Abstract
NEITHER in Mr. Heyerdahl's book1, nor in Prof. Raymond Firth's review of it2, is there any indication of the relevant philological state of affairs3. Yet, in considering whether the Polynesians came from America or from Asia, comparative philology affords an absolutely decisive disproof of Mr. Heyerdahl's theory. The evidence is easily put concisely in a set of three statements, namely :
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Heyerdahl, T., “American Indians in the Pacific” (1952).
Nature, 171, 712 (1953).
Nor is the matter put with adequate force and clarity by Heine-Geldern, R., “Some Problems of Migration in the Pacific”, Wiener beiträge zur kulturgeschichte und linguistik, 9, 313 (1952) (cf. pp. 334–35).
Ross, A. S. C., English and Germanic Studies, 4, 11 (1951–52).
This type of nomenclature is standard philological practice.
cf., for example, Dempwolff, O., Vergleichende lautlehre des austronesischen wortschatzes (1934–38); Kähler, H., “Die stellung der polynesischen dialekte innerhalb der austronesischen sprachen”, Z. Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 100, 646 (1950).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
ROSS, A. Comparative Philology and the ‘Kon-Tiki’ Theory. Nature 172, 365 (1953). https://doi.org/10.1038/172365a0
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/172365a0
