4 ms·

Easter Island’s society might not have collapsed

39 points by daegloe 8y ago

craftyguy 8y ago
> "For everyone to be using one type of stone, I believe they had to collaborate. That's why they were so successful—they were working together." > To Simpson, this level of large-scale cooperation contradicts the popular narrative that Easter Island's inhabitants ran out of resources and warred themselves into extinction. Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't really indicate that the society did not eventually war themselves away. They could have gotten along for a while, until forests/resources ran out, then fought.
- laumars 8y ago
  Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought it was European explorers who caused the most damage to the population of Easter island? At least that was the opinion of the David Attenborough documentary I watched on it.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Hmm I haven't heard that. IIRC, the population was already severely reduced by the time explorers arrived. What was left of it got reduced further, but most of the damage had already been done.
    - laumars 8y ago
      Maybe that was the point raised in the documentary and I misinterpreted it.
  - btilly 8y ago
    I have heard two versions of Easter Island history. Version 1, in books like Collapse by Jared Diamond, is one of a highly functioning cooperative society that suffered an ecological collapse, that destroyed the society. In this version, at the time that the stones were created, there was cooperation. At the time that they were toppled and population collapsed, cooperation had disappeared due to starvation. The cause of the collapse was a combination of deforestation (some caused by people, some by rats) taking away fishing, wiping out the nesting sea bird population, and then soil erosion ruining agriculture. Version 2, which can be found in places like http://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-easter-island-a-sustainable-society-has-been-falsely-blamed-for-its-own-demise-85563 http://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-easter-island-a-s... instead says that a sustainable society got exposed to disease, attacked by slavers, and collapsed under external pressure. It sounds like the Attenborough documentary took the second view. I have no evidence which version is more likely to be correct. I will submit that which version seems more plausible to you will generally be some combination of which you heard first, which aligns with your political beliefs, and which experts you trust most. The actual truth is a question for anthropologists and I'm not qualified to comment on it.
    - graeme 8y ago
      This article seems to be consistent with either theory, correct?
      - btilly 8y ago
        Yes, the actual evidence presented in the article is consistent with both theories. However the lead author gives quotes supporting version 2 over version 1. The title we have is drawn from the direction of the lead author's comments. Another author of the paper is quoted saying that the results should be interpreted with care, evidence of cooperation is not necessarily evidence of voluntary cooperation.
    - adrianratnapala 8y ago
      So having just read the Wikipedia, it seems like this is one of those interpretation-more-than-facts arguments. Everyone seems to agree that slavers from Peru came in the 19th century and stole a lot of people, and that soon afterwards, Western diseases killed more people until the island was nearly depopulated and had forgotten much of its history. Everyone also seems to agree that before Europeans arrived, the island lost most of its trees, and also there was at least one major social upheaval. Scholars seem to argue over exact causes and extent of these events.
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  I think that the popular theory might still be that they warred themselves away, but my understanding (probably absorbed from Natural Geographic or something) was that, while they did have a period of overpopulation that seems to have resulted in a fair bit of famine and the consequent social upheaval, there's no evidence for any outright war. e.g., from the Source of All Truth: A study headed by Douglas Owsley published in 1994 asserted that there is little archaeological evidence of pre-European societal collapse. Bone pathology and osteometric data from islanders of that period clearly suggest few fatalities can be attributed directly to violence. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#Discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#Discussion)
11235813213455 8y ago
The history of Easter Island civilization is more or less what is likely going to happen at planet level this time
- Retric 8y ago
  Die off after aliens show up? I guess it's possible, but that seems like an odd statement as they where doing alright until Europeans showed up.
  - 11235813213455 8y ago
    Ah right, TIL
i6mi6 8y ago
What are the chances that these statues had been built before that and they just found them there?

39 points by daegloe 8y ago

> "For everyone to be using one type of stone, I believe they had to collaborate. That's why they were so successful—they were working together." > To Simpson, this level of large-scale cooperation contradicts the popular narrative that Easter Island's inhabitants ran out of resources and warred themselves into extinction. Maybe I'm missing something, but this doesn't really indicate that the society did not eventually war themselves away. They could have gotten along for a while, until forests/resources ran out, then fought.

laumars 8y ago
Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought it was European explorers who caused the most damage to the population of Easter island? At least that was the opinion of the David Attenborough documentary I watched on it.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  Hmm I haven't heard that. IIRC, the population was already severely reduced by the time explorers arrived. What was left of it got reduced further, but most of the damage had already been done.
  - laumars 8y ago
    Maybe that was the point raised in the documentary and I misinterpreted it.
- btilly 8y ago
  I have heard two versions of Easter Island history. Version 1, in books like Collapse by Jared Diamond, is one of a highly functioning cooperative society that suffered an ecological collapse, that destroyed the society. In this version, at the time that the stones were created, there was cooperation. At the time that they were toppled and population collapsed, cooperation had disappeared due to starvation. The cause of the collapse was a combination of deforestation (some caused by people, some by rats) taking away fishing, wiping out the nesting sea bird population, and then soil erosion ruining agriculture. Version 2, which can be found in places like http://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-easter-island-a-sustainable-society-has-been-falsely-blamed-for-its-own-demise-85563 http://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-easter-island-a-s... instead says that a sustainable society got exposed to disease, attacked by slavers, and collapsed under external pressure. It sounds like the Attenborough documentary took the second view. I have no evidence which version is more likely to be correct. I will submit that which version seems more plausible to you will generally be some combination of which you heard first, which aligns with your political beliefs, and which experts you trust most. The actual truth is a question for anthropologists and I'm not qualified to comment on it.
  - graeme 8y ago
    This article seems to be consistent with either theory, correct?
    - btilly 8y ago
      Yes, the actual evidence presented in the article is consistent with both theories. However the lead author gives quotes supporting version 2 over version 1. The title we have is drawn from the direction of the lead author's comments. Another author of the paper is quoted saying that the results should be interpreted with care, evidence of cooperation is not necessarily evidence of voluntary cooperation.
  - adrianratnapala 8y ago
    So having just read the Wikipedia, it seems like this is one of those interpretation-more-than-facts arguments. Everyone seems to agree that slavers from Peru came in the 19th century and stole a lot of people, and that soon afterwards, Western diseases killed more people until the island was nearly depopulated and had forgotten much of its history. Everyone also seems to agree that before Europeans arrived, the island lost most of its trees, and also there was at least one major social upheaval. Scholars seem to argue over exact causes and extent of these events.
bunderbunder 8y ago
I think that the popular theory might still be that they warred themselves away, but my understanding (probably absorbed from Natural Geographic or something) was that, while they did have a period of overpopulation that seems to have resulted in a fair bit of famine and the consequent social upheaval, there's no evidence for any outright war. e.g., from the Source of All Truth: A study headed by Douglas Owsley published in 1994 asserted that there is little archaeological evidence of pre-European societal collapse. Bone pathology and osteometric data from islanders of that period clearly suggest few fatalities can be attributed directly to violence. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#Discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Island#Discussion)

11235813213455 8y ago

The history of Easter Island civilization is more or less what is likely going to happen at planet level this time

Retric 8y ago
Die off after aliens show up? I guess it's possible, but that seems like an odd statement as they where doing alright until Europeans showed up.
- 11235813213455 8y ago
  Ah right, TIL

i6mi6 8y ago

What are the chances that these statues had been built before that and they just found them there?