Read the text and fill in the gaps with the correct parts of the sentences 1-7. There is one extra part
A Riddle Wrapped in an Enigma
Easter Island has long been held up as a symbol of how ecological disaster can strike a society [1|2|3|4|5|6|7]. However, recent evidence suggests that the theories about the island's eco-history could be wrong.
The first European explorers to arrive on the desolate, treeless island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean were amazed to find several thousand healthy inhabitants living there quite happily. Although there is no doubt that Easter Island had once been a lush tropical island, its transformation to a barren, windswept landscape is something that has baffled scientists for nearly 300 years.
Until recently, the most popular theory has been that the island once had a very large population which systematically destroyed the island's natural resources through sheer ignorance. Many environmentalists are convinced overexploitation of the environment led to famine, war and the collapse of society. They also believed that parallels can be drawn between the fate of Easter Island and what is now happening to the environment in the modern world. In other words, what occurred on Easter Island is a warning of what is likely to become of our society, too.
There is, however, a growing number of scientists [1|2|3|4|5|6|7]. For one thing, there is little archaeological evidence to suggest that there have ever been huge numbers of inhabitants on the island. Neither is there any indication of full-scale warfare or ecological catastrophe. What is known, though, is that the first Europeans did not find a society wrecked by disaster, but a population managing very successfully on limited resources.
It is not the deforestation of the island that is disputed so much as how it actually occurred. It has been widely accepted that it was purely the result of human intervention. To support this is a theory on how the hundreds of strange statues, known as Moai, came to be dotted around the island's coast. It is argued that the islanders would have had to cut down enormous number of trees to use as rollers to move the huge sculptures from the stone quarry [1|2|3|4|5|6|7] .
New research has shown, however, that they could have been moved without requiring either large numbers of people or a lot of timber. Instead, small teams of islanders, using a few wooden levers, could have 'walked' the statues. This would have involved moving them from side to side in much the same way as a fridge is usually moved.
Another possibility put forward for the cause of the deforestation is that it was not the islanders themselves, [1|2|3|4|5|6|7] . The evidence is to be found in the huge numbers of ancient rat bones discovered on the island. It has been shown on other Pacific islands that these animals can trigger deforestation by eating the seeds of trees, [1|2|3|4|5|6|7] . According to some scientists, this is what brought about Easter Island's dramatic change of landscape.
Another point worth considering is that the worst ecological disaster to take place on Easter Island may not have been the loss of woodland. It is, in fact, more likely to have been the arrival of Europeans. Within only 150 years of their arrival the island's population had fallen to less than 100 people. The resilient islanders had managed to adapt to the various ecological problems their environment had thrown at them, [1|2|3|4|5|6|7] . The controversy surrounding the environmental history of this remote Pacific island is unlikely to die down any time soon. However, there is one thing that all the scientists agree on. If the truth about this island's mysterious past is ever going to be discovered, then hard evidence is needed. Without such evidence, there can only ever be theories.
- which prevents new growth
- where they were carved to the coastal sites where they now stand
- but a species they introduced to the island when it was originally colonised
- because it doesn't fit their theory
- that does not protect its environment
- but they were no match for the diseases the new settlers brought with them
- who argue that this theory has some serious flaws