The Walking Moai Hypothesis: Archaeological Evidence, Experimental Validation, and Response to Critics

Please note that a version of these scripts and data is also available at https://github.com/clipo/moai_walking. Please note the correction to Figure 2 (see below). This repository contains the complete dataset and analysis code for reproducing all figures in "The Walking Moai Hypothesis: Archaeological Evidence, Experimental Validation, and Response to Critics" by Lipo and Hunt (2025). The dataset includes:- Morphometric measurements of 887 moai (Easter Island statues)- GPS coordinates and base angle measurements for 84 road moai- 3D mesh model of representative moai- Elevation profiles of ancient transport roads- R and Python scripts for all statistical analyses and visualizations- Complete documentation for reproduction Key findings:- 65.5% of road moai found within 2km of quarry- Distribution matches exponential decay model of transport failure- No correlation between moai size and transport distance- All statistical tests reject ceremonial placement hypothesis The analysis tests the hypothesis that moai found along ancient roads represent transport failures rather than ceremonial placements, supporting the theory that these multi-ton statues were moved in an upright walking position. Important Note: Figure 2 Correction (October 2025) The original Figure 2 published in the paper contained errors in location coding and ratio interpretation. These issues have been corrected in this codebase. The corrected figure properly demonstrates that Road moai (Locations 6 & 7) have wider bases relative to shoulders (ratio ≈ 1.0) - original transport design Ahu moai (Location 8) have narrower bases (ratio > 1.0) reshaped for platform installation. The statistical significance remains robust (p = 0.002), but the figure now reflects the discussion in the manuscript that supports the walking hypothesis. See docs/Figure_2_correction_notes.txt` for complete details. We thank Dr. Florian Hindenlang (Max-Planck Institute for Plasma Physics) for dentifying these issues. Figure 2. Comparison of the ratio of shoulder width to base width for ahu moai (left) and road moai (right). Using measurement data of moai from Van Tilburg (1986), the figures show that the two types of moai have statistically distinctive ratios (Welch's t-test: t = 3.181, df = 118.1, p = 0.002). Road moai retain their original transport design with wider bases relative to shoulders (mean ratio = 1.025 ± 0.155, n = 47), while ahu moai have been reshaped with narrower bases, resulting in broader shoulders relative to base width (mean ratio = 1.132 ± 0.216, n = 76). This difference reflects the modification of moai upon reaching their final destination: bases were trimmed down for platform installation, whereas road moai preserved the original wide-base design needed for bipedal transport.