5 ms·

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 opinio

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.

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.