There are many islands of volcanic origin in the world. But is there still something as popular in terms of attention and exploration as Easter Island? Why is he so attracting attention? Let's try to figure it out.
Its first uncommonness lies in the fact that it is the most remote inhabited island in the world from the rest of civilization. The distance to the continental coast of Chile is 3514 km, to Pitcairn Island, the nearest inhabited place, - 2075 km.
In connection with this fact, several questions already arise: How could people get there? And when could this have happened? Did they have any means of navigation, and what means of transportation did they have? Perhaps this island is part of a sunken continent? And the people inhabiting it did not at all come there from somewhere from afar, and lived there before the catastrophe that destroyed the continent? And then, perhaps, this island is a remnant of a completely different civilization, still unfamiliar to the inhabitants of the Earth?
Perhaps the first Europeans to discover the island was the English pirate Edward Davis. He discovered an island in the area in 1687, but did not land on it, only entered its coordinates in his ship log. And according to the tradition to give all the newly discovered some names, he called it "Davis Land". There is no complete certainty that he discovered exactly Easter Island, therefore the name of the island was given to him by his next discoverer - the Dutch navigator Jacob Roggevein. Roggevain not only saw this island, but also landed on it and made a description of it.
It happened in April 1722. Six years later, in 1728, Jacob Roggewein's notes were published. But they turned out to be unknown outside Holland, since they were not translated into other languages. And the Dutch language in the world, except for the Dutch themselves, few people know. I was lucky enough to find this book and find a description of Easter Island in it.
A two-year voyage around the world to discover unknown southern lands, undertaken by three ships in 1721.
it did not seem so interesting that I decided to share this discovery with my dear readers. Perhaps this information will seem fantastic to some. But to believe it or not is everyone's personal choice. I see it as very, very plausible. Otherwise, I would not have given her my attention. The book is called "A two-year voyage around the world, for the discovery of unknown southern lands, undertaken by three ships in 1721" (Tweejaarige reyze rondom de wereld, ter nader ontdekkinge der onbekende zuydlanden, met drie schepen in het jaar 1721 ondernomen) [Source]
Promotional video:
First, a little about its author, Jacob Roggewein and his voyage. Jacob Roggewijn (1659 - 1729) was a Dutch explorer and also had a doctorate in law. On August 1, 1721, he led an expedition sponsored by the Dutch West India Company, a rival of the East India Company, to search for the unknown South Land (Terra australis incognitate) and open a western trade route to the Spice Islands, ie. Indonesia. Its fleet consisted of three ships with a crew of 244 people. The book contains a map with a marked route of this voyage:
Starting their voyage in Holland, they crossed the Atlantic Ocean, circled the southernmost point of South America, and then crossed the Pacific Ocean, meeting several islands (including Easter Island) on the way, then through the "spice islands" to the Indian Ocean, circling Africa - to the Atlantic, and back home to Holland (the second part of the route is no longer visible on this map). Their route was fully consistent with ocean currents. They remain the same in our time:
In those days, when there were no motors yet, and you had to rely only on sails, it was much easier to move with the current, but against the current it was very problematic. This also applies to the question of which side people came to Easter Island: in the 18th century, for some reason, there was no doubt that it was possible to arrive to Easter Island only from the east, i.e. from America.
Interestingly, between the continents of Eurasia and North America, this map shows some kind of continent called "Comrade Earth". Het Land van Yedso is Kamchatka. California is shown as a hotel island. In Africa, the country of Varbaria still existed. Or in another way they called her Berberia. And its inhabitants, respectively, were called Berbers. Now this territory is occupied by the countries of Algeria, northern Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, northern Niger, Tunisia, Libya and part of western Egypt. It is believed that Europeans called them Berbers or Barbars (or barbarians?) Because they did not understand their language. Those. the concept of "barbarian" originally meant not "savage" at all, as is commonly believed now, but "a person who speaks another language."
And here is, in fact, a description of Easter Island, with my comments on it:
The map above shows that at that time there was still no division into west and east longitudes, and longitudes were counted from 0 to 360 degrees, from the prime meridian passing through Greenwich in this case.
A little about the history of the prime meridian: the very first prime meridian known to us passed through Egyptian Alexandria. It was from the 3rd century BC. until the 2nd century AD Then he moved to the Canary Islands, the supposed place of the mythical Paradise according to Ptolemy. This meridian remained zero on some maps until the 21st century. Also, in the Middle Ages, the Cape Verde Islands were also used as a starting point. In later centuries, cartographers began to trace the prime meridians through the capital of their homeland or a nearby observatory. Examples of this are the Toledo meridian, Varshavskiy meridian and the Pulkovo observatory meridian in St. Petersburg in Russia. The Greenwich meridian was determined in 1685 after the opening of the Greenwich Observatory. In the 19th century, up to 70% of international shipping used this meridian. But there were dozens of others as well. In 1884, at the invitation of the American President, the International Meridian Conference was convened, in which the vast majority of countries agreed to use the Greenwich Meridian as an international standard. Source
Further, the author does not tell what they were doing for 2 days, probably preparing their landing ashore or waiting for the weather suitable for this, but then:
I must say that jumping on a ship from the surface of the water, and even from a small boat, is not so easy. A sea ship of the 17-18 century, and in this case there were two frigates and 1 hooker - it is several meters in height. Smooth and slippery surface, strongly curved, especially near water surface. This is how, for example, an exact copy of the 18th century French frigate Hermione looks like:
The following describes the appearance of the islanders:
The author made this description of the savages, not yet seeing the idols of this island, because he says nothing about them here. And, apparently, meeting with giants in the 18th century was not a novelty for travelers around the world, because he further writes:
The Goliath mentioned here is a representative of an ancient people who were called the Philistines. They inhabited the seaside part of modern Israel, which was formerly called the land of Canaan, or the Promised Land. There is no consensus on the origins of the Philistines. The Bible lists them as descendants of Ham. Some modern scholars identify the Philistines with the Pelasgians, i.e. Proto-Slavs according to G. S. Grinevich. His scheme: Pelasgians = Etruscans = Slavic tribe (Rasens), that is, the Proto-Slavs. The Biblical story about Goliath is described as a giant, about 3 m high, dressed in copper scale armor weighing almost 57 kg, in a copper helmet with copper knee pads and a spear with an iron tip, weighing 7 kg. Goliath left the Philistine camp and challenged the Israeli army, challenging a strong warrior to a duel in order to fight him and determine the outcome of the struggle between the two peoples:if Goliath wins, the Israeli army surrenders and vice versa. For 40 days in a row, Goliath mocked the Israeli army because no one dared to accept his challenge. However, on the 40th day, the young shepherd David accepted the challenge of Goliath, with the approval of the Lord God. Declaring that he was going against him with the support of God, David threw a stone from his sling at the giant and hit him right in the forehead. Goliath fell to the ground, and David took a sword, finished off the giant, cutting off his head.and David, taking a sword, finished off the giant, cutting off his head.and David, taking a sword, finished off the giant, cutting off his head.
David and Goliath, color lithograph by Osmar Schindler (circa 1888)
Now many people find it hard to believe that until quite recently people of such height could exist, and in the 18th century there were doubters. Therefore, the author of the book provides additional evidence for his words.
Separate tall people are born in our time. There are many such photos on the Internet. For example:
This is Robert Pershing Wadlow, who was born in 1918 in Alton, pc. Illinois, USA. When his height was measured on June 27, 1940, he was 2.72 m with an arm span of 2.88 m. His maximum recorded weight reached 223 kg. Source
Currently, the tallest man in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records is the Turk Sultan Kesen. His height is 251 cm:
The Og mentioned here, according to several books of the Torah and the Old Testament, was the ancient king of the Rephaims who lived in Bashan. Together with his army, he was killed by Moses and his men in the battle at Andrew.
Og's "Iron Odr", engraving 1770 Johann Balthasar Probst.
Briefly about the Rephaims from another book, "Rephaim and their connection with Egyptian history" (1852):
Rafa may not mean giant, but it certainly doesn't follow that they weren't giants. And it would be right to say not "Rephaim", but "Raphaim". Or even Raphael? This book describes how the Raphaims called themselves:
Goliath has already been mentioned above. And here is what the Bible says about the sons of Anak:
This is about the mention of giants in the Bible. Further, the author describes the evidence of the meeting with the giants of his contemporaries:
Patagonia and the Strait of Magellan, Southern Lands, 1860 Paris.
The question is, which of them are savages, and who are civilized people: those who fed and put to sleep, or those who were then beaten with chains for this?
Antonio Francesco Pigafetta - Italian navigator, participant of the first round-the-world voyage in history - the expedition of Magellan-Elcano (1519-1522). His descriptions became the main source of information about the expedition of Magellan. But there are descriptions by other authors:
A sharp cold snap, apparently, was one of the reasons for the death of the giants.
Giants were also discovered in the unknown Southern Lands, as the area was formerly called, south of Indonesia. In the 17th century, the Dutch actively roamed the area, hoping to discover Australia. He further writes that there are still many descriptions of encounters with giants, but they are unlikely to differ in any way from those already given to him, rather they will be similar:
Then he returns to the description of the inhabitants of Easter Island:
Is it hard to imagine what he meant? Maybe the platform of Ahu and the Image standing on it?
Diagram of the Ahu platform from the book "The Mystery of Easter Island", Katherine Routledge, 1920.
Illustration "the fish god Dagon" from the book "Illustrated World History" by E. Wallis. Volume I.
Yes, this is really hard to believe. This was the assumption of Jacob Roggevein, made by him on the basis of the facts that the name of the god of the islanders coincided with the name of one of the Canaanite gods, and that both were tall. And perhaps the fact of the direction of currents. Joshua mentioned here is known to Russian-speaking readers under the name of Joshua. But his name is only translated into Russian, and I think that this translation is incorrect. Since it coincides with the well-known name of Jesus, which is written as "Jesus", and not "Joshua". As they say, a few letters and a completely different embedded meaning, which we have already encountered more than once.
Joshua Naveen was an assistant to Moses and became the leader of the Israelite tribes after his death. He was one of 12 Israel spies sent by Moses to explore the land of Canaan. And, I think, just one of those two who did not stipulate the Israelites to attack the Canaans, and as we now know from history, it was not in vain: the Israelis managed to defeat a seemingly superior enemy.
A few words about the god Dagon. There are three known gods with the same or a similar name among different peoples (although it may turn out that they mean the same character). Dagon, who appears in the first Ugaritic texts in the fight against the god Baal; the second Dagan, the Sumerian god of fertility, revered throughout the Ancient East; and finally, in Phenicia, Dagon is a sea god, half man, half fish. There is only an image of the latter:
And this is what is written in the book from which this illustration about Dagon is given:
From this description, we can conclude that his name was probably not Dacon, but Dakan (Dagan is the Sumerian god of fertility, revered throughout the Ancient East?). And the main thing is that, most likely, he was not a fish, but was the patron saint of fish, or even more precisely, the food that the seas and rivers give man. And here you can already trace the connection with the inhabitants of Easter Island. After all, most likely the ocean gave them their main food?
This concludes the description of Easter Island. The Dutch stayed on the island for only two days, and of course, they did not have time to see much during this time, because the storm began. And fearing to leave their ships near the reefs in such weather, as well as fearing getting stuck on the island in an unfamiliar environment, they hastened to return to their ships and continued their voyage westward in search of the southern mainland:
There is only one statue described in the book. But the island is 24 km long, and the statues are in certain places. The Dutch were in only one village, and did not explore the surroundings. Another book about the same voyage was published in 1911, i.e. 183 years later than the first. It is called "The Voyage of Jacob Roggewein for the Discovery of the South Land 1721-1722." (De reis van mr. Jacob Roggeveen ter ontdekking van het Zuidland (1721-1722)
This book is about twice as thick as it contains more detailed descriptions. But there is no mention of giants, and not a word about growth at all It also describes a meeting with the first inhabitant of Easter Island, but this description is very different from the previous one:
Which one is more correct? I am inclined to believe that the first book, published 6 years after the voyage, when its participants were still alive, is more credible than the one that was published two centuries later. The description of the statue they saw is also different:
There is no mention of Dagon anymore. Perhaps this description was added here from later research. And perhaps these statues were meant:
Ahu Tongariki, Easter Island.
They are the smallest of all the moai available on the island (as the statues of Easter Island are now called), and the most primitive. According to many modern scientists, they were made much later than those near the Rano Raraku quarry (which are presented on the title page of this article). Perhaps it was already a cargo cult, attempts to produce something similar? The description of the ears is also interesting:
It is hard to imagine that wild people could think of such a voluntary mockery for themselves. This is also very similar to a cargo cult. Illustration from The Mystery of Easter Island by Katherine Routledge, 1920:
Statue of Rano Raraku, demonstration of ear enlargement. Figure: 58 rope-shaped earlobe (lasso), fig. 59 the earlobe is a disc.
It looks like some kind of device. In the first book, nothing was said about the color of the skin of the islanders, only it was mentioned that their bodies were painted with some kind of paint. Description from a later edition:
I wonder what the islanders used to shave and cut their hair, given that no metal was found on the island? As in general, any tools other than stone:
Illustration from The Mystery of Easter Island by Katherine Routledge, 1920.
But these discoveries were already made later - in the 20th century. In the books I cite, it is only mentioned that the islanders were very concerned about any iron available from the guests who sailed to them, and tried in every possible way to take possession of it. They were especially interested in guns, I paid attention. Somewhat strange behavior for savages … Pottery on the island was also not found by the first European visitors. Another interesting description of the preparation of food by the islanders, from the second book:
If in the first book the inhabitants of Easter Island were called simply islanders, then in the second they are called Indians. But they were named so because the Dutch at the beginning of the 20th century already knew for sure that Easter Island was inhabited by the inhabitants of America, or because they called all the inhabitants of that region that way?
Digression: A little about the Indians and the discovery of Australia
In Russian, the inhabitants of America are called Indians, and the inhabitants of India are called Indians. But in English, both are called the same: "Indian", in the same way, in French, respectively "Indien". The Dutch, so as not to be confused, now call the Indians Indiër. Well, before they were the same Indian for them, as for the British. It is believed that the reason for this is that Christopher Columbus, when he discovered America, mistook it for India. But when it turned out that this was not so, this continent, or rather two, was renamed America. On the world maps of the 16th century, they already appear as "America". Why not rename its inhabitants as Americans? How many other peoples have changed their names during this time? For example, the name "Kazakhs" appeared less than 100 years ago. But how many already remember this?
In my opinion, the Dutch were the closest to the real state of affairs. They called all the lands in the southern hemisphere India. And perhaps even more precisely: all the lands outside Europe and Africa. They called everything east of Holland East India, and everything to the west West. Their companies for the development of these territories were also called: the East or East India Company and the West or West Indian Company. And for some reason they did not have companies with other names. The East India Company was developing the eastern part of the world, and the West Indian Company was developing the western part. But there comes a moment when these two directions converge at one point (is the earth round?). For two Dutch companies this moment happened in the area of Australia, perhaps that is why they were unable to fully open it,despite numerous attempts and efforts. This is what Australia looked like in the above map from the early 18th century.
Or a map from this 1911 edition book:
In contrast to America, which is already depicted on the map of the 16th century approximately in its modern form, despite all the complexity of its configuration:
World map of Abraham Ortelius, 1570
Australia was fully discovered only in the 2nd half of the 18th century:
Australia still remains pretty deserted. The population of this continent is about 25 million. person. And it is concentrated mainly along the coast. Because the interior of the country is desert and semi-desert.
But why did it take almost 200 years to discover this continent? Why did they not walk along the coast, after the opening of its first section, but were looking for completely different directions? Why didn't they use the experience of developing new continents gained in America? And it's not true that there was no interest. In the 18th century, for some reason, they did not think so. Otherwise, such large expeditions would not have been equipped. Something, but the Dutch denyuzhki knew how to count even then. But the two-year expedition of Jacob Roggewein did not manage to find Australia at all. They investigated every island they met on the way to see if this was already the coast of Australia? This is how the map mentioned in the above quote looked like:
Caert van't Landt van d'Eendracht (map of the Land of Unanimity), 1627
What is it? Real cartography of the 17th century? Maybe all the old maps were redrawn from the antediluvian, and the new ones themselves could no longer really put on the map? For this, precise measuring instruments are needed. Which were lost, along with the necessary knowledge …
Author: i_mar_a