Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tiako t1_iqtxv44 wrote

Reply to comment by JohnnyEnzyme in Howard Carter and Tutankhamun: a different view by MeatballDom

Yeah, I am largely but not entirely ignorant of Egyptology's history and I was not aware of this dust up, I think it can be overestimated how far this is known outside of Egyptologists.

(Heyerdahl on the other hand was a complete charlatan, absolutely nothing of value gained from his work)

6

JohnnyEnzyme t1_iqu2rvw wrote

Hmm, I thought Heyerdahl was more of a mixed bag.. exaggerating and manipulating facts on one hand, while taking on some pretty major risks in his voyages, and overall, bringing a bunch of attention to interesting facets of cultural history and so forth.

I haven't read up on him in many years, though, so I'm in little position to debate.

4

Tiako t1_iqu48mm wrote

I suppose as a pure adventure story it is compelling but that puts it at about the level of Felix Baumgartner jumping out of a space ship in terms of historical value. The peopling of the Pacific islands was a very settled question when Heyerdahl had his expeditions, and those expeditions provided not a whit of actual evidence to support his theory.

He was also more than a little racist towards Polynesians, the impetus of his theory was not far off "these savages couldn't have possible build these monuments".

2