Talk:Kon-Tiki expedition

Map of the voyage

It would be nice if there was a map of the voyage included in the article, just to make the distance covered clearer. 94.217.15.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC).

issue with distance

According to Google Maps' measure distance tool, the shortest (i.e., following the curve of the earth) distance between Callao Peru and the Raroia Atoll is 4,360 miles, which is a difference of some 700 miles from the distance mentioned in this article. Considering the Kon Tiki voyage predates satellite imagery, perhaps that is the source of this fairly significant factual discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeeasterly (talk • contribs) 16:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Radio was the only modern equipment?

The article mentions that a radio was the only modern equipment carried onboard Kon-Tiki. However on www.eterna.ch (navigate to Eterna -> Milestones -> 1958) it is mentioned that an Eterna sports watch was worn by Thor Heyerdahl. Isn't this considered modern equipment?

Ferengi 12:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

They had lots of modern equipment, including preserved food and maps. You could argue that the radio wasn't relevant, provided that they didn't use it to obtain weather reports or otherwise to help with navigation. You could argue that the watch wasn't relevant, provided that they didn't use it to help determine their longitude (which is the only obvious reason for taking one). But, overall, it's difficult to argue that they really set out only as well-prepared as those who (according to Heyerdahl) made the original journeys.

Mike Shepherd 21:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This needs rewording. As you say, they took lots of modern equipment: radio, charts, sextant, watches, tinned food, metal tools and fish-hooks (no metal implements would have been available to the people who were supposed to have made the journey), drugs and medicines, even an inflatable dinghy. I suppose the point is that none of these were essential to the validity of the experiment: they could have made the journey without them. That point isn't actually stated in the text though. Matt 14:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.114.156 (talk)

I've tried to reword; please make any further changes you feel are necessary. Matt 14:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.114.156 (talk)

I would like to say, they used a "normal" N.C. 173 Receiver (Ref. to QSL-Card of LI2B). The Equipment is (of course) not waterproof. What Pictures show: The Radio Equipment was "sheltered" in Boxes to give some kind of waterresistance. But for operation radio and transmitter had to be unboxed. The crew descibed their problems with humidity. Edgar Wollenweber, Germany87.154.95.136 (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of Kon-Tiki

This page indicates that kontiki is the sun god. However, the spanish page for INCA indicates that kontiki is the water god, and it also indicates that it was even more important than the sun god named INTI. I believe that there's something here to be check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.232.9.4 (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"incidental" equipment.

I'm sorry, but the very idea of him having a sextant AND charts more than disqualifies this as anything scientific. These things are anything BUT incidental on such a voyage. If they were "incidental" why did he need them at all? Radios and knives, sure, I understand for safety reasons. But a sextant? Navigational charts?!? You've got to be kidding me. The implication that primitive people without these things could travel, in large groups no less (wonder where they carried their fresh water) on canoes, thousands of kilometers and find tiny islands in millions of square miles of ocean by simple canoes is profoundly ridiculous when based only on this single example. I'm not saying it didn't happen - I'm saying this expedition proves nothing.

Obviously - Anything that floated *could* have survived the journey, an empty can of pepsi for instance. That doesn't make the navigation probable in the least given the "incidental" items he used.

At the very least find a RS that says these items were "incidental." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.42.137 (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I made it clearer that the incidental-ness was claimed by Heyerdahl, not some sort of passive voice claim from on high. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The raft was functionally incapable of being steered on a navigational level, and essentially drifted both down-current and downwind on the Humboldt. The charts and sextant allowed them to determine which island they eventually found, but had nothing to do with their successfully finding it. The chief use to which the navigational equipment was put was in making their daily weather reports to the US weather service, which was a condition of funding and aid given to the project. Whatever the validity or otherwise of the Kon-Tiki experiment, the charts and sextant are immaterial.

Ancient peoples following the same route would have been less aware of precisely where they were or where they were going, but they would have wound up in exactly the same place. This is actually the crux of Heyerdahl's theory; not that ancients set out to find Polynesia, but that if they set out at all (or even strayed just a bit too far from shore and got sucked into the current,) it was what they were *going* to find, whether they wanted to or not. The only real question was whether they could survive the trip. The same (minus the question of survival) goes for your hypothetical Pepsi-can.

Three final points. The radio was not carried for safety; the Kon-Tiki spent most of the voyage too far away from shipping lanes for rescue to be remotely feasible. Except for the tug that towed her to see, Kon-Tiki never saw a single vessel until after she'd made land in Polynesia. Kon-Tiki was also simply too small to be rescued; a plane that went to get a last look the day they cast off the tow-rope off Peru gave up and went home without a glimpse of the Kon-Tiki, despite knowing to within a mile where they were. The crew knew a radio would be no help.

Secondly, Kon-Tiki was not a canoe, or anything remotely similar. It was a log raft.

Thirdly, Heyerdahl believed the ancients carried their fresh water in wax-sealed bamboo rods, which was how Kon-Tiki carried much of her own water. The bamboo water in fact survived the journey better than the modern metal cans, which were given to corrosion once removed from the asphalt coating added to protect them.74.101.27.2 (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, this contact from East clearly happened somehow given the genetic evidence. I would be less dismissive of how ancient people could navigate. Clearly the Polynesians could navigate, why couldn't the South Americans? Historical first documents from the Spanish colonization clearly discuss the Incas as able ocean seafarers. They mostly navigated along the coast, but they had dozens of people on the rafts, according to documents. 98.47.237.80 (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Towed 50 miles

You can argue over the effect of modern equipment all you want, but the fact that the boat was towed 50 miles is, IMO, far more significant. Not coincidentally, it took Kon-Tiki past the near-shore currents that would have been impossible for early sailors to get through. Heck, if NASA takes me past Earth's gravity well, I can probably make it to the moon in a homemade spaceship. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewkantor (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

---

If I remember correctly from reading that book, this experiment was about connections of people from Titicaca with Polynesia. They would actually need to start their journey from some river that flows from there and it would carry them to Ocean, and at that point when they they would be near Lima, they would most probably not 50, but 100 miles away and in current, that would take them further to west. Also Lima is just a capital of modern Peru and it did not exist in ancient times, also it looks like worsest place to start Ocean drifting. I really need to reread that part, but I have some memories that intention to start journey was not exactly from Lima, but apparently sponsors made it possible and it is also easier for tourists to visit...

As for homemade spaceship - there are no currents in space - just gravitational waves and that would not take you to the Moon, unless someone directs and shoot you in direction of moon and that is the main difference, why it is not comparable to this project. Also without any push(if NASA just put your homemade spaceship in space) it would take ages to survive in this spaceship in space(and ship then would need to be huge one), not to mention, that it would prove nothing - there are no extra habitable planets in Solar system, that are or were habitated by peoples and we do not have to question how people arrived there. 2.96.195.56 (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Miscategorization of "An-Tiki"

The one sentence regarding the 2011 sailing of An-tiki is under the heading "Popular culture references", which is entirely wrong. It's not "popular culture"; not even close. And it's not a reference, it's a parallel event. This needs to be placed into the "See Also" section. SteveO1951 (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction re modern view of Heyerdahl's theory

I changed some of the text that was not precise as to modern views of Heyerdahl's theory. The text correctly stated that he believed that the South Americans could have populated South Sea islands. The article then incorrectly stated that was a position "discredited" by most anthropologists. That's not true. "Most anthropologist" now believe that the population migration did not go West to East, as Heyerdahl said it could; that is not the same thing as saying that is could not have. Heyerdahl's experimental anthroplogy voyage did prove that the migration could have gone East to West and that capability remains true even if modern DNA studies tend to show that it in fact did not go that way.

Also, the single citation to this modern view was to Wade Davis who, although certainly "award winning", started his speaking career by asserting that "zombie powder" really works (a position certainly "highly discredited by most scientists") and it is stated by Wikipedia that "Davis commissioned a grave robbery of a recently buried child" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wade_Davis So let's not source the entire modern view on the tenuous credibility of Mr. Davis.

Finally the articles I cite go directly to the point of what the modern published science is: that "Most archaeologists agree that Polynesians can trace their origins to the Lapita Culture, a fusion of Melanesian and Austronesian peoples that had spread as far east as Fiji by 1000 B.C.E. But archaeologists are deeply at odds over when Polynesians fanned out across the vast northern, central, and eastern Pacific Ocean." Meaning, in part, that even if the South American DNA has direct links with that of Polynesians, that could well be because the migration was West to East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveO1951 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Anthropologists POV

In the intro it's said:

Heyerdahl believed that people from South America could have settled Polynesia in pre-Columbian times, although most anthropologists now believe they did not.[1][2][3] (Btw, source 3 is included in source 2. Should they be kept separate..?)

The Antropology section later on seems to contradict the previous sentence:

In 2011 Professor Erik Thorsby of the University of Oslo presented DNA evidence to the Royal Society which whilst agreeing with the west origin also identified a distinctive but smaller genetic contribution from South America.[12] Source being called: Richard Alleyne (17 Jun 2011). "Kon-Tiki explorer was partly right – Polynesians had South American roots". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 17 Jun 2011.

I am no anthropologist, but it seems they should be put closer to each other, possibly in the same section, and with higher clarity of what "everyone agrees on" if correct... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggot (talk • contribs) 09:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the current anthropologist's views section needs to be clarified and considered in light of recent work especially Ioaniddis'. Rather than stating categorically that the majority of anthropologists categorically reject Heyerdahl's theories, now that there is DNA evidence partly supporting some of his theories it should be rewritten to state the theories and evidence of pro and con camps. Calydon (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

No, just the other way round: Latest DNA investigations show the evidence of the East West settling. Sorry to say: Heyerdahl may be wrong. Edgar Wollenweber--14:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC) 87.154.95.136 (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Further, recent, peer reviewed studies by Thorsby and others indicate genetic relationship between S.A. and Polynesians. Heyerdahl's hypothesis may or may not be proven to be true, but his experiment was to test the possibility. Genetic evidence provided thus far does not conclusively reject his hypothesis. Much, if not all, of the critical analysis of the hypothesis provided on this Wiki is outdated, and objectively and factually incorrect. Also, there is lack of support for the claims, "nearly all anthropologists..." etc. It's perhaps not even possible to make such a claim, as anthropologists are not surveyed in such a manner. Nor does population consensus equate fact. Recommend a full rewrite.

Moreno-Mayar, J. V., Rasmussen, S., Seguin-Orlando, A., Rasmussen, M., Liang, M., Flåm, S. T., ... & Malaspinas, A. S. (2014). Genome-wide ancestry patterns in Rapanui suggest pre-European admixture with Native Americans. Current Biology, 24(21), 2518-2525.

O'Neal, C. (2020). Polynesian Cultures in Perspective. Mitchell Lane.

Thorsby, E. (2016). Genetic evidence for a contribution of native Americans to the early settlement of Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 4, 118.

Malaspinas, A. S., Lao, O., Schroeder, H., Rasmussen, M., Raghavan, M., Moltke, I., ... & Willerslev, E. (2014). Two ancient human genomes reveal Polynesian ancestry among the indigenous Botocudos of Brazil. Current Biology, 24(21), R1035-R1037. 2600:1008:A031:DB77:80D3:EB9B:ADBF:219A (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thor Heyerdahl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl - what's with all the references to "Brendan Heyerdahl"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.36.110.71 (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Been vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.113.173 (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Communications Section

In the "Communications" section, it says that "A German Mark V transceiver was used as a backup unit.[10]"

I looked up the citation for that assertion ("An LA, as in Norway, Story, By Bob Merriam, W1NTE, March 5, 2003") on the web archive (see https://web.archive.org/web/20030419103759/http://www.arrl.org/news/features/2003/03/05/1/?nc=1) and surprisingly that article does not make any mention of a German transceiver. Unless a reference for this assertion can be found, I suggest deleting it.

After rereading the key article on this topic (Ref. 9, Anonymous (December 1947). "Kon-Tiki Communications – Well Done!". QST (The American Radio Relay League): 69, 143–148.) it is clear that the Kon-Tiki carried two British 3-16 MC Mark II transmitters.

Therefore, I suggest that "A German Mark V transceiver was used as a backup unit.[10]" be replaced by "Two British 3-16 MC Mark II transmitters were also carried on board.[9]" Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:134:E801:34F4:EE4C:9930:2976 (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Followup: After some more investigation, I still cannot find a reference for the "A German Mark V transceiver was used as a backup unit.[10]" assertion, so I have changed it in the article, along the lines proposed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTPaloAlto (talk • contribs) 23:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, they did not use any transceivers but separated transmitter and receiver (Ref. to QSL Card of LI2B they used a normal N.C. 173 receiver from National). Edgar Wollenweber, Germany87.154.95.136 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 8 March 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kon-Tiki → Kon-Tiki expedition – The article is really about the expedition as a whole, not just the raft. Some minor changes to the opening paragraph would be needed if the name change goes ahead. I am happy to do those. 217.44.208.185 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about "expedition" one way or the other, but "Kon-Tiki" is a proper name and the dash is part of that proper name. It should not be removed. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that was unintentional and I have now corrected it. 86.150.71.23 (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support, article is clearly about the entire expedition, not just the raft. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support, article should correctly be about the expedition. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kon-Tiki expedition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071028203635/http://www.kon-tiki.no/Events/indexold.html to http://www.kon-tiki.no/Events/indexold.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Shrinking the second paragraph in the lead section

I think that the following needs to be removed from the second paragraph in the lead section.

Although most anthropologists as of 2010 had come to the conclusion they did not, in 2011, new genetic evidence was uncovered by Erik Thorsby that Easter Island inhabitants do have some South American DNA, lending credence to at least some of Heyerdahl's theses. In 2015, analysis of the genome of some Amazonian Native Americans showed ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians or Native Americans.

This information belongs in the article, but not in the lead, which should focus on the Kon-Tiki expedition itself. At the very least, the lead section needs to be rearranged, because in its current location this passage is a digression in a paragraph where the flow should lead directly from the sentence about Heyerdahl's belief to the sentence about his aim in mounting the expedition. Developments in 2010, 2011, and 2015 involving neither the Kon-Tiki nor Heyerdahl don't belong in a summarization of the flow from Heyerdahl's belief to his aim to his pursuit of his aim. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this belongs in the article in any case. Any sources would need to mention the expedition. There's no reason for this article to reply the discussion elsewhere, although obviously is can link to it. Doug Weller (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and remove it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kon-Tiki expedition. 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/20090201131047/http://webtv.tv2.no/webtv/sumo/?treeId=444033&progId=185694 to http://webtv.tv2.no/webtv/sumo/?treeId=444033&progId=185694

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 10 December 2017 (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:

• Kon-Tiki.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Support vessel?!

Does anyone know if the expedition had a support vessel? -If no, why not? Soerfm (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

No. Why not? Because that would have undermined the whole point of the expedition. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, I should have said "escort" vessel, a vessel that just follows them without helping unless there is an emergency. They had a radio, but it would just weigh them dowm if they stated sinking. - Soerfm (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

No reports talk of one, so I don't think so. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Why the racist angle?

The part about Hyperdiffusionism sounds excessively racist and not really on point with the Kon Tiki expedition. The Kon Tiki expedition clearly wanted to prove that South Americans could have traveled to Polynesia. The experiment pretty much succeeded and recent genetic evidence support the contact in the islands that carry some of the architectural megalithic culture.

The non-white comment is out of place because Heyderdhal explicitly suggests that the possible colonization happened from South America, which was also non-white. 98.47.237.80 (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

New sources needed

Most archaeological, linguistic, cultural, and genetic evidence tends to support a western origin for Polynesians, from Island Southeast Asia, using sophisticated multihull sailing technologies and navigation techniques during the Austronesian expansion.

While the general idea is slightly true, the specific details here may not be accurate due to the older sources in use. Newer sources shed more light on the competing theories and details based on the recent migratory evidence. Viriditas (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)