Study Casts Doubt On Easter Island 'ecocide'

[Social Media]

 

Easter Island, or Rapa Nui, has long been heralded as a cautionary tale of "ecocide," where an early population supposedly brought about its own downfall through environmental destruction. This narrative, popularized by prominent figures such as Jared Diamond, posits that the island's inhabitants deforested the land at unsustainable rates to support agriculture, fuel needs, and the transport of their iconic stone statues, the moai. The collapse of the island's society was thought to have been inevitable, leading to a severely reduced population by the time Europeans arrived in the 18th century.

 

However, new research is challenging this long-standing theory. A study led by Dr. Dylan Davis from Columbia University, published in the journal Science Advances, presents evidence suggesting that the population of Rapa Nui was not in decline when Europeans first arrived, but rather, was at its sustainable peak. Using high-resolution shortwave infrared and near-infrared satellite imagery combined with machine learning, Davis and his colleagues identified archaeological sites indicative of rock gardening, a method used by the islanders to cultivate crops such as sweet potatoes.

 

Their findings indicate that only 0.76 square kilometers of land were used for rock gardening, a figure significantly lower than previous estimates that mistakenly included natural lava flows as agricultural sites. This limited area of cultivated land could have supported a maximum of 3,900 people, with an average estimate of around 2,000. When considering other food sources like fishing and foraging, this number could potentially rise to 4,000, but it still falls far short of earlier population estimates of up to 17,000.

 

Dr. Davis remarked, "Our study confirms that the island couldn’t have supported more than a few thousand people. As such, contrary to the ecocide narrative, the population present at European arrival wasn’t the remnants of Rapa Nui society, but was likely the society at its peak, living at the levels that were sustainable on the island." This suggests that the dramatic population decline theorized by the ecocide model may not have occurred.

 

One of the major arguments supporting the ecocide theory was the assumption that a large population was necessary to construct and transport the moai statues. However, Davis pointed out that archaeological evidence does not support the existence of a large population. Studies of the moai suggest that a smaller population, through cooperation, could have built and moved these statues. Furthermore, Davis noted that the first settlers of Rapa Nui, arriving around AD 1200-1250, encountered an island covered in forest but with limited soil nutrients. The arrival of the Polynesian rat, which consumed seeds, contributed significantly to the decline of the tree population rather than human activity alone.

 

By the time Europeans arrived, they found a society that had adapted to its environment, cultivating much of their food in rock gardens amidst an otherwise unfarmable landscape. "When Europeans arrived in the 18th century, they found a society living within their means," Davis explained.

 

Supporting this revisionist view, Prof. Sue Hamilton from University College London, who was not involved in the study, noted that for over a decade, the idea of ecocide on Rapa Nui has been increasingly questioned. While she praised the new study for its ingenuity, she also pointed out its limitations. Hamilton highlighted that it is challenging to extrapolate the size of the population solely from the extent of rock gardening and that these gardens may have been used at different times. Additionally, she suggested that some rock gardening sites might have been overlooked.

 

"The situation is quite simply more complex than this one line of study alone can resolve," Hamilton concluded. Despite these challenges, the study by Davis and his colleagues represents a significant step in re-evaluating the history of Rapa Nui, suggesting that its population managed their resources more sustainably than previously thought and challenging the narrative of self-inflicted ecological disaster.

 

Credit: The Guardian 2024-06-25

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

[Purdey]

As time passes, knowledge changes.

[roquefort]

2 hours ago, Purdey said:

As time passes, knowledge changes.

That's how science should work. 'The science' is never settled.

[johng]

15 minutes ago, roquefort said:

That's how science should work. 'The science' is never settled.

Except for Covid and it's origins 100% natural no discussion allowed. 🤢

[Cryingdick]

It's funny how once when somebody from Columbia university was mentioned I would think of it as a good thing. Now my only take away from this article is Dylan Davis must be some sort of nutcase if they remain employed there. Sort of sad really.

[Bday Prang]

9 hours ago, johng said:

Except for Covid and it's origins 100% natural no discussion allowed. 🤢

climate change being one of the original examples of this new approach to science