Europeans - is there anything we haven't ruined?

As I have discussed, the traditional Easter Island story has been criticized for numerous flaws, notably by Hunt & Lipo (2009), on the argument for ecocide as the cause of societal collapse. One issue is the disconnect between deforestation on the island and the population collapse, as I mentioned in an earlier post these two events occur between 100-300 years apart (Hunt & Lipo 2009). This therefore leads me to question whether it was environmental degradation that pushed the society to the edge. Many writers instead argue that contact with Europeans was the cause for the demographic collapse on the island, the fact that first contact with Europeans occurs around the time the sustained population decline instantly makes this an interesting argument (First European visitor - AD1722, Population fall - AD1750 [Hunt & Lipo 2009]).

The ecocide argument, as Rainbird (2002) comments, rests mostly on the connection between environmental degradation and the ensuing collapse. But the evidence suggesting that these two are causally related appears questionable. Diamond (2005) uses the discovery of obsidian points in archaeological finds as evidence for periods of increased fighting, but Bahn and Flenley (1992) point out that these points become most common in the 18th and 19th centuries, where they become the most common artifact on the island, suggesting conflict occurred then, not centuries beforehand. Another source of archaeological evidence are bone pathologies from human skeletons, but as Rainbird (2002) writes, most skeletal injuries observed appear non-lethal, with no evidence of widespread civil war before European contact. Additionally, Hunt & Lipo (2009) note that the islanders developed coping strategies such as stone mulching to optimize crop cultivation in the increasingly nutrient-poor soils and variable rainfall conditions of Easter, suggesting that environmental degradation didn't just push the island into infighting. Furthermore, Hunt & Lipo's (2009) research also suggest population increased during the worst period of deforestation.

Obsidian axes similar to those found on Easter

Another important source of evidence for the ecocide argument is oral traditions of the islanders, which describe periods of social upheaval and conflict. Peiser (2005) notes, that it is generally agreed the oral traditions of Easter are untrustworthy, contradictory and historically unreliable, as well as being relatively late in origin. Rainbird (2002) raises a very interesting point, that there are a dearth of traditions attributed to pre-European contact, but none that describe the numerous violent confrontations with European invaders  during the first half of the 19th century, which considering the fact that oral traditions where transcribed largely by European missionaries makes the question of bias a very important issue. Rainbird (2002) suggests that it is likely in an attempts to display the islanders as savages and Europeans as bringing civilization to them, the missionaries in a way edited the oral traditions to date the times of conflict before European contact.

Bahn (1997) writes that between 1722-1862, some 53 recorded vessels visited the island, with a number of these visits involving abduction and murder. For example, a common practice was for whale ships to abduct islanders to replace crew that had died during the voyage (Bahn 1997), and it is widely agreed that slavers repeatedly raided the island. Bahn (1997) suggests that mass deportations and raids led to the social order of the island collapsing, with whoever was left behind fighting over what little resources the Europeans had not taken. It is possible, Bahn adds, that the oral traditions that depict internal violence reference these periods, not events many hundreds of years earlier, which seems plausible considering how young many of the oral traditions are (Peiser 2005). Bahn (1997) adds, that an estimated 1000-1400 natives were deported by slave raiders between late 1862 and early 1863. As population estimates range from 3000 to as high as 20000 (Flenley and Bahn 2003), this would be devastating (especially if numbers were near the lower range, which Hunt & Lipo's research suggest they were).

The debate over whether it was European contact that caused the population collapse is therefore a compelling one, especially considering the proximity of both these events, as well as separation between the collapse and the environmental degradation. The main archaeological evidence of conflict (obsidian points) suggests that most conflict occurred after European contact. The evidence to suggest the conflicts occurred in the island's prehistory appear relatively unreliable, mostly being based on oral traditions (Peiser 2005). Finally, the islander's adapted to their changing environment, and population actually appears to increase despite deforestation (Hunt & Lipo 2009). As we know so little about this time period it is difficult to categorically state that the collapse was caused by European contact, but the similar timings, the ability of European contact to cause demographic collapse (Hunt & Lipo 2009) and the lack of evidence to suggest otherwise seems to indicate it is a plausible argument.