> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:54 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) > > Dan wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> On > >> Behalf Of Gary Denton > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:33 AM > >> To: Killer Bs Discussion > >> Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) > >> > >> I'll just make a brief interjection that a new study suggests that > >> Diamond got it wrong. Easter Island forest deprivation was more > >> likely caused by rats brought by the colonists, who also arrived much > >> later then previously thought. The human depopulation was caused by > >> slave traders and diseases introduced by Europeans.. > > > > This is a good find, Gary. I had read about this a while ago, but > didn't > > have website reference available. > > > > It reinforces one of the criticisms of using tentative archeological > > finds > > as the foundation for analysis of present day problems. Many times, > > these > > finds are a virtual tabula rossa, which allows an author with > > convictions to > > see his point well proven by a history that is conveniently veiled. > > Actually I have a number of problems with the article. First, he blames > the deforestation on the rats, but offers only evidence that the giant > palms were endangered by the rodents. There were several other species of > large trees, what became of them? Remember, when first contacted, the > islanders were in small, leaky canoes. Second, the actual population of > the island at its height is still in question. Diamond had a good deal > more substantiation for his estimate than I saw in this article. Third > the conclusion that the population collapse occurred after contact with > European explorers is not well substantiated. Has he established that the > cannibalism that occurred was after contact? Finally, I think that the > author's objectivity is questionable. He admits that one of the reasons > he took on the project was that a student of his from the island peaked > his interest. It is more than likely that a native of the island would be > anxious to disprove the idea that his ancestors were so irresponsible.
I'm not sure that you see the same basic arguments that I do. I see his two main points as: 1) The conventional dating of human artifacts in lakes is conventionally early because it was taken from lakes. We have established that old sediment in lakes does get mixed up with newer human artifacts in other lakes, thus it is possible that this is seen on Easter Island. Further, since we found a wonderful spot to excavate on the one good beach on the island, and have established an earliest date of 800 AD there, this is the most probable time of landing. Therefore, the deforestation started at the beginning of the period. 2) Investigation of deforestation in other Polynesian islands has given us a model for a likely scenario. Both humans and rats have been tied to deforestation. However, we do not have a case of massive deforestation with humans alone, while we do have a case of minimal human artifacts and evidence of a substantial rat population tied to deforestation. Thus, there is at least some evidence that rats have a stronger impact than humans. That seems reasonable to me on an offhand basis, but it will take a while for this work to take its place in the forming consensus. My point is not really that all of Diamonds assertions have been proven wrong by new research. My point is that we know fairly little about cultures such as these. Popular science programs (especially on places like the Discovery channel) often/usually overstate the scientific certainty in such matters. Reports of cannibalism are not sufficient to show a very large population (15k or so) that dwindled due to deforestation. I think a key point in the moral tale is the assumption that the population lived on the island for hundreds of years before the deforestation took place. This fits well with people who are in touch with the land and know how to live wisely. The moral tale then has them fall from grace, and using up resources on trivial things (the statues being the best example). If, however, the problems start with the rats gnawing seeds from the very beginning, as well as human cultivation from the very beginning, a different picture emerges. This leads to my argument. It is dangerous to make general conclusions from limited data about prehistoric civilizations (prehistoric in the sense that we do not have a history of the civilization to study.) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
