223 : Questions about Rapanui

So if the people who built the Moai migrated across the Pacific from Tahiti and the Marquesas and considering the distances involved and the time they supposedly did so....I’d like to pose a few questions.

• Where did they learn to carve such large statues? (yes we know they carved small ones)

• Why are some buried up to their necks, yet this practice does not occur elsewhere?

• Where did they learn to make such intricate platforms for the Moai?

• Where did they learn to create a written script when no other Polynesian island ever had one?

There are already carved statues in Tahiti and Marquesas but also in Melanesia, Micronesia and South America. Yes, Polynesians did arrive in Rapanui, but we believe they supplanted those already there, just like they did in New Zealand (the Tangata Whenua), Hawaii (Menhune) and many other islands. And if no one is concerned about that (and I'm not) why do Maori worry about Europeans doing to them what they did to others, Yes, I know that is inflammatory when we haven't yet proven to you others were here first... but that is coming, albeit a little more slowly than might be expected due to having to begin again at new sites.

OK, back to Rapanui. The Moai were made around 300AD. It would likely have taken 500 years to make all 887 Moai, even if they had hundreds doing it. But Polynesians only arrived 700-800CE based on charcoal found in middens.

There is a large petroglyph rock showing a double hulled Polynesian canoe on the island. If all this is true, there is not the remotest chance Polynesians made the Moai - but they did start the bird cult after wiping out the previous inhabitants. According to local legends, a group of people called hanau epe (meaning either "long eared" or "stocky" people) came into conflict with another group called the hanau momoko (either "short eared" or "slim" people). After mutual suspicions erupted in a violent clash, the hanau epe were overthrown and nearly exterminated, leaving only one survivor. Various interpretations of this story have been made – that it represents a struggle between natives and incoming migrants; that it recalls inter-clan warfare; or that represents a class conflict. Polynesians were as good as other cultures at inter-tribal warfare. That is the reason they came from Raiatea and why they fought within Aotearoa up until and even after Europeans arrived. Do not for one minute think of Maori as simply a peaceful people singing beautiful wiata's while gardening and carving intricate patterns on wood to ornate the doorposts of their villages. They were all of that, but also violent, they were cannibals and slave keepers. Infanticide was also normal. Revenge was paramount in the culture. Let's make this clear - we are not condemning any of this as it was their culture at the time, (as Europeans had a culture between 1750-1900 that we wouldn't accept now), but we want to remind you that Maori were as human as every other race and did things back then that are not accepted by modern society now.

There are strong links to South America but that was about 700-900 years ago with general exploration occurring all around the Pacific. Some influence of sea-faring travelers would undoubtedly be absorbed.

In 1722 a Dutch explorer visited the island. Jacob Roggeveen named it "Easter Island" as he arrived during Easter. He observed that the inhabitants were of three groups: "dark skinned, red skinned, and very pale skinned people with red hair". In the 19th century, a Tahitian visitor who thought the island resembled Rapa (French Polynesia) but was bigger (nui means big), gave it the Polynesian name "Rapa Nui". Some have said the real name is Te pito o te kainga a Hau Maka meaning “The Little Piece of Land of Hau Maka”. Hau maka saw the island in a dream and sailed straight to it (!), but that name is suggestive as when the Polynesians arrived fleeing from war (the same reason they likely came to Aotearoa), there was already someone there which means the Polynesians colonised the island. So the current name is one belonging to modern Tahiti and it's not even the original name, and that we will likely never learn and the Rongo script (that has never been deciphered) can't tell us either because they were produced from about 1500AD onwards... when little timber existed on the island. I suggest the rongo tablets are sacred. That is my belief, and that they belonged to the islands elite at the time in the same way Bible were only in Latin once and therefore the domain of the religiously educated and therefore not understood by the general masses. Rongo tablets were made of wood from both Pacific and South American trees and in a few cases - driftwood.

The wooden objects are recent immigration objects. But what about the Moai? Few know that these Moai seen today are newer than the first, which were often destroyed in favour of more stylised larger ones... ones with 'long ears'. But when Europeans arrived, many of these had been toppled - just like the 'long ears' had been physically as a people. They were toppled because a new religion had arisen. The Bird Cult! You see, like most places, religion, culture and race changed a few times before Europeans ever saw the island. The structures the Moai sat upon nearer the coast were very similar to the platforms of Malden Island and in Micronesia. Malden Island has already been featured in a older post. They were also close in forms to the stone building of the Incas. Of course they also are similar to the Marae platforms of Tahiti but those were supposedly made around 300AD, long before the first Polynesians are proven to have been there.

The Moai themselves are very different to anything in the entire Pacific. The face, body and style are unlike anywhere else but the closest would be in the Marquesas where the largest is 1/2 the size, there are only about 10 and everything other feature is very different in both face shape and body. In fact they closer resemble Incan statues, Mapuche wooden posts and even Bolivian statues. Few regard that as relevant when everyone in academia say that Polynesians obviously settled the island first. The evidence does not suggest that.

There are three distinct periods of Moai building. The early period is characterized by ahus at Tahai, Vinapu, and Anakena, carbon-dated to about 700–850 CE. The first two were admired and described by Captain Cook; the wall in Anakena remained hidden below ground until it was excavated archaeologically in 1987. The excavations in Anakena have revealed that a variety of statues were carved in the early period, among them a smaller prototype of the middle-period busts, which mainly differ from the latter by their rounded heads and stubby bodies. Another type was a realistic sculpture in full figure of a kneeling man with his buttocks resting on his heels and his hands on his knees, in one case with his ribs exposed, all features characteristic of pre-Inca monuments at Tiwanaku in South America.

In the middle period, about 1050–1680, statues were deliberately destroyed and discarded, and all ahus were rebuilt with no regard for solar orientation or masonry fitting. The sole desire seems to have been to obtain strong platforms capable of supporting ever taller and heavier busts, the classical moai of the middle period. Burial chambers also were constructed within the ahus in the middle period. The sizes of the statues made were increased until they reached stupendous dimensions; the slim and lofty busts also had huge cylindrical pukao (topknots) of red tuff placed on top of their slender heads. Most middle-period statues range from about 10 to 20 feet (3 to 6 metres) in height, but the biggest among those formerly standing on top of an ahu was about 32 feet (10 metres) tall, consisted of a single block weighing about 82 tons (74,500 kg), and had a pukao of about 11 tons (10,000 kg) balanced on its apex. The largest statue still standing partly buried in the deep silt below the quarries is about 37 feet (11 metres) tall, and the largest unfinished one with its back attached to the rock is about 68 feet (21 metres) tall. Traditions, supported by archaeology, suggest that the images represented important personalities who were deified after death. From one to a dozen completed statues would stand in a row on a single ahu, always facing inland.

EASTER ISLAND

.

MARQUESAS ISLANDS

INCA (Peru)

.

MAPUCHE (Chile)

.

BOLIVIA

.

Here is an interesting question... why were Moai buried? One crazy woman says they weren't and they were placed in a pit of sand so the faces could be carved! She lives in fantasy land as there are examples of faces being carved right out of the cliff faces from which the stone was cut. Some say washdown from the crater built up around them over time, this is even supported by a retired archaeologist called Wayne Rutledge. Sorry Wayne, but these buried Moai were buried in the soil, in a hole, on a plinth like those above ground and no retrieval platform was present. These ones were intended to be buried up to their neck - but why? We'll no ones knows yet.

And what about the Rongorongo script. No one knows what they say. No one! Anyone who professes to know is presenting theory but no fact. No theory has yet proven to be accurate. It appears not to be a language as such but glyph representations of something or an event - which involves a chant. This would make it religious and with the birdman appearing often, it is likely the chant is to do with the birdman religious cult. But where did those from the 13th century onwards learn to make this script? They do have some similarity to South American glyphs and it likely the trade between the island and the mainland in the 13th century revealed glyphs and they made their own as a result? It's not Indus Valley script. The idea travelers came from India to Easter Island is preposterous, but no one knows for sure. Regardless, the script seems only to have been in use between 13th - 17th century and was on pieces of wood inside many of the island homes when the first explorers arrived so it must have held some religious importance. Polynesian had no such form of glyph or writing and this proved Easter Island was not populated first by Polynesians.