LL
Joined: Aug 24, 2006
Posts: 788
|
LL
Watching that documentary, it's frustrating to see that people - scholars! - still completely misrepresent Heyerdahl's theory. He did not think (those we call) the Polynesians came from South America. That is an oversimplified 'strawman' version of his theories. After reading Kon-Tiki, way back, I read his more scholarly work, American Indians in the Pacific, which lays out the details and background for his theories.
Heyerdahl thought that Polynesia was colonized multiple times, by different peoples. He thought the Polynesians encountered by Europeans were descended primarily from people who traveled north, along the coast of Asia, across into Alaska and down to settle along the Pacific Northwest coast. Eventually, some migrated to Hawaii, and from there, to the rest of Polynesia.
They found some of the islands already somewhat populated... by descendants of people who rafted from South America, bringing certain foods (e.g., sweet potato), and a penchant for monolithic stone carving. The Polynesians conquered them, assimilated some of the people and some elements of the culture, and wiped out the rest.
Heyerdahl also encountered traditions and stories that many islands had an aboriginal people there, before the South Americans or Polynesians arrived. They were described as darker-skinned, of small stature and negroid-like features. These people the Hawaiians called the "Menehune"; the Maori and Rarotongans, the "Manahune".
Heyerdahl gave serious consideration to the chants, stories and traditions that had been passed down for scores of generations, and used them to help interpret archeological findings, in some cases. He collected and studied an abundance of inter-disciplinary material, to form and bolster his theories (that book was over 800 pages). I'm not saying Heyerdahl was correct. But I've noticed for decades that when "experts" dismiss his "theory" as the delusions of a crack-pot, or declare it's disproved, they're not evaluating his actual theory at all!
|
