Look at the size of that moai's heed! I'm not kidding, it's like an orange on a toothpick.
October 26, 2011 7:07 PM Subscribe
Help settle an internet fight about the height of Easter Island moai!
In this picture from Thor Heyerdahl's expedition around 1956, a moai is shown that is credited as 37 feet tall (12m). However, nearly every listing of the largest (intact) moai on record only goes up to about 9.8-9.9m, except the incomplete 21.6m one still lying in the quarry.
So which one is this 12m monster? The 10m ones are all notable enough to have names (like Paro, which is often credited as the tallest at 10m). Are the heights only measured for above-ground portions of the statues? Was this one re-buried? Anyone have any info about this specific dig to squash ridiculous 'oh thas shopped i can tell form the pixals' conspiracy jackassery? I even found the website of Walter Leonardi, the photographer for that expedition, WITH the photo, but nutty 'what are they hiding' questioning remains afloat.
In this picture from Thor Heyerdahl's expedition around 1956, a moai is shown that is credited as 37 feet tall (12m). However, nearly every listing of the largest (intact) moai on record only goes up to about 9.8-9.9m, except the incomplete 21.6m one still lying in the quarry.
So which one is this 12m monster? The 10m ones are all notable enough to have names (like Paro, which is often credited as the tallest at 10m). Are the heights only measured for above-ground portions of the statues? Was this one re-buried? Anyone have any info about this specific dig to squash ridiculous 'oh thas shopped i can tell form the pixals' conspiracy jackassery? I even found the website of Walter Leonardi, the photographer for that expedition, WITH the photo, but nutty 'what are they hiding' questioning remains afloat.
Response by poster: Yeah, El Gigante is the superlarge one that never even finished being cut out of the quarry. Paro is the one often credited as being the largest standing moai, but that's listed as 2m shorter than the one from the Heyerdahl expedition. So was Thor's excavation not counted because most of it wasn't above ground?
posted by FatherDagon at 7:29 PM on October 26, 2011
posted by FatherDagon at 7:29 PM on October 26, 2011
It's possible the larger height measurements include the estimated height of the red volcanic pukao (the "hats" (actually topknots)) that originally sat on the heads of the moai. The vast majority of the pukao (along with many of the moai themselves) are thought to have been pulled down during the last native Rapa Nui conflict, around 1722–1868: because of that, most people are only familiar with (and likely have measured) the "hatless" moai, like the pictures you've shown here. The height of the pukao (roughly 2.4 meters) matches the discrepancy you've noticed.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 8:06 PM on October 26, 2011
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 8:06 PM on October 26, 2011
Response by poster: Yeah, I considered that too.. Except heyerdahl's example didn't have a pukao, and it still measured at 12m (which matches the scale when compared to the folks standing alongside). Paro does have a pukao, and only comes to 10m.
I've seen several EI sites that mention the moai range up to 12m, which would match this one, but the biggest like Paro are always listed as 10m even with pukao included. It could be that the 12m ones they mention aren't intact.. But this one in the pic looks like a single piece. Baffling!
posted by FatherDagon at 9:53 PM on October 26, 2011
I've seen several EI sites that mention the moai range up to 12m, which would match this one, but the biggest like Paro are always listed as 10m even with pukao included. It could be that the 12m ones they mention aren't intact.. But this one in the pic looks like a single piece. Baffling!
posted by FatherDagon at 9:53 PM on October 26, 2011
I might be missing something, but I'm not sure there's a reason to take Britannica's number at, uh, face value. They don't appear to cite any source for the figure and, given that they only intend to be a reasonable source for a layperson, might well have pulled out a ruler to estimate the height of the thing for a reader, where problems in the perspective, their guess about the average height of a person, and all that shadow at the bottom could explain a pretty large error. Or perhaps the photographer misremembered. Either way, it's no conspiracy to suppose Britannica has a noticeable error rate. Here's a small collection of others for comparison.
posted by Monsieur Caution at 10:19 PM on October 26, 2011
posted by Monsieur Caution at 10:19 PM on October 26, 2011
Your Britannica link says 'about 37 feet (12 metres)', so it's quite possibly being flagged as an estimation. Also, 37 feet is 11.3m, not 12m. So I would be inclined to mistrust that entire caption.
I've got a copy of this book at home which I can check later if you like, though this is the kind of thing I generally forget to do so feel free to MeMail me a reminder.
posted by StephenF at 3:40 AM on October 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
I've got a copy of this book at home which I can check later if you like, though this is the kind of thing I generally forget to do so feel free to MeMail me a reminder.
posted by StephenF at 3:40 AM on October 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
To see the Easter Islanders actually moving their moai, find the movie Rapa-Nui from 1994.
posted by Rash at 8:44 AM on October 27, 2011
posted by Rash at 8:44 AM on October 27, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
Largest moai:
Location: Rano Raraku Quarry, named "El Gigante"
Height: 71.93 feet, (21.60 meters)
Weight: approximately 145-165 tons (160-182 metric tons)
Largest moai once erect:
Location: Ahu Te Pito Kura, Named "Paro"
Height: 32.63 feet (9.80 meters)
Weight: approximately 82 tons (74.39 metric tons)
Largest moai fallen while being erected:
Location: Ahu Hanga Te Tenga
Height: 33.10 feet (9.94 meters)
Smallest standing moai:
Location: Poike
Height: 3.76 feet (1.13 meters)
posted by Ideefixe at 7:21 PM on October 26, 2011