For example, this film is set 300 years ago (around AD 1700), and tells how there is civil war between tribes on the Island. The tribes are still erecting statues, however, it is impossible for these tribes to be erecting the moai when they are at war. As has been highlighted in a previous post, resources were scattered around the island, with stones for the moai in the, quarries for the red stones that formed hats for the moai, fishing in the, agriculture in the, and forests in the. This suggests not only a complex and highly organised society on Easter Island, it also suggests that friendly trade between tribes that congregated round the resources must have been in place for the statues to have been built. Thus statue building and civil war could not have coincided. Basically the film seems to have mixed two eras into one!
Secondly, the film assumes that the islanders cut down the palm trees for space for the moai. Although this could have been possible, it is much more likely that the trees were cut down, if they were cut down at all, to provide resources and to make space for agriculture rather than the statues.
The film advocates the popularised view shared by Jared Diamond that Easter Island collapsed due to the ‘ecocide’ theory. The influence of both the film and Diamond’s books are dangerous for Easter Island as causes people to form a preconceived view on why Easter collapsed, without looking at the different theories of collapse.
This is exactly like the film 'Apocalypto' produced by Mel Gibson! He makes the Maya out to be a brutal civilisation that brought their collapse upon themselves - also supporting Diamond's theory (see my concluding post coming soon). Definitely an inaccurate portrayal that should not be relied upon.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like hollywood actors need to go back to school before they produce films on the collapse of ancient civilisations!
ReplyDeletePerhaps we should teach them a thing or two!
ReplyDelete