Kon-Tiki (1950)

This is the first person account of Thor Heyerdahl of his 1947 voyage with five companions across the South Pacific; over 4,000 nautical miles in 101 days with five companions on a balsa log raft. There are various genres this book could be said to fall into: anthropology, adventure/exploration and memoir, and I have mixed feelings about its success in each.

The entire purpose of the voyage was "to support a theory that the South Sea Islands were populated from Peru." Heyerdahl did have some compelling points for his theory. Given his expeditions sailing in craft of ancient design, Heyerdahl has good reason to claim that the ocean is "a conveyer, not an isolator." (Although in that case one must ask why Old and New Worlds lost contact for centuries.) Right in the front matter is a map showing the Humboldt currents and trade winds--going west, not east, making it seem plausible the islands were peopled from the Americas rather than Asia. And the sweet potato, which comes from South America, is a Polynesian staple. Nevertheless, Heyerdahl couldn't even get a legitimate scholar to look at his manuscript, because the Incas didn't have boats--only rafts which were believed unseaworthy. So Heyerdahl decided to have constructed a craft made of the same design and materials as pre-Columbian Peruvians and sail it from Peru across the Pacific to one of the South Sea Islands to prove it could be done, so his theory could be taken seriously. From what I can gather, despite the success of his voyage, this is considered by anthropologists today to be at best a fringe theory, if not downright crackpot. Worse is Heyerdahl's fixation that every "high" aspect of pre-Columbian New World came from "legendary white people" who voyaged to the New World, presumably from Europe, and created Aztec, Inca and Polynesian civilization and then were displaced by later Amerindian settlers. So as anthropology, although there's not much discussion of it, for me the book fails pretty resoundingly. Especially when you consider his craft had to be towed out of harbor, didn't land so much as wreck itself on a South Sea Island reef, and that, as Heyerdahl admits, it was sheer luck they used just cut balsa wood which still had enough sap to keep the craft afloat. Had they used dried logs as planned, they would have floundered.

And then there's the memoir/adventure tale aspect, which I consider a qualified success. Qualified because note the above part about luck--and admittedly guts. But I'm somewhat a fan of tales of exploration and I couldn't help compare Heyerdahl to his compatriot Roald Amundsen, the polar explorer. Amundsen famously said that "adventure is just bad planning." He won that race to the South Pole because of rational and efficient planning, preparedness, experience and skill--little of which seemed evident in Heyerdahl. Reading of how Heyerdahl prepared and planned for the Kon-Tiki expedition on the other hand, it's hard for me to understand how he didn't wind up with a Darwin Award. Several maritime experts told him the Kon Tiki was unseaworthy, just as anthropologists had told him his migration theories were unsound--he launched anyway. And as memoir, if you're expecting to find much psychological insight into what he and his five companions went through on a raft for nearly four months, you're going to be disappointed.

Ah, but there are some redeeming qualities to reading this--namely as a tale of the sea. It was often (although perhaps not often enough) fascinating to read about the marine life they came across, the storms and dangers they faced. An encounter with a whale shark was particularly memorable--as was just the abundance of food available to them living off the sea in that raft. They had enough flying fish jumping into the raft to make fishing superfluous the way Heyerdahl told it. Crab, squid, even plankton around them could make a tasty meal, although their favorite was the Bonito fish. So it's as an account of nature and the sea that this tale makes up points for me, even if I look at the theories that inspired this voyage with a jaundiced eye. ( )

First read this tale as a youth, but despite my efforts to grow up, I have not grown beyond this tale. And it is my dearest hope that I never will outgrow the dreams, joys and sorrows of Thor Heyerdahl's great adventure crossing the Pacific on a raft.

Every age has a frontier. If you reside in the safe place in your brain, you have probably managed to avoid this place where Thor Heyerdahl has gone. It's the place that seems scary and wild to civilized folks. (In fact, it is scary and wild. My dad's dive buddy was attacked by a Great White shark when I was a kid.)

So hitch a virtual ride with Heyerdahl on his raft. I think you'll find this is not just good history, it's also a fun read. ( )

I read this in school and hated it. My tastes in reading are quite different now and I think I might reread this. Now I think it looks interesting. ( )

Hmmm. A very enjoyable book - all three sections were interesting, in entirely different ways. The first part deals with Heyerdahl's inspiration and efforts to get the expedition going - from getting the idea to go, to finding funding, equipment, and permission, to getting the actual logs to make his balsa raft. When he finally achieved that, the next section describes the trip itself - just over three months at sea, seeing not one ship the whole time (I wonder if it would be true now?) but lots of interesting sea life including species that had never been seen alive before. The final part deals with them actually making it to Polynesia, and the difficulties of landing the raft with its limited steering and strong drive westward before the trade winds. They ended up more or less wrecked, but safe ashore, and a lot of this section is about the celebrations of their trip among the Polynesians. I find some of his argument a little overdone, but mostly the fine details - the general idea, that Polynesia was colonized from South America, makes quite a bit of sense. When he argues that the Polynesians navigate by the stars (and make statues, and this and that and the other thing) because they were taught to do so by "bearded, white men" from some higher civilization (who also came down into South America and taught the Inca their civilization)...that's overdoing it. I'm also finding echoes of the story in other things - other books and random conversations remind me of Kon-Tiki - which usually means this is one of the books that's going to remain memorable.
And all that said - I think I'm getting rid of this book. I don't feel particularly that I'll want to reread it, and if I do I'm pretty sure I can find it at the library. ( )

This was a lot of fun to read. I enjoyed everything about this adventure. Heyerdahl is a fabulous storyteller and really funny too. Although slightly inaccurate, Heyerdahl was convinced there was a connection between the peoples of South America and the population of the Polynesian (Easter/Tahitian) Islands. Building a raft made of the same materials the Incas would have used (balsa wood, bamboo and other natural elements), Heyerdahl and five companions spent 101 days crossing 4,300 nautical miles of the Pacific ocean in all kinds of weather to prove the point. The six men (five from Norway and one Swede) took turns cooking and steering and got along surprisingly well for a group of grown men stuck in the middle of the Pacific for almost four months. They endured raging seas, wild winds and all sorts of aquatic creatures that insisted on joining them on the raft. The episode with the squid was especially disturbing.
The photography, while in 1940s black and white, is a helpful addition to the story. Imagining the size and heft of the raft would be difficult without it. ( )