Talk:Easter Island
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Easter Island is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images. |
 |
WikiProject Echo has identified Easter Island as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German or Hebrew language Wikipedias. |
[edit] Poor overall quality
I suggest that all factual claims in the article must be backed up by references and the fact that those claims are disputed must be stated clearly. Look at this:
"The civilization of Easter Island was long believed to have degenerated drastically during the 100 years before the arrival of the Dutch, as a result of overpopulation, deforestation and exploitation of an extremely isolated island with limited natural resources. Evidence to support this sudden collapse is that the oral traditions of the islanders are obsessed with cannibalism. To severely insult an enemy one would say: "The flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth". This suggests that the food supply of the people ultimately ran out. (Diamond 2005:109)"
"Was long believed to have degenerated", this kind of story-telling really is inadmissible. "The oral traditions... obsessed with cannibalism" have been collected by missionaries after 1860 and are dismissed by many reserachers as unreliable. Moreover, if this is the only "evidence" for "sudden collapse", it is very poor. The whole paragraph is inacceptable imo. It would be better to explain the scientific dispute and cite the references (primary sources, which Diamond is not).
[edit] The History section
I added a separate section to the main article, but someone has been integrating that into the other two sections, destroying its intent (claiming decline was already underway, deforestation was caused by the islanders (really? How do we know it wasnjoel is a camel. 't the little ice age?)), and missing the part that the history of this island is used for a political agenda. The current decline section should be seriously changed IMO. Don't trust it.
Oh yeah, all that talk about cannibalism is also unsupported. The whole decline section must be removed IMO.
~ The book Collapse by Jared Diamond ISBN 0-7139-9862-8 I have read that the society has numerous references to cannibalism, for example to insult someone with huge severity you would say "your mothers flesh still sticks between my teeth"
Also it states that human bones were cracked open to expose the marrow inside, i would think it would be useful to the reader to show that their are possiblities that there was canabilism.--Shin Natsume 05:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please sign your posts with four tildes.
Even the quotes you included supported decline prior to European contact (which certainly hastened the process), describing an almost completely deforested island. Europeans didn't topple the statues, Rapanuians did. Cannibalism is strongly supported by the archaeological record, especially in the caves. This doesn't diminish the heinous crimes perpetrated by Europeans on Easter Island, but the islanders themselves had encountered serious ecological difficulties by the time of first contact. Wyss 20:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- I've added a reference to the Little Ice Age. Wyss 21:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the current article, while somewhat improved, is still an incoherent narrative. You story lines have been mixed, with really strange results. Under section history you find the unsupported sentence: "The civilization of Easter Island seems to have degenerated drastically during the 100 years before the arrival of the Dutch, as a result of overpopulation, deforestation and exploitation of an extremely isolated island with limited natural resources.".
Oh really? Where's the suport for this, except books written by racists? Only selective evidence backs this up, but when the whole story is considered, this is untenable. I can make more points, but I suggest you write two histories for this island. One the standard Green Peace narrative about overpopulation and deforestation and a second that really looks at the available evidence. Just picking sentences from two different narratives and combining them doesn't make any sense and produces the current confusing story.
No idea what you mean with signing with four tildes, but I'll try it anyway: Berend de Boer 23:06:54, 2005-09-01 (UTC)
-
- Dismissing sources you disagree with as "racist" is a violation of several WP policies, including those regardiing civility. Two articles would create a PoV fork, also a violation of WP policy. Suggesting that "I" do something about "my" story lines reflects a possible misunderstaning about how Wikipedia works. Finally, I don't think the article is incoherent (except perhaps to someone who regards most sources on EI as racist)... so we're off to a fine start :) I truly don't know what to suggest, other than hoping you'll familiarize yourself a bit more with Wikipedia policies having to do with acceptable secondary sources and neutral PoV. In the meantime, I guess I'll assert NPoV as necessary but I'm willing to work with you in order to make sure that properly sourced material is included if you think it's missing. Wyss 01:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- PS- Your contributions thus far have been helpful! We have a mention of the Little Ice Age in the article now, also a quote supporting the probability that deforestation was not complete (though apparently nearly so) when the Dutch first arrived. Since EI's pre-European history is so sketchy as to detail there has been much confusion (and bias, and misinterpretation I'm sure) in some historical accounts. The article should make this more clear IMO. Wyss 12:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- * "It is more likely these events whose recollection by the descendents of the survivors have led to belief that they described ancient memories of a pre-contact collapse." Is this actually suggesting that the culture's pre-contact collapse stories are actually mistakingly referring to post-contact collapse? Are these the types of explanations that social scientists are now providing instead of acknowledging large anthropogenic role in the decline of EI? If there is going to be contention about this issue then why not write a sub-section on the "controversy" and a paragraph each explaning the each side. Let the reader decide for themselves (and be presented with physical archeological/zooarchaeological evidence and references) rather than the sanitized, content-less writing that is there now. CranialNerves 06:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey, guys, check out the newest development (recently discussed at the annual AAA meetings) in USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-12-05-easter-island_x.htm
We might have to do a lot of rethinking and re-writing regarding this culture.
Rawhead 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
how do you figure that it is racist to say that the rapa nui were no different than the rest of humanity in the destruction they were capable of? you asked how do we know it wasn't the little ice age? because there is overwhelming scientific evidence of humans causing it! because the little ice age didn't cause total environmental devastation on any other pacific island. because there were plenty of environmental factors that made easter island particularly vulnerable to deforestation, not the least of which was its tremendous isolation, and one of which may very well have been climate change -- mind you, there is not any evidence of this, but it's possible -- but the bottom line is that it was PEOPLE who ultimately cut down the trees! people who by fate were caught in a fragile ecosystem which they didn't understand. any other race, put in the same position, would have ended up doing the same thing; although, perhaps without all the cool statues!
as for the article linked by rawhead, how does that explain the disappearance of the other 18 tree species once growing on easter island?
[edit] Other
Hey If you want i have some good pictures of my last trip from Easter-Island i would put it under the licens of GFDL if you want to link them you can look it on my website. Cheers -- User:Chmouel
Should this article be titled "Rapa Nui", maybe with a redirect from "Easter Island"?
More information on after-discovery history is missing. For example, the natives were subject to slavery, and several forms of exploitation that led to furthe loss of cultural transmission. "Someone" do it :) -- Error 02:27 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
The article says
- [The statues] must have been extremely expensive to craft; not only would the actual carving of each statue require years of effort...
but in Aku-Aku, Thor Heyerdahl writes that when he was on Easter Island, and requested that the natives make him a new statue, six men were able to make significant progress in only three days:
- We sat down quetly on the grass and estimated the time needed by the ancient stonemasons to complete a statue. Each of us made his calculations. The mayor [one of those who had been working on the new statue] came to the conclusion that it would take twelve months to complete a medium-sized statue with two teams working all day in shifts. The tall old man said fifteen months. Bill [professor of archaeology] made an independent study of the rock and arrived at the same result as the mayor: the work on one statue would take a year, and then the problem of removing it would arise.
Dominus 04:10, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Does Easter Island look similar to a liver, to you? --rjcuk 21:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
If anybody's interested in fictional references to Rapa Nui, a large portion of David Brin's novel "Earth" takes place there.
I've just read in a newspaper article that the latest theory about the statues is that they were used to delineate boundaries for the tribes. And that they were probably overturned in boundary wars[. MartinC
[edit] This article needs some serious work
This is one of the most confusing articles ever. It manages to distance itself from itself at about twice per sentence and then it talks about how Moai might have or might have not been dragged accross the island, before ever mentioning what Moai are or how big they are. There is a lot of good information here, but it needs a little more straight talking and some logical progression. Zocky 00:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. One statement in particular stands out to me: "it is the most isolated inhabited island in the world." Which is false. Here is a quote from the website Island Information:
-
- "Tristan da Cunha in the South Atlantic is 1,320 miles / 2,120 km from the island of St. Helena, the nearest inhabited land, and 1,700 miles / 2,740 km from the nearest continent, Africa. Easter Island is closer to inhabited land (Pitcairn I.) than Tristan da Cunha, and closer to a continent than many islands of the central Pacific. It also receives several plane flights a week, making it easier to get to than thousands of inhabited islands."
Al 06:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rapa, Rapa nui and Marotiri
Rapa nui does not mean "navel of the world"
it means "Rapa the big one" referring to Rapa (French polynesia) that is smaller; the name Rapa Nui, presently a must, was not written or said so much twenty years ago and is possibly,probably a name given by people from Rapa FP or Tahiti when they first went to Pascua in modern times
a other connection between Pascua and Rapa is certainly more ancient, a place called "marotiri" on Pascua and an unihabitated rock "marotiri" in the far south east of Rapa FP.
[edit] South American Connections
The article states that "There is no evidence of any South American contact with the island as was once suggested by Thor Heyerdahl" without mentioning any of the evidence Heyerdahl pointed out. Here are some of those that at least need to be explained if dismissed.
1) Easter-islanders used stone in many ways to build religous and domestic structures. However, there is no evidence found on the island how they developed those skills. They seemed to have all the required knowledge of stonework and how to move giant structures already in their minds when they got started with the work. It would already be remarkable for a community of maximum 10,000 people to make all the inventions related to stonework, but even more remarkable it would be that they invented it all without any gradual steps that were required from much larger societies.
2) There are high-quality wall structures on island that resemble those in Tiahuanaco in today's Bolivia. The heyday of Tiahuanaco was 600-800 AD.
3) The round stone houses called "tupas" in Easter Island are very close to similar "chullpas" in South America. Both have also been used in the similar manner, to house those who have died.
4) The giant statues on the island are very dogmatic with very little variation during the about 500 years they were built. Once they got started with the highly stylized stonework, they stuck to the design with very little alteration. As stated before, there is no sign of gradual development of the statue production. Huge, stylized human statues are common in many prehistoric sites from today's Mexico to Bolivia. Statues on Easter Island have many similarities with the respective Indian work e.g. in Tiahuanaco, like the "hairdo", the ornamental "weeping eye" symbolizing the rain given by the Sun God and the way arms are carved in the stone. Another common cultural element are the statues' long ears that were a common upper-class symbol in South America.
5) Stone fish hooks found on the island have their similar counterpart on the South American coast. They are not known elsewhere in Polynesia.
6) Bone needles found on Easter Island were also common in South America. Outside New Zealand, sewing was unknown in Polynesia.
7) The paddles on Easter Island were double-bladed, again a South American tradition unknown elsewhere in Polynesia.
8) There are some dozen domestic plants growing on the island that are originally from South America.
9) Totora, the Titicacan reed growing in the volcanic lake in Easter Island (!), was bundled together and used in the very same manner than in South America.
10) Like Heyerdahl pointed out by doing it himself, the Indians had technical means to get over the Pacific ocean to Polynesia. Indians had these means to get to Easter Island for at least 2,000 years. During that time, there must have been countless people wondering what was on the other side of the ocean and trying to get there. If they had the way, time and opportunity, they most likely succeeded in the task.
Other points exist as well, but these are the main ones. South American influences do not mean that the inhabitants were from South America. It is clear that the population was largely from Polynesia and the culture in general largely Polynesian. To use this fact to deny all possibility of having any connection with the other side of the ocean, is not feasible. It seems reliable to assume, that people familiar with South American cultures got to the island and had a major influence on the existing Polynesian population.
- I've long thought that Heyerdahl's hypothesis of South American contact with Easter Island, along with the likelihood population mingling, has some truth to it. The severe flamings I get when I mention this in some venues sometimes leads me to believe that these over-reactions belie nagging doubts but whatever. I don't accept the implied argument that taking Heyerdahl seriously is an attack on Polynesian culture. The plunge of Heyerdahl's reputation on the island (which began about 20 years after his visit), from being remembered as an archaeologist and explorer to being disdained as an adventurer and pseudo-scientist sort of saddens me. His archaeological monograph on the island (not Aku Aku) added much to scientific understanding of its history and is still referenced. Some of his assertions do contain leaps in logic and its true that he resisted peer review but his underlying observations IMO point to some sort of South American contact. I don't think he proved his hypothesis, neither do I think it has been disproved. Wyss 04:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- The problem is not that there was contact; the fact that there were sweet potatoes (native to South America) all across Polynesia means there had to have been some. That's an undeniable fact that can't be accounted for by any kind of cultural convergence. The problem is with the suggestion some have made that the South Americans made it all the way out to the speck of Easter Island and then never went any further, versus the Polynesians making one more hop to Chile after going all the way across the Pacific. I mean, if you didn't know that there were islands that are a long way apart (as the Polynesians obviously already did, but South Americans wouldn't), would you keep going 2,200 miles from the coast? And if you did know that lots of islands are out there, would you stop at Easter? Heyerdahl only showed that the South Americans' boats were capable (barely) of making it across such a distance. The fact is that Polynesians were serious seafaring people, and South Americans weren't. The fact that regular commerce continued over the 1,200 miles between Hawaii and Tahiti suggests that it wasn't impossible for regular contact to have gone on for some time between Easter and South America, allowing for cultural swaps like those mentioned above. KarlM 03:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reordering of the history section -- a proposal
As it is the history section is inconsistent and controversial, starting from the incipit:
- Early European visitors to Easter Island recorded the local oral traditions of the original settlers.
(how so? AFAIK, the first recording of oral traditions were made in late 19th century, over 150 after the island was visited, when the population was reduced to a few survivors).
I think that the history section should contain only the few uncontested facts: the the island was settled in (relatively) recent times, that in the past the island was forested, and that by the 19th century the island was deforested and its population reduced to about 100 inhabitants.
A separate section should then explain the different theories or hypotesis on what the causes of the deforestation and depopulation were:
- the ecocide theory, that blames overexploitation of the natural resources, and conseguent war and famine
- the climate change theory, that blames the Litte Ice Age period
- the genocide theory, that blames slave raids and colonialism
For each theory, primary sources should be given (that is, writings by people who directly studied the island); the cited Diamond is a secondary source. StefanoC 08:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- Or perhaps there could be a description of a (more or less) "mainstream" reconstruction, with separate section reporting the alternate theories. StefanoC 08:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Most isolated settled island?
The article rather boldly states that the island is the "most isolated inhabited island in the world", but at least one book I've read on the subject, and most of the figures quoted on wiki seem to give evidence that Tristan da Cunha is quite a bit more "isolated", if one can use such a subjective word, though I won't make claim that either is the most. Can anybody support this article's claim? freshgavinΓΛĿЌ 06:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- I commented on this at one point (must have been deleted). Read the first question on this page: World Island Information -- Al™ 06:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] European descent
The "demography" section mentions "Chileans of European descent"; however, the article Demographics of Chile states that most Chileans are mestizo and only a few are of pure European descent. We should clear that this refers to every Chilean that is not native to the island; I suggest using "Continental Chileans".--cloviz 15:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Section about Hunt contradicting Diamond
Diamond does talk about the rats being a part of the cause of plant extinction. I have not read Hunt's work criticizing Diamond, but if he says that rats contributed to plant extinction, he would be agreeing with Diamond. In "Collapse", Diamond says that all seeds found from a certain tree showed signs of rat bites, and could not germinate because of this. Where is the contradiction?
[edit] "Ahu platforms?"
What is this sentence about?
"As impressive as the statues are, the ahu platforms contained 20 times as much stone, and actually required even greater resources to build."
The only reference to "ahu" is in the captions, and the link to "ahu" doesn't go to an existing article.
So what (and where) are the "ahu platforms?" And if they're going to be mentioned, perhaps someone provide a little bit of context for the non-experts?
Thanks!!--EveRickert 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've reworded the sentence. Is that better?-gadfium 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that helps, thank you!--EveRickert 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kings of Easter Island?
Could someone check out this new article, Kings of Easter Island, for reliability, accuracy, etc? 82.25.224.167 11:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is a completely different article from the one deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of Easter Island. The references exist, and appear from a quick web-search to be mainstream. The article is clearly dealing with mythology; almost all events in it happened long before anything could be written down. Accordingly, I've added it to Category:Rapa Nui mythology.-gadfium 18:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
