A new study challenges the idea that Rapa Nui islanders caused an ‘ecocide’

Easter Island, also known as Rapa Nui, is one of the most fascinating and mysterious archaeological sites in the world. For decades, a theory has suggested that the island’s ancient inhabitants caused an ecological disaster that led to the collapse of their society. Jared Diamond wrote in his book “Collapse” that the islanders caused their own ecological downfall through poor management of natural resources. They deforested the entire island, leading to soil erosion and the extinction of various animal species, all while the population continued to grow and exploit the limited resources. This combination of factors led to an ecological and social collapse that has become a warning example in human history.

Diamond emphasizes the significant investment in the construction and transportation of the moai statues as one of the main reasons for the overexploitation of resources. The inhabitants expended enormous efforts in building and moving these giant stone statues across the island, which required vast amounts of wood and tools, leading to environmental destruction.

A recent study published in Science Advances offers a new perspective on the story of Easter Island, challenging this narrative. Archaeologist Dylan Davis and his colleagues argue that the islanders maintained a modest agricultural system and a relatively small, stable population until the arrival of Europeans in 1722. Their conclusions are based on ground surveys and machine-learning models that analyzed satellite images to identify rock gardens. These rock gardens, used for agriculture, covered less than one-half of one percent of the island’s territory, indicating limited agricultural capacity. The researchers estimate that the population on Easter Island was small and stable, with an estimate of around 3,900 individuals. This number is not sufficient to have caused overexploitation of natural resources and an ecological disaster.

However, the findings are contested by some researchers who argue that the study’s data set is too limited and does not account for all cultivation practices or the possibility that rock gardens were more widespread and used at different times.