Thanks, that paper is much clearer. It seems their argument is that deforestation was not a factor in collapse, as land use didn't shift and no big decrease in

Thanks, that paper is much clearer. It seems their argument is that deforestation was not a factor in collapse, as land use didn't shift and no big decrease in toolmaking was seen before 1800, post contact. Certainly plausible. To know beyond that point we'd need a subject matter expert and possible original investigation. In other words it's possible Diamond's tree narrative is correct but not his war narrative. I think that doesn't undermine it so much for the purposes of discussing the possibility that we may use all of a certain resource. But it is indeed a caveat worth noting.