“Approximate Bayesian Computation of radiocarbon and paleoenvironmental record shows population resilience on Rapa Nui (Easter Island)”. So goes the title of one of the many articles I am reading in my attempt to better understand Rapanui and its people. This one specifically details how soil samples indicate that the previously supposed population decline experienced by the Rapanui people did not actually occur to any severe degree. Such a detail lends credence to the theory that the European influence on Rapanui was much more substantial to causing population decline rather than the pre-contact decisions and actions of the Rapanui people themselves. A key piece of making any sort of said argument than can rely on this article.
Said geology-based article, written by a collection of scientists for biology-oriented Nature Communications peer-reviewed journal, contains numerous pieces of technical language and data that, due to my sole studies in the field of history, lay beyond my field of understanding. These writings at the same time make up a large percentage of the sources written on Rapanui, as the historical dialogue is matched if not surpassed by the scientific one. This then, initially, stood as one of my principal concerns on this project as I was worried many sources would be lost to me due to lack of expertise.
As it turns out this problem, much to my pleasant surprise, is not actually such. The availability of this internet has allowed me to parce out any words beyond my understanding to at least a reasonable degree of comprehension, and the language of the articles I’ve so far read, while not quite common English, are nowhere near as technical as I first feared. This issue is thus a barrier and challenge yes, but not an insurmountable one.
Why then bring this all up? If my issue has been resolved what worth is there in trying to discuss it. To me, and I hope this doesn’t come off as preachy or overbearing, the answer is advice. It’s my comment, now gained from personal experience, that one should not share my initial deeper fear of non-historical sources as a usable tool. These pieces can be deeply valuable in expanding one’s scope and granting even more evidence to the argument one is making. In addition to this they can add new insights and arguments that were previously unavailable from a purely historical viewing. If this was already self-evident to you, I admire you and can say I am now happily in the boat, but for those like me who were hesitant please hop in: the water’s (or soil in this instance) is fine.