"constructed numerous buildings and built many of the large statues, known as Tiki Gods, for which the island is now best known. However, by the late 18th century, when European explorers first discovered the island, the population had dropped to 2,000 and islanders were living in near primitive conditions, with almost all elements of the previous society completely wiped out."
This entire chunk annoys me. First off, by "numerous buildings," I'd be curious as to how they define building. It gives the sense of something grand.
Also, the large statues aren't Tiki Gods at all. They're called moai, and they're statues of ancestors - not gods. Nor are they tikis, unless compared to their relative statues elsewhere in Polynesia, which they are derivitives of.
And all elements of their previous society wiped out? They still used the same houses, had a religion stemming from the old one, and a robust mythology - as well as an oral history. Unless by "all elements of the previous society completely wiped out," they mean, "they didn't make moai anymore."
Outside of the fact that I think using equations to predict population models after the fact is a little strange in and of itself. Yes, you can use an equation to "predict" population changes - after all, you made the curve from the data!
I was wondering about that... I didn't think those were tiki gods on Easter Island.
I got the impression that he'd worked out the equation and then compared it to archaeological data about the population size, rather than the other way around. It's not terribly remarkable to plot the curve and then come up with an equation to describe it -- I remember doing that in my 8th grade algebra class.
This entire chunk annoys me. First off, by "numerous buildings," I'd be curious as to how they define building. It gives the sense of something grand.
Also, the large statues aren't Tiki Gods at all. They're called moai, and they're statues of ancestors - not gods. Nor are they tikis, unless compared to their relative statues elsewhere in Polynesia, which they are derivitives of.
And all elements of their previous society wiped out? They still used the same houses, had a religion stemming from the old one, and a robust mythology - as well as an oral history. Unless by "all elements of the previous society completely wiped out," they mean, "they didn't make moai anymore."
Outside of the fact that I think using equations to predict population models after the fact is a little strange in and of itself. Yes, you can use an equation to "predict" population changes - after all, you made the curve from the data!
Reply
I got the impression that he'd worked out the equation and then compared it to archaeological data about the population size, rather than the other way around. It's not terribly remarkable to plot the curve and then come up with an equation to describe it -- I remember doing that in my 8th grade algebra class.
Reply
Leave a comment