3 ms·

>It has been awhile but think the Vikings had more variables, like weather that prevented fishing This was categorically refuted by bone analysis showing that

by yyyk 3y ago

>It has been awhile but think the Vikings had more variables, like weather that prevented fishing This was categorically refuted by bone analysis showing that Vikings did eat seaborne food[0]. The current hypothesis is that the fish bones were used to feed animals or burnt. The more important point that the thesis was absurd in the first place. The Vikings were seafarers, and we have no record of any such taboos. You can't invent a food taboo completely against their way of life and with absolutely no written evidence out of thin air. At the very least, there was an extremely high level of proof needed, and Diamond doesn't even try to get near. Moreover, We have a 5000 years history of human food taboos, and as a rule when people face starvation or just illness, the taboos get shunted aside. Even the fanatically devoted Ghandi compromised and drunk milk. The one exception I can think of in all of human history is Nongqawuse, and even that was: not a food taboo but based on existing faith, encouraged by a foreign power and disobeyed by a non-trivial faction. You didn't get complete extinction even there. [0] https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2002/03/epn02301/epn02301.html https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/abs/2002/03/epn... As for Easter Islands, there are serious arguments that there wasn't any environmental problem and the population survived well enough (e.g. [1]). More importantly, the Europe slave raids are documented to have carried off a third-to-half of the population, the more educated part. In other contexts of similar casualty levels, downplaying that would be called way worse. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2013/12/09/249728994/what-happened-on-easter-island-a-new-even-scarier-scenario https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2013/12/09/249728994/w...

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Have an upvote. I can't argue the fish. The settlements did fail though, right? So something happened. Doesn't he also outline poor soil and over-grazing, and the climate change when warm period ended. It is possible that there were enough negative variables that fishing alone couldn't save it. And it is a 26 year old book, so maybe he was speculating on what was known at the time. Like if it did fail, and they were great fishers, what could explain why fishing didn't save them. But, I don't have a citation. Sorry also, since you have citations and I'm being lazy. But pretty sure there was a counter-counter addendum to the book on Easter Island. He published on his web site a new chapter re-discussing the latest theories on Easter Island. But I read it years ago, so not adding anything of value here. But to defend him, old history books do get revised.
- yyyk 3y ago
  >The settlements did fail though, right? So something happened. The area was already very marginally habitable for humans. In the same general area, the Dorset Eskimos also died off (in their case, we aren't entirely sure which century that happened), so even specially adapted cultures had serious trouble. Maybe it always had little slack. If I had to take a very wild guess: What changed was the Little Ice Age making conditions even worse. Maybe plague played a part too (though I can't substantiate that). Eventually enough people died to make the society not work (you need a certain number to maintain a complex society). Perhaps the reminder decided to leave, but with no food stocks the sea journey failed... Or perhaps they died in place, having nowhere to go. Grim either way. > pretty sure there was a counter-counter addendum to the book on Easter Island. He published on his web site a new chapter re-discussing the latest theories on Easter Island. Can't find anything on his current website. I'll try more thoroughly later.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Now I can't find link. It must be second edition, not published freely. From web site, just overview of the updates. But while searching for this. Found another popular book that had theory that it was rats, and the rats had no natural predator's and ate all the palm tree roots. EXTENSIONS Since my book’s initial publication in 2005, information has continued to accumulate about collapses, and about avoidances of collapses. I shall mention here three of these recent extensions, to our understanding of Easter Island, the Maya, and Angkor. First, I summarize below the striking new evidence that Andreas Mieth and Hans-Rudolf Bork have published concerning the widespread Polynesian felling and burning of trees on Easter Island long before European arrival. Second, measurements of markers that reflect paleoclimate have provided increasing evidence for severe droughts that contributed to the decline of Classic Maya cities in the Southern Maya lowlands. Finally, the biggest recent advance (summarized in a new chapter included in my book’s 2011 edition) has been in our understanding of the decline of the Khmer Empire based at Angkor
    - yyyk 3y ago
      Yeah, the idea it was rats in the link I gave too. The counter-argument is that it was an ecological problem in the strict sense, but not a ecological problem for humans. The people adapted and ate rats (yuck) among a few other things. It's not pleasant, but it's argued it was stable for a long time.

by yyyk 3y ago

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Have an upvote. I can't argue the fish. The settlements did fail though, right? So something happened. Doesn't he also outline poor soil and over-grazing, and the climate change when warm period ended. It is possible that there were enough negative variables that fishing alone couldn't save it. And it is a 26 year old book, so maybe he was speculating on what was known at the time. Like if it did fail, and they were great fishers, what could explain why fishing didn't save them. But, I don't have a citation. Sorry also, since you have citations and I'm being lazy. But pretty sure there was a counter-counter addendum to the book on Easter Island. He published on his web site a new chapter re-discussing the latest theories on Easter Island. But I read it years ago, so not adding anything of value here. But to defend him, old history books do get revised.

yyyk 3y ago
>The settlements did fail though, right? So something happened. The area was already very marginally habitable for humans. In the same general area, the Dorset Eskimos also died off (in their case, we aren't entirely sure which century that happened), so even specially adapted cultures had serious trouble. Maybe it always had little slack. If I had to take a very wild guess: What changed was the Little Ice Age making conditions even worse. Maybe plague played a part too (though I can't substantiate that). Eventually enough people died to make the society not work (you need a certain number to maintain a complex society). Perhaps the reminder decided to leave, but with no food stocks the sea journey failed... Or perhaps they died in place, having nowhere to go. Grim either way. > pretty sure there was a counter-counter addendum to the book on Easter Island. He published on his web site a new chapter re-discussing the latest theories on Easter Island. Can't find anything on his current website. I'll try more thoroughly later.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Now I can't find link. It must be second edition, not published freely. From web site, just overview of the updates. But while searching for this. Found another popular book that had theory that it was rats, and the rats had no natural predator's and ate all the palm tree roots. EXTENSIONS Since my book’s initial publication in 2005, information has continued to accumulate about collapses, and about avoidances of collapses. I shall mention here three of these recent extensions, to our understanding of Easter Island, the Maya, and Angkor. First, I summarize below the striking new evidence that Andreas Mieth and Hans-Rudolf Bork have published concerning the widespread Polynesian felling and burning of trees on Easter Island long before European arrival. Second, measurements of markers that reflect paleoclimate have provided increasing evidence for severe droughts that contributed to the decline of Classic Maya cities in the Southern Maya lowlands. Finally, the biggest recent advance (summarized in a new chapter included in my book’s 2011 edition) has been in our understanding of the decline of the Khmer Empire based at Angkor
  - yyyk 3y ago
    Yeah, the idea it was rats in the link I gave too. The counter-argument is that it was an ecological problem in the strict sense, but not a ecological problem for humans. The people adapted and ate rats (yuck) among a few other things. It's not pleasant, but it's argued it was stable for a long time.