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Kon-Tiki.jpg

Repetition
There is a lot of repetition in this article, eg about his death and about modern critiques of the Peruvian theory. The latter appears in at least three different places within it. Needs a big overhaul, which I cannot do using mobile. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Baby : Bathwater
Editor Doug Weller has apparently decided that Thor's first wife, Liv Coucheron Torp -- his partner on the Fatu-Hiva adventure (and first book) and the mother of his first-born -- should not be mentioned at all because he does not trust Find-A-Grave's date of death. I question this decision.2601:601:A080:9D0:80A0:6669:FFA2:9BA3 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Would testimony from her own daughter be sufficient? https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movies/2013/04/27/daughter-recalls-mother-inspiring-role-story/P2nwXHrazU88l4NN54bF7K/story.html 2601:601:A080:9D0:80A0:6669:FFA2:9BA3 (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Thank you, Tribe of Tiger, for fixing this.Rcarlberg (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ,Yes, our IP friend found a good source! I hope to use it to add some additional info to the article. The Fatu Hiva section is rather bare, and this Boston Globe article has some good details. They were married in 1936 and divorced "shortly before ..Kon Tiki", which was in 1947. Liv could not join him on the KT expedition anyway, because she had to stay home & raise their offspring. Thus her name has been lost to history....grrr. Thanks,  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  05:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible racism
Several scholars have commented on what historian Axel Andersson calls Heyerdah's "racist message". A review by anthropologist Edward Norbeck in the journal 'American Antiquity of American Indians in the Pacific said "It will be difficult for many persons to avoid reading racism from this work." In The Statues That Walked: Unraveling the Mystery of Easter Island the author says "This is the tack taken by Thor Heyerdahl, who was convinced that Incan colonists from South America were the makers of the ahu and statues. His assumption goes even further, also claiming that the Incans responsible for the cultural florescence on Rapa Nui were ultimately the descendants of colonists with European origins who taught Native Americans the secrets of “advanced culture.”p110 " Doug Weller talk 16:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC) Doug Weller talk 16:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)