Critical Evaluation of Diamond’s “Collapse” Narrative is not a “Strawman” argument

The degree to which some researchers continue to defend Jared Diamond’s empirically and theoretically insufficient “Collapse” narrative is baffling. The defense of “collapse” appears to have nothing to do with (1) anything Diamond has published, (2) available archaeological evidence, (3) detailed and logical reasoning. Throwing barbs like “strawman” and other baseless accusations (such as the “misuse” of radiocarbon dates) are simply red herrings that avoid the growing body of evidence that refutes Diamond’s story. As is true in the rest of science, ultimately the sorting of evidence and ideas will result in greater understanding for everyone. I dare say that for the majority of active archaeologists working on Rapa Nui, the sorting has long been over.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s