FROM GENOCIDE TO ECOCIDE: THE RAPE OF RAPA NUI
Eric Stevens
Network (CCNet). While addressing a different point from recent
discussions in the ng, it still throws some light on the history of
Rapanui (Easter Island) and I have the approval of Benny Peiser to
post it here:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FROM GENOCIDE TO ECOCIDE: THE RAPE OF RAPA NUI
Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University, Faculty of Science
Liverpool L3 2ET, UK. b.j.p...@livjm.ac.uk
Energy & Environment, 16:3&4 (2005), pp. 513-539
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/EE%2016-34_Peiser.pdf
ABSTRACT
The 'decline and fall' of Easter Island and its alleged
self-destruction has become the poster child of a new environmentalist
historiography, a school of thought that goes hand-in-hand with
predictions of environmental disaster. Why did this exceptional
civilisation crumble? What drove its population to extinction? These
are some of the key questions Jared Diamond endeavours to answer in
his new book 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive.'
According to Diamond, the people of Easter Island destroyed their
forest, degraded the island's topsoil, wiped out their plants and
drove their animals to extinction. As a result of this
selfinflicted environmental devastation, its complex society
collapsed, descending into civil war, cannibalism and
self-destruction. While his theory of ecocide has
become almost paradigmatic in environmental circles, a dark and gory
secret hangs over the premise of Easter Island's self-destruction: an
actual genocide terminated Rapa Nui's indigenous populace and its
culture. Diamond, however, ignores and fails to address the true
reasons behind Rapa Nui's collapse. Why has he turned the victims of
cultural and physical extermination into the perpetrators of their own
demise? This paper is a first attempt to address this disquieting
quandary.
It describes the foundation of Diamond's environmental revisionism and
explains why it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.
INTRODUCTION
Of all the vanished civilisations, no other has evoked as much
bafflement, incredulity and conjecture as the Pacific island of Rapa
Nui (Easter Island). This tiny patch of land was discovered by
European explorers more than three hundred years ago amidst the
vast space that is the South Pacific Ocean. Its civilisation attained
a level of social complexity that gave rise to one of the most
advanced cultures and technological feats of Neolithic societies
anywhere in the world. Easter Island's stone-working skills and
proficiency were far superior to any other Polynesian culture, as was
its unique writing system. This most extraordinary society developed,
flourished and persisted for perhaps more than one thousand years -
before it collapsed and became all but extinct.
Why did this exceptional civilisation crumble? What drove its
population to extinction? These are some of the key questions Jared
Diamond endeavours to answer in his new book Collapse: How Societies
Choose to Fail or Survive (Diamond, 2005) in a chapter which focuses
on Easter Island.
Diamond's saga of the decline and fall of Easter Island is
straightforward and can be summarised in a few words: Within a few
centuries after the island was settled, the people of Easter Island
destroyed their forest, degraded the island's topsoil, wiped out
their plants and drove their animals to extinction. As a result of
this self-inflicted environmental devastation, its complex society
collapsed, descending into civil war, cannibalism and
self-destruction. When Europeans discovered the island in the 18th
century, they found a crashed society and a deprived population of
survivors who subsisted among the ruins of a once vibrant
civilisation.
Diamond's key line of reasoning is not difficult to grasp: Easter
Island's cultural decline and collapse occurred before Europeans set
foot on its shores. He spells out in no uncertain terms that the
island's downfall was entirely self-inflicted: "It was the islanders
themselves who had destroyed their own ancestor's work"
(Diamond, 2005).
Lord May, the President of Britain's Royal Society, recently condensed
Diamond's theory of environmental suicide in this way: "In a lecture
at the Royal Society last week, Jared Diamond drew attention to
populations, such as those on Easter Island, who denied they were
having a catastrophic impact on the environment and were eventually
wiped out, a phenomenon he called 'ecocide'" (May, 2005).
Diamond's theory has been around since the early 1980s. Since then, it
has reached a mass audience due to a number of popular books and
Diamond's own publications. As a result, the notion of ecological
suicide has become the "orthodox model" of Easter Island's demise.
"This story of self-induced eco-disaster and consequent self-
destruction of a Polynesian island society continues to provide the
easy and uncomplicated shorthand for explaining the so-called
cultural devolution of Rapa Nui society" (Rainbird, 2002).
The 'decline and fall' of Easter Island and its alleged
self-destruction has become the poster child of the new
environmentalist historiography, a school of thought that goes
hand-in-hand with predictions of environmental disaster. Clive
Ponting's The Green History of the World - for many years the main
manifest of British eco-pessimism - begins his saga of ecological
destruction and social degeneration with "The Lessons of Easter
Island" (Ponting, 1992:1ff.). Others view Easter Island as a microcosm
of planet Earth and consider the former's bleak fate as symptomatic
for what awaits the whole of humanity. Thus, the story of Easter
Island's environmental suicide has become the prime case for the
gloomiest of grim eco-pessimism. After more than 30 years of
palaeo-environmental research on Easter Island, one of its
leading experts comes to an extremely gloomy conclusion: "It seems
[...] that ecological sustainability may be an impossible dream. The
revised Club of Rome predictions show that it is not very likely that
we can put of the crunch by more than a few decades. Most of their
models still show economic decline by AD 2100. Easter Island still
seems to be a plausible model for Earth Island." (Flenley,
1998:127).
From a political and psychological point of view, this imagery of a
complex civilisation self-destructing is overwhelming. It portrays an
impression of utter failure that elicits shock and trepidation. It is
in form of a shock-tactic when Diamond employs Rapa Nui's tragic end
as a dire warning and a moral lesson for humanity today: "Easter
[Island's] isolation makes it the clearest example of a society that
destroyed itself by overexploiting its own resources. Those are the
reasons why people see the collapse of Easter Island society as a
metaphor, a worst-case scenario, for what may lie ahead of us in our
own future" (Diamond, 2005).
While the theory of ecocide has become almost paradigmatic in
environmental circles, a dark and gory secret hangs over the premise
of Easter Island's selfdestruction: an actual genocide terminated Rapa
Nui's indigenous populace and its culture. Diamond ignores, or
neglects to address the true reasons behind Rapa Nui's collapse. Other
researchers have no doubt that its people, their culture and its
environment were destroyed to all intents and purposes by European
slave-traders, whalers and colonists - and not by themselves!
After all, the cruelty and systematic kidnapping by European
slave-merchants, the near-extermination of the Island's indigenous
population and the deliberate destruction of the island's environment
has been regarded as "one of the most hideous atrocities committed by
white men in the South Seas" (Métraux, 1957:38), "perhaps the most
dreadful piece of genocide in Polynesian history" (Bellwood,
1978:363).
So why does Diamond maintain that Easter Island's celebrated culture,
famous for its sophisticated architecture and giant stone statues,
committed its own environmental suicide? How did the once well-known
accounts about the "fatal impact" (Moorehead, 1966) of European
disease, slavery and genocide - "the catastrophe that wiped out
Easter Island's civilisation" (Métraux, ibid.) - turn into a
contemporary parable of selfinflicted ecocide? In short, why have the
victims of cultural and physical extermination been turned into the
perpetrators of their own demise?
This paper is a first attempt to address this disquieting quandary. It
describes the foundation of Diamond's environmental revisionism and
explains why it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.
FULL PAPER at
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/EE%2016-34_Peiser.pdf
Eric Stevens
benlizross
Eric,
Thanks for drawing our attention to this provocative article. I'm
surprised there hasn't been more response.
I think it's good that the historical scenarios popularized by Diamond,
Bahn & Flenley, and Heyerdahl should be subject to careful scrutiny and
criticism. But we need to keep in mind that Peiser appears to have his
own agenda, as a global-warming skeptic interested in debunking claims
of eco-catastrophe. And the article appears to be from an entire issue
of this journal devoted to Diamond-bashing.
Peiser's attempt to lay the destruction of Rapanui culture, environment
and population entirely at the door of European contact rests on
historical foundations as dodgy as those of the people he is
criticising. To take one small example: He states that Routledge's
informants (in the 1910s) were adamant that their traditional narratives
of internecine fighting and killing had taken place in the late 19th
century (and not several centuries earlier as most people have thought).
In the reference to Routledge he gives, however, she mentions just _one_
informant who was sure that the story he had just told had taken place
in his grandfather's time -- and who was immediately contradicted by
another Rapanui (our old friend Juan Tepano), who pointed out that the
canoe in the story had been made by Tu'u-ko-iho, one of the founding
ancestors of Rapanui!
We could go into more detail on this, but I wonder if anybody is
interested?
Ross Clark
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Peiser's primary interest initially seemed to be in historical
catastrophes and more recently in the risk of potential asteroid
impact. He was one of the moving forces behind
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/sis/cambproc.htm
I don't think he is a global warming skeptic. He agrees that it is
presently occurring but justifiably disagrees with a lot of the shonky
pseudo-science which seems to surround the subject today.
>
>Peiser's attempt to lay the destruction of Rapanui culture, environment
>and population entirely at the door of European contact rests on
>historical foundations as dodgy as those of the people he is
>criticising. To take one small example: He states that Routledge's
>informants (in the 1910s) were adamant that their traditional narratives
>of internecine fighting and killing had taken place in the late 19th
>century (and not several centuries earlier as most people have thought).
>In the reference to Routledge he gives, however, she mentions just _one_
>informant who was sure that the story he had just told had taken place
>in his grandfather's time -- and who was immediately contradicted by
>another Rapanui (our old friend Juan Tepano), who pointed out that the
>canoe in the story had been made by Tu'u-ko-iho, one of the founding
>ancestors of Rapanui!
>
>We could go into more detail on this, but I wonder if anybody is
>interested?
>
At this point you are way beyond me in the matter of historical
detail. Maybe Routledge was not the best possible reed for him to lean
upon?
Eric Stevens
paoputzu
I've been watching
Diamonds promo tour across the campuses of California for months and
this is the first shot across his politically correct bow I'm aware of.
benlizross
Here's part of the table of contents for that issue:
Energy and Environment
Volume 16, Numbers 3-4, July 2005
Confuse: How Jared Diamond Fails to Convince
Author: Morris, Julian
Jared Diamond and the Terrible Too's
Author: Smith, Fred L.
Human Progress – and Collapse?
Author: Kasper, Wolfgang E.
Australia's Environment Undergoing Renewal, Not Collapse
Author: Marohasy, Jennifer
Diamond in the Rough
Author: Hayward, Steven F.
Montana – A Modern Day Paradigm for Collapse?
Author: Okonski, Kendra
From Genocide to Ecocide: The Rape of Rapa Nui
Author: Peiser, Benny
Vision through a Narrow Lens
Author: Shaw, Jane S.
Later in the issue, there's the text of a letter Peiser wrote to
_Science_ earlier this year (which they didn't publish), taking issue
with a study by Oreskes which claimed to find a scientific consensus on
the reality of global warming. This is one reason why I had him tagged
as a skeptic.
The climate-change issue is off-topic here, of course, but I think in
trying to debunk Diamond's account of Rapanui Peiser goes way to the
other extreme and ends up doing more bad history.
Ross Clark
paoputzu
of trendy
eco-politics that Peiser goes overboard. He probably lives in
California, like myself.
I'm going to have to get this journal just for 'Montana-A Modern Day
Paradigm for Collapse?'
I wonder if thats written with tongue firmly in cheek.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I can assure you that he is not skeptic in the sense that most people
interpret that with respect to climate change. In the case of the
letter to science, Peiser had the hard data which directly
contradicted Oreskes but, as you say, Science would not publish it.
>
>The climate-change issue is off-topic here, of course, but I think in
>trying to debunk Diamond's account of Rapanui Peiser goes way to the
>other extreme and ends up doing more bad history.
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> We could go into more detail on this, but I wonder if anybody is
> interested?
>
> Ross Clark
I'd be interested in the archaeology. Not so much the
Yuri-archie, but the real stuff.
This particular thread seems more history or anthropology. Which
is fun, but needs tying-in to archaeology to make me interested.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
qiwi
Polynesia" hypothesis.... one that even Peter Bellwood, the creator of
the 'out of Taiwan' theory, has distanced himself from....
As for the 'destruction of Rapanui' by its inhabitants, all I can say
is, Diamond is in good company... i.e. Flenley et.al.
benlizross
>
> Possibly, but Diamond so consciously positions himself in the vanguard
> of trendy
> eco-politics that Peiser goes overboard. He probably lives in
> California, like myself.
Liverpool, actually.
> I'm going to have to get this journal just for 'Montana-A Modern Day
> Paradigm for Collapse?'
> I wonder if thats written with tongue firmly in cheek.
Yes, I must have a look at a couple of those other papers.
Ross Clark
benlizross
I think the article's point could be summed up as: how thin the
archaeological evidence is for any of the emergent historical scenario
he's criticizing: for the date and progression of deforestation, for the
cessation of statue-making, for the putative civil war consummated at
the Poike ditch, etc.
Ross Clark
benlizross
>
> Jared Diamond is also the one responsible for the "express train to
> Polynesia" hypothesis.... one that even Peter Bellwood, the creator of
> the 'out of Taiwan' theory, has distanced himself from....
Me too, me too. You might remember me repeatedly backing off when
certain people on this forum demanded to know whether I supported the
"express train" theory.
> As for the 'destruction of Rapanui' by its inhabitants, all I can say
> is, Diamond is in good company... i.e. Flenley et.al.
Well, OK, Qiwi, but before you open up the flame throwers it's only fair
to warn you that, as far as Peiser is concerned, Heyerdahl is in there
too. He may not have worked the environmental angle, but he certainly
had the Rapanuians destroying their own culture before the white people
arrived. And the racial basis of his theories does not get off lightly
either.
Ross Clark
qiwi
island Melanesia and out into the Pacific all in the space of a few
centuries is dodgy whatever way you look at it. What I dont understand
is, do the supporters of the 'express train' theory believe that the
'Lapita' people were travellers on this 'express' or do they believe as
Peter Buck did that the ancestors of the Polynesians largely bypassed
the Melanesian region with only limited contact with other ethnic
groups on the way?
Since archaeology has clearly demonstrated that the 'Lapita' people
resided in the Melanesian region for over a thousand years before
entering the Pacific proper how does that tie in with the 'express
train' scenario.
b.t.w. It must be remembered that Heyerdahl's 'American Indians in the
Pacific' was written over 50 years ago....and I do agree that the
concept of red-haired 'caucasians' settling Rapanui was somewhat
tenuous ..... but to be fair that was an early hypothesis of
Heyerdahl's and not one he pursued later on...
paoputzu
I meant Diamond had to be Californian, so I looked it up. Teaches at
UCLA.
benlizross
>
> The idea that the Polynesian ancestors spread from Taiwan down through
> island Melanesia and out into the Pacific all in the space of a few
> centuries is dodgy whatever way you look at it. What I dont understand
> is, do the supporters of the 'express train' theory believe that the
> 'Lapita' people were travellers on this 'express' or do they believe as
> Peter Buck did that the ancestors of the Polynesians largely bypassed
> the Melanesian region with only limited contact with other ethnic
> groups on the way?
Questions about the 'express train theory' would best be directed to
Jared Diamond, who seems to have invented it.
Anyhow, your question jumbles so many things together it's almost
answer-proof. Buck was writing at a time when the dichotomy between
Melanesians and those lighter-skinned peoples (Indonesians,
Micronesians, Polynesians) seemed profound. Like almost all sane people,
he accepted that the ancestors of the Polynesians had come from the
west, but could not figure out how they could have got through Melanesia
without a "touch of the tar brush". The northern (Micronesian) migration
route seemed like a solution to this problem. We now have evidence, of
course, that the Polynesians do bear some Melanesian (Papuan) genes.
> Since archaeology has clearly demonstrated that the 'Lapita' people
> resided in the Melanesian region for over a thousand years before
> entering the Pacific proper how does that tie in with the 'express
> train' scenario.
Over a thousand years? Care to run those dates by us again?
> b.t.w. It must be remembered that Heyerdahl's 'American Indians in the
> Pacific' was written over 50 years ago....and I do agree that the
> concept of red-haired 'caucasians' settling Rapanui was somewhat
> tenuous ..... but to be fair that was an early hypothesis of
> Heyerdahl's and not one he pursued later on...
I'm not aware that he ever renounced it, and certainly his later global
raft-voyaging projects suggest that he was still wedded to the same big
picture.
However, I did see something, either in Peiser's paper or in the paper
by Owsley which he references several times, stating that in the late
60s Heyerdahl had publicly retracted the British-Columbia-to-Hawaii part
of his theory. I haven't had a chance to check the reference. (Neither
Peiser nor Owsley inspires total confidence.) Does anybody know if this
is true?
Ross Clark
qiwi
broadcast on Jan-9-2003 a group of well known researchers discuss
various aspects of Rapanui culture.... John Flenley's contribution is
another of his laughable explanations for the demise of Rapanui
culture.....
On the topic of deforestation Flenley had the following to contribute:
JOHN FLENLEY: Imagine you're trying to move a statue weighing perhaps
50 tons or more. Now every time you move one like that you are going to
cut down palm trees. Its absolutely inevitable.
NARRATOR: (John Shrapnel) Archaeologists realised that over the years
the statues became more elaborate and also bigger and bigger; so big
that one unfinished statue is more than 60 ft tall and weighs about 400
tons.
JOHN FLENLEY: The statues were getting bigger through time, the palm
forest was getting successively depleted.
NARRATOR: It was as if the statue building had become a competetive
obsession with each tribe trying to outdo the others with ever more
magnificent carvings.
JOHN FLENLEY: The impact on the palm forest must have been
progressively more and more disastrous.
NARRATOR: Obsession became mania, a craving that required more and more
trees to satisfy it.
DAVID STEADMAN: By the time the palm trees got scarce on Easter Island
everybody on the island knew that they were in trouble. They loved palm
trees, thats how they made their good canoes, thats how they rolled
their statues. No palm trees equals we cant move our statues anymore.
NARRATOR: But by now nothing could stop the frenzy of destruction.
JOHN FLENLEY: In the case of Easter Island it's a fairly small island.
You could stand on the summit of Easter Island and see the whole
place.. The person who cut the last tree must have known that it was
the last tree, but they still cut it down. This is the most amazing
example in the world of total deforestation by people.
OK so it is just a voice-over for a television documentary but I find
it very revealing when the likes of Flenley try to put things in
layman's terms..... the guy is in the wrong profession... I think he
would have excelled as a stand-up comic....
Yuri Kuchinsky
This is clearly false.
> I haven't had a chance to check the reference. (Neither
> Peiser nor Owsley inspires total confidence.) Does anybody know if this
> is true?
>
> Ross Clark
Here's another one who obviously hasn't read Heyerdahl, and
yet he's already been spending years in these ngs trying to
prove him wrong...
Way to go, Ross Clark! ;)
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
A great many people think they are thinking when they are
merely rearranging their prejudices -=O=- William James
benlizross
"Clearly"?? What would make it "clearly false"? I mean, other than the
clarity of your evidence-proof vision?
> > I haven't had a chance to check the reference. (Neither
> > Peiser nor Owsley inspires total confidence.) Does anybody know if this
> > is true?
> >
> > Ross Clark
>
> Here's another one who obviously hasn't read Heyerdahl, and
> yet he's already been spending years in these ngs trying to
> prove him wrong...
>
> Way to go, Ross Clark! ;)
>
> Yuri.
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
>
> A great many people think they are thinking when they are
> merely rearranging their prejudices -=O=- William James
I know it's hard for you to resist any opportunity to repeat your
favourite lies and slanders, Yuri, but let's try to get back to a few
actual facts.
Contrary to the lies posted above, I have read a great deal of
Heyerdahl. I have never claimed to have read every word he wrote. Nor is
this necessary for rational critique and refutation.
As for yourself, despite your quasi-religious devotion to Heyerdahl's
theories, I venture to guess that you have not read every word he wrote,
much less memorized it all.
Therefore, when it is claimed that Heyerdahl said this or that in the
late 1960s, you are hardly in a position to say that this is "clearly
false", still less to accuse others of not having read him.
One way in which you could perhaps put some substance to your assertion
would be to find a publication by Heyerdahl from, say, 1970 or later, in
which he clearly re-asserted the NW coast hypothesis. I recall asking
about this several years ago, since I had the impression that this part
of the theory had not been mentioned much, post-60s. IIRC your response
then was the same indignant denial, but you did not provide any textual
evidence in support of your view. Perhaps you would be able to do so
now?
Meanwhile, when I get time, I will look back and find the reference
given by Peiser (or Owsley) in making this claim. I seem to recall it
was one of Thor's more obscure works, one which would not be easy for me
to get hold of. Maybe I'll just post the details here and see if anyone
can confirm or deny.
Ross Clark
benlizross
>
>
> Meanwhile, when I get time, I will look back and find the reference
> given by Peiser (or Owsley) in making this claim. I seem to recall it
> was one of Thor's more obscure works, one which would not be easy for me
> to get hold of. Maybe I'll just post the details here and see if anyone
> can confirm or deny.
>
> Ross Clark
OK, here's my followup. Benny Peiser's paper (title in the subject line
of this thread), available online at:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/EE%2016-34_Peiser.pdf
references a paper by Graham Holton (not Owsley -- my confusion):
"Heyerdahl's Kon-Tiki theory and the denial of the indigenous past",
Anthropological Forum 14(2): 163-181 (2004)
In that paper Holton writes as follows:
"With the attacks on his findings growing in intensity, Heyerdahl (1968)
admitted in 1966 that the North American Indians had not settled in
Hawaii; only the Peruvians had travelled to Easter Island."
The reference is to:
Heyerdahl, T. 1968. An introduction to discussions of transoceanic
contacts: Isolationism, diffusionism, or a middle course? In Proceedings
of the 37th International Congress of Americanists (1966), 467-88, Mar
del Plata, Argentina.
Now these Americanist volumes are very scarce around here, and I don't
see any prospect of getting hold of a copy of this very soon. Perhaps
somebody who's better fixed library-wise could get a look at this and
tell us what he actually says?
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
> One way in which you could perhaps put some substance to your assertion
> would be to find a publication by Heyerdahl from, say, 1970 or later, in
> which he clearly re-asserted the NW coast hypothesis.
You can try here,
1968 Sea Routes to Polynesia. Rand McNally, Chicago.
1978 Early Man and the Ocean: The Beginnings of Navigation
and Seaborne Civilizations. Allen and Unwin, London.
I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
It is a far, far better thing to have a firm anchor in
nonsense than to put out on the troubled seas of
thought -=O=- John K. Galbraith
Yuri Kuchinsky
>
> benlizross wrote:
> >
> >
> > Meanwhile, when I get time, I will look back and find the reference
> > given by Peiser (or Owsley) in making this claim. I seem to recall it
> > was one of Thor's more obscure works, one which would not be easy for me
> > to get hold of. Maybe I'll just post the details here and see if anyone
> > can confirm or deny.
> >
> > Ross Clark
>
> OK, here's my followup. Benny Peiser's paper (title in the subject line
> of this thread), available online at:
>
> http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/EE%2016-34_Peiser.pdf
>
> references a paper by Graham Holton (not Owsley -- my confusion):
>
> "Heyerdahl's Kon-Tiki theory and the denial of the indigenous past",
> Anthropological Forum 14(2): 163-181 (2004)
>
> In that paper Holton writes as follows:
>
> "With the attacks on his findings growing in intensity, Heyerdahl (1968)
> admitted in 1966 that the North American Indians had not settled in
> Hawaii; only the Peruvians had travelled to Easter Island."
This is all nonsense...
> The reference is to:
>
> Heyerdahl, T. 1968. An introduction to discussions of transoceanic
> contacts: Isolationism, diffusionism, or a middle course? In Proceedings
> of the 37th International Congress of Americanists (1966), 467-88, Mar
> del Plata, Argentina.
>
> Now these Americanist volumes are very scarce around here, and I don't
> see any prospect of getting hold of a copy of this very soon. Perhaps
> somebody who's better fixed library-wise could get a look at this and
> tell us what he actually says?
>
> Ross Clark
Heyerdahl never retracted his theory about the cultural
links between Hawaii and North America. The very idea is
absurd, because there's actually a lot more evidence for
this than for the S American connection.
benlizross
>
> benlizross wrote:
>
> > One way in which you could perhaps put some substance to your assertion
> > would be to find a publication by Heyerdahl from, say, 1970 or later, in
> > which he clearly re-asserted the NW coast hypothesis.
>
> You can try here,
>
> 1968 Sea Routes to Polynesia. Rand McNally, Chicago.
>
> 1978 Early Man and the Ocean: The Beginnings of Navigation
> and Seaborne Civilizations. Allen and Unwin, London.
>
> I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Or to put it another way, you are going to contribute nothing to
answering this question. You are going to continue with the method of
unsupported assertion which has served you so well in the past. OK.
As it happens I had already looked at these books. Now in "Early Man and
the Oceans" we do find a few pages about the Haida, with a rehearsal of
the NW Coast-Polynesian resemblances that we are all familiar with.
However, this is not exactly a new book, but rather "an anthology of
reports and speeches previously published independently, which I have
here combined and edited to form a coherent book" (Heyerdahl from the
Preface). He also refers to Dr Karl Jettmar, Professor of Archaeology at
the University of Heidelberg, who is said to have had the idea for the
volume and to have edited a "German version" which appeared in 1975. Now
since none of the previously published items is identified as to its
title, date or source, and since the relative roles of Heyerdahl and
Jettmar in the editorial process are a bit unclear, it is hard to be
certain that this represents Heyerdahl's current thinking as of 1978 (or
1976, when he wrote the Preface).
So we might sum up what we know so far: with one possible exception in
the late 1970s, Heyerdahl does not return to the NW coast part of his
theory. And it is possible (remains to be checked) that he actually
retracted this hypothesis at one point in the 1960s.
Ross Clark
benlizross
But Yuri, what we are trying to find out is what Heyerdahl said or
didn't say, not what you consider absurd or reasonable.
Ross Clark
Yuri Kuchinsky
>
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> >
> > benlizross wrote:
> >
> > > One way in which you could perhaps put some substance to your assertion
> > > would be to find a publication by Heyerdahl from, say, 1970 or later, in
> > > which he clearly re-asserted the NW coast hypothesis.
> >
> > You can try here,
> >
> > 1968 Sea Routes to Polynesia. Rand McNally, Chicago.
> >
> > 1978 Early Man and the Ocean: The Beginnings of Navigation
> > and Seaborne Civilizations. Allen and Unwin, London.
> >
> > I'm not going to do your homework for you.
>
> Or to put it another way, you are going to contribute nothing to
> answering this question. You are going to continue with the method of
> unsupported assertion which has served you so well in the past. OK.
>
> As it happens I had already looked at these books. Now in "Early Man and
> the Oceans" we do find a few pages about the Haida, with a rehearsal of
> the NW Coast-Polynesian resemblances that we are all familiar with.
That's all that's needed to be demonstrated.
> However, this is not exactly a new book, but rather "an anthology of
> reports and speeches previously published independently, which I have
> here combined and edited to form a coherent book" (Heyerdahl from the
> Preface). He also refers to Dr Karl Jettmar, Professor of Archaeology at
> the University of Heidelberg, who is said to have had the idea for the
> volume and to have edited a "German version" which appeared in 1975. Now
> since none of the previously published items is identified as to its
> title, date or source, and since the relative roles of Heyerdahl and
> Jettmar in the editorial process are a bit unclear, it is hard to be
> certain that this represents Heyerdahl's current thinking as of 1978 (or
> 1976, when he wrote the Preface).
Nonsense. His 1978 book represents his current thinking for
1978.
> So we might sum up what we know so far: with one possible exception in
> the late 1970s, Heyerdahl does not return to the NW coast part of his
> theory. And it is possible (remains to be checked) that he actually
> retracted this hypothesis at one point in the 1960s.
>
> Ross Clark
Heyerdahl never retracted any part of his
British-Columbia-to-Hawaii theory until we have some
specific quotes from Heyerdahl demonstrating that he did.
I suspect that Graham Holton was engaging in some sort of a
misrepresentation in this area.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Reality is that which, when you stop believing
in it, doesn't go away -=O=- Philip K. Dick
benlizross
Yep, I would expect no less from a staunch orthodox Heyerdahlian.
> I suspect that Graham Holton was engaging in some sort of a
> misrepresentation in this area.
Somehow I guessed you'd suspect that. Well, I hope we'll get some real
answers here some day.
Meanwhile, I've had a look at a paper which was published in the same
year as the paper we are interested in, with a virtually identical title
(Thor Heyerdahl, "Discussions of Transoceanic Contacts: Isolationism,
Diffusionism, or a Middle Course?", _Anthropos_ 61:689-707 (1966)). It
has no references to the NW Coast-Hawaii connection, but then that may
not be significant, since it's a fairly informal review of some pieces
of evidence in the age-old battle between Diffusionists and
Isolationists. Some of it is pretty familiar -- I note that he trots out
_Canavalia ensiformis_ again, basing himself on the one erroneous and
totally unsupported statement by Stonor and Anderson (1949) that it was
"widely cultivated throughout the Pacific". He still seems to believe
that Old World and New World beans belong to the same genus. And (this
is a new one for me) -- parrots! Noting that early visitors to the
Tuamotus saw parrots, he gets into a speculation about how they must
have been brought from S America on balsa rafts. Apparently this
outstanding scientist was under the impression that there were no
parrots in Asia or Oceania! ;-D Oh well, a little laugh like that makes
a fair amount of tedium worth while.
Ross Clark
george
Parrots eh. We have populations of Rosellas and Sulphur Crested
Cockateels in Northland that flew all the 1200 miles from Australia.
With that range they could well populate most of the Pacific.
The only transPacific sailors were the Polynesians in spite of what
yuris god heuerdahl claims
Yuri Kuchinsky
Your efforts to change the subject are noted.
Contrary to your repeated assertions, I'm not some sort of a
Heyerdahl fanatic. I feel no need to defend Heyerdahl on
some marginal matters. Everybody makes mistakes. So what?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=-
Toronto
Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt.
It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure.
-- Reinhold Niebuhr
benlizross
Your admission that Heyerdahl made mistakes is noted (with approval).
Though the parrot one seems pretty glaring -- I'm surprised that a
howler like that found its way into print.
And I note that even as simple a term as "changing the subject" seems
hard for you to grasp. I was approaching the subject indirectly, but
quite closely -- a paper published in the same year the ICA one was
given, with a virtually identical title, which I was able to get hold
of. The ICA volume ("the subject") is unfortunately not readily
accessible to me, and nobody has come forward to tell us what's in it.
Ross Clark
astri...@gmail.com
> The following article was recently posted on the Cambridge Conference
> Network (CCNet). While addressing a different point from recent
> discussions in the ng, it still throws some light on the history of
> Rapanui (Easter Island) and I have the approval of Benny Peiser to
> post it here:
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> FROM GENOCIDE TO ECOCIDE: THE RAPE OF RAPA NUI
>
> Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University, Faculty of Science
> Liverpool L3 2ET, UK. b.j.p...@livjm.ac.uk
>
> Energy & Environment, 16:3&4 (2005), pp. 513-539
> http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/EE%2016-34_Peiser.pdf
>
>
> ABSTRACT
> The 'decline and fall' of Easter Island and its alleged
> self-destruction has become the poster child of a new environmentalist
> historiography, a school of thought that goes hand-in-hand with
> predictions of environmental disaster. Why did this exceptional
> civilisation crumble? What drove its population to extinction? These
> are some of the key questions Jared Diamond endeavours to answer in
> his new book 'Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive.'
> According to Diamond, the people of Easter Island destroyed their
> forest, degraded the island's topsoil, wiped out their plants and
> drove their animals to extinction. As a result of this
> selfinflicted environmental devastation, its complex society
> collapsed, descending into civil war, cannibalism and
> self-destruction. While his theory of ecocide has
> become almost paradigmatic in environmental circles, a dark and gory
> secret hangs over the premise of Easter Island's self-destruction: an
> actual genocide terminated Rapa Nui's indigenous populace and its
> culture. Diamond, however, ignores and fails to address the true
> reasons behind Rapa Nui's collapse. Why has he turned the victims of
> cultural and physical extermination into the perpetrators of their own
> demise? This paper is a first attempt to address this disquieting
> quandary.
>
> It describes the foundation of Diamond's environmental revisionism and
> explains why it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.
>
> INTRODUCTION
>
> Of all the vanished civilisations, no other has evoked as much
> bafflement, incredulity and conjecture as the Pacific island of Rapa
> Nui (Easter Island). This tiny patch of land was discovered by
> European explorers more than three hundred years ago amidst the
> vast space that is the South Pacific Ocean. Its civilisation attained
> a level of social complexity that gave rise to one of the most
> advanced cultures and technological feats of Neolithic societies
> anywhere in the world. Easter Island's stone-working skills and
> proficiency were far superior to any other Polynesian culture, as was
> its unique writing system. This most extraordinary society developed,
> flourished and persisted for perhaps more than one thousand years -
> before it collapsed and became all but extinct.
>
> Why did this exceptional civilisation crumble? What drove its
> population to extinction? These are some of the key questions Jared
> Diamond endeavours to answer in his new book Collapse: How Societies
> Choose to Fail or Survive (Diamond, 2005) in a chapter which focuses
> on Easter Island.
>
> Diamond's saga of the decline and fall of Easter Island is
> straightforward and can be summarised in a few words: Within a few
> centuries after the island was settled, the people of Easter Island
> destroyed their forest, degraded the island's topsoil, wiped out
> their plants and drove their animals to extinction. As a result of
> this self-inflicted environmental devastation, its complex society
> collapsed, descending into civil war, cannibalism and
> self-destruction. When Europeans discovered the island in the 18th
> century, they found a crashed society and a deprived population of
> survivors who subsisted among the ruins of a once vibrant
> civilisation.
>
> Diamond's key line of reasoning is not difficult to grasp: Easter
> Island's cultural decline and collapse occurred before Europeans set
> foot on its shores. He spells out in no uncertain terms that the
> island's downfall was entirely self-inflicted: "It was the islanders
> themselves who had destroyed their own ancestor's work"
> (Diamond, 2005).
>
> Lord May, the President of Britain's Royal Society, recently condensed
> Diamond's theory of environmental suicide in this way: "In a lecture
> at the Royal Society last week, Jared Diamond drew attention to
> populations, such as those on Easter Island, who denied they were
> having a catastrophic impact on the environment and were eventually
> wiped out, a phenomenon he called 'ecocide'" (May, 2005).
>
> Diamond's theory has been around since the early 1980s. Since then, it
> has reached a mass audience due to a number of popular books and
> Diamond's own publications. As a result, the notion of ecological
> suicide has become the "orthodox model" of Easter Island's demise.
> "This story of self-induced eco-disaster and consequent self-
> destruction of a Polynesian island society continues to provide the
> easy and uncomplicated shorthand for explaining the so-called
> cultural devolution of Rapa Nui society" (Rainbird, 2002).
>
> The 'decline and fall' of Easter Island and its alleged
> self-destruction has become the poster child of the new
> environmentalist historiography, a school of thought that goes
> hand-in-hand with predictions of environmental disaster. Clive
> Ponting's The Green History of the World - for many years the main
> manifest of British eco-pessimism - begins his saga of ecological
> destruction and social degeneration with "The Lessons of Easter
> Island" (Ponting, 1992:1ff.). Others view Easter Island as a microcosm
> of planet Earth and consider the former's bleak fate as symptomatic
> for what awaits the whole of humanity. Thus, the story of Easter
> Island's environmental suicide has become the prime case for the
> gloomiest of grim eco-pessimism. After more than 30 years of
> palaeo-environmental research on Easter Island, one of its
> leading experts comes to an extremely gloomy conclusion: "It seems
> [...] that ecological sustainability may be an impossible dream. The
> revised Club of Rome predictions show that it is not very likely that
> we can put of the crunch by more than a few decades. Most of their
> models still show economic decline by AD 2100. Easter Island still
> seems to be a plausible model for Earth Island." (Flenley,
> 1998:127).
>
> From a political and psychological point of view, this imagery of a
> complex civilisation self-destructing is overwhelming. It portrays an
> impression of utter failure that elicits shock and trepidation. It is
> in form of a shock-tactic when Diamond employs Rapa Nui's tragic end
> as a dire warning and a moral lesson for humanity today: "Easter
> [Island's] isolation makes it the clearest example of a society that
> destroyed itself by overexploiting its own resources. Those are the
> reasons why people see the collapse of Easter Island society as a
> metaphor, a worst-case scenario, for what may lie ahead of us in our
> own future" (Diamond, 2005).
>
> While the theory of ecocide has become almost paradigmatic in
> environmental circles, a dark and gory secret hangs over the premise
> of Easter Island's selfdestruction: an actual genocide terminated Rapa
> Nui's indigenous populace and its culture. Diamond ignores, or
> neglects to address the true reasons behind Rapa Nui's collapse. Other
> researchers have no doubt that its people, their culture and its
> environment were destroyed to all intents and purposes by European
> slave-traders, whalers and colonists - and not by themselves!
> After all, the cruelty and systematic kidnapping by European
> slave-merchants, the near-extermination of the Island's indigenous
> population and the deliberate destruction of the island's environment
> has been regarded as "one of the most hideous atrocities committed by
> white men in the South Seas" (Métraux, 1957:38), "perhaps the most
> dreadful piece of genocide in Polynesian history" (Bellwood,
> 1978:363).
>
> So why does Diamond maintain that Easter Island's celebrated culture,
> famous for its sophisticated architecture and giant stone statues,
> committed its own environmental suicide? How did the once well-known
> accounts about the "fatal impact" (Moorehead, 1966) of European
> disease, slavery and genocide - "the catastrophe that wiped out
> Easter Island's civilisation" (Métraux, ibid.) - turn into a
> contemporary parable of selfinflicted ecocide? In short, why have the
> victims of cultural and physical extermination been turned into the
> perpetrators of their own demise?
>
> This paper is a first attempt to address this disquieting quandary. It
> describes the foundation of Diamond's environmental revisionism and
> explains why it does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.
>
> FULL PAPER at
> http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/EE%2016-34_Peiser.pdf
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Hi,
I have referred extensively to Peiser and tested the Jarad Diamond theory using my own method in a new book called Demography, Territory and Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations, which is available as kindle http://www.amazon.com/Demography-Territory-Law-populations-ebook/dp/B00ALE8YSA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358834633&sr=8-1&keywords=demography+territory+law or in print version: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/QueenieAlexander2000. My book also covers other examples of die-off and overpopulation on islands. What I write is quite new. I would love some comments on it. Below is the publisher blurb:
"This book takes us to a completely new paradigm in multiple species population science. It shows how little we understand, and how much we need to know, of the sexual reactions when closed colonies with an orderly reproduction system are destroyed, be it people or animals." (Hans Brunner, Forensic Biologist)
A new theory of the biological basis of land-use planning, political systems and demography by an evolutionary sociologist. It exercises the kind of “consilience” that E.O.Wilson hoped could save biodiversity.
The author identifies a poly-species norm and a genetic algorithm using well-established biological and anthropological studies, then relates these to the human land-tenure systems which underpin our political systems. The book convincingly shows how one land tenure and inheritance system promotes steady state societies and the other promotes uncontrollable growth and overshoot of resources. This theme is developed more in the subsequent volumes of this series, which compare the Germanic (English) and the Roman (Napoleonic) systems in European history.
The book begins by describing the social costs of infrastructure expansion and population growth in economic growth systems in some modern societies. After reviewing population theories, Newman introduces a new theory of an additional function of genetic diversity in two chapters that look at impacts on fertility opportunities of the Westermarck Effect and incest avoidance in non-human species. A final chapter compares these with affinal restrictions and non-sale of land in Pacific Islander and other traditional social systems. We learn that modern societies ignore these traditions at their peril and that Anglophone systems with rapidly growing populations a seeming norm are quite different from those of continental Europe, where population growth is slowing. We come to understand that our destinies and societies are still very dependent on who we are, whom we marry, how far away we live from our parents and whether we inherit, buy or rent, plus the transport we use.
Most economic demographic theory begins with the industrial revolution as its norm, ignoring the exceptionality and relative transience of this period and treating other species and the natural environment as ‘externals’. Although informed by ‘collapse’ theory (Tainter) Newman is interested in what keeps some societies going for thousands of years. She finds that stable populations are not limited to hunter gatherer communities. Newman’s completely new take on the 'riddle' of Easter Island which will surprise everyone.
Demograhy Territory & Law: Rules of Animal & Human Populations is the first of four by environment and energy sociologist, Sheila Newman, in a series identifying and comparing the biological origins and outcomes of two major world demographic economic and political systems. The rest of the series develops this theme and theory in the following titles, of which the second will be available very soon and the third in 2013 and the fourth by 2014:
Demograhy Territory & Law 2: Land Tenure and the Origins of Capitalism in Britain
Demograhy Territory & Law 3: Land Tenure and the Origins of Modern Democracy in France
Demograhy Territory & Law 4: After Napoleon: Incorporation of Land and People