>The settlements did fail though, right? So something happened.
The area was already very marginally habitable for humans. In the same general area, the Dorset Eskimos also died off (in their case, we aren't entirely sure which century that happened), so even specially adapted cultures had serious trouble. Maybe it always had little slack.
If I had to take a very wild guess: What changed was the Little Ice Age making conditions even worse. Maybe plague played a part too (though I can't substantiate that). Eventually enough people died to make the society not work (you need a certain number to maintain a complex society). Perhaps the reminder decided to leave, but with no food stocks the sea journey failed... Or perhaps they died in place, having nowhere to go. Grim either way.
> pretty sure there was a counter-counter addendum to the book on Easter Island. He published on his web site a new chapter re-discussing the latest theories on Easter Island.
Can't find anything on his current website. I'll try more thoroughly later.
Now I can't find link.
It must be second edition, not published freely.
From web site, just overview of the updates.
But while searching for this. Found another popular book that had theory that it was rats, and the rats had no natural predator's and ate all the palm tree roots.
EXTENSIONS
Since my book’s initial publication in 2005, information has continued to accumulate about collapses, and about avoidances of collapses. I shall mention here three of these recent extensions, to our understanding of Easter Island, the Maya, and Angkor.
First, I summarize below the striking new evidence that Andreas Mieth and Hans-Rudolf Bork have published concerning the widespread Polynesian felling and burning of trees on Easter Island long before European arrival.
Second, measurements of markers that reflect paleoclimate have provided increasing evidence for severe droughts that contributed to the decline of Classic Maya cities in the Southern Maya lowlands.
Finally, the biggest recent advance (summarized in a new chapter included in my book’s 2011 edition) has been in our understanding of the decline of the Khmer Empire based at Angkor
Yeah, the idea it was rats in the link I gave too. The counter-argument is that it was an ecological problem in the strict sense, but not a ecological problem for humans. The people adapted and ate rats (yuck) among a few other things. It's not pleasant, but it's argued it was stable for a long time.
The area was already very marginally habitable for humans. In the same general area, the Dorset Eskimos also died off (in their case, we aren't entirely sure which century that happened), so even specially adapted cultures had serious trouble. Maybe it always had little slack.
If I had to take a very wild guess: What changed was the Little Ice Age making conditions even worse. Maybe plague played a part too (though I can't substantiate that). Eventually enough people died to make the society not work (you need a certain number to maintain a complex society). Perhaps the reminder decided to leave, but with no food stocks the sea journey failed... Or perhaps they died in place, having nowhere to go. Grim either way.
> pretty sure there was a counter-counter addendum to the book on Easter Island. He published on his web site a new chapter re-discussing the latest theories on Easter Island.
Can't find anything on his current website. I'll try more thoroughly later.