182
11 Challenging a Late First Settlement Date for New Zealand
The existence of favourable global climate conditions 3,600–3,000 years ago further
supports this possibility, as does the likely availability of El Niño northerly winds
in this period able to support a fast voyage south. Anderson et al. [2] claim a peak
in the frequency of ENSO events 3,400 years ago. In the exceptionally warm global
conditions between 3,600 and 3,000 years ago, New Zealand, the largest uninhabited landmass in the Pacific, would have perhaps been more inviting to colonists
than in any period since.
A possible Lapita-age colonization of New Zealand accords with Spice Island
sailing and exploration strategies, with global climatic conditions favouring migration and with the existence of a fast ocean road from the Spice Islands to New
Zealand exploiting another of the major warm currents flowing out of the WPWP.
It accords too with the leap-frogging migration strategy that suggests that New
Zealand as the largest Pacific archipelago would be easily discovered and an early
and natural choice for a colony. Finding evidence to establish definitively that New
Zealand was settled in Lapita times is nonetheless a challenge.
Study of the past climate and morphology of New Zealand makes it clear that
archaeological evidence for a Lapita-age first settlement may be difficult to find.
There is evidence of extreme erosion in successive warm wet periods since the
Lapita era. Early estuarine and riverine landscapes dating back more than 3,000
years could lie buried under perhaps 15 m of alluvium. Coastal settlement sites of
that age would have been destroyed by continuous coastal erosion, to say nothing of
recorded nationwide tsunamis, estimated to occur every 500 years [3].
Searching for evidence in fields such as demography, and climatology, has
yielded strong evidence for a Lapita-age first settlement.
Our argument for a very early first settlement of New Zealand is neither easy
nor obvious. It is based on complex and sometimes indirect evidence, ranging from
global climate history and statistical analysis of skeletal data, to power law analysis
of pa rank size distribution curves. A combination of evidence from many fields
and the development of new contexts in which to view this evidence are needed to
unravel the demographic history of New Zealand on which our argument depends.
In contrast, our argument against a late first settlement – our focus in this chapter –
is simple. It requires only a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate demographic
fallacies implicit in arguments for a late first settlement. Before we can issue our
challenge to a late first settlement date, however, we need to discuss some of the
demographic parameters involved.
Of prime importance is the contentious issue of population growth rates. As
archaeologists in the last decade have claimed increasingly later settlement dates for
Eastern Polynesia and New Zealand, they have suggested correspondingly higher
population growth rates. In some cases in tropical Polynesia higher rates for limited
periods may be reasonable. But for New Zealand, prior to AD 1200, a distinction needs to be made between population growth rates appropriate to the settled
hunter/gatherer life mode of New Zealand Maori before the introduction of the
kumara (in about AD 1200 by our calculation: see Chapter 17) and the higher
population growth rates possible for limited periods for the horticulturally based
societies of tropical Polynesia. It is interesting that Dye and Komori’s detailed study
11 Challenging a Late First Settlement Date for New Zealand
The existence of favourable global climate conditions 3,600–3,000 years ago further
supports this possibility, as does the likely availability of El Niño northerly winds
in this period able to support a fast voyage south. Anderson et al. [2] claim a peak
in the frequency of ENSO events 3,400 years ago. In the exceptionally warm global
conditions between 3,600 and 3,000 years ago, New Zealand, the largest uninhabited landmass in the Pacific, would have perhaps been more inviting to colonists
than in any period since.
A possible Lapita-age colonization of New Zealand accords with Spice Island
sailing and exploration strategies, with global climatic conditions favouring migration and with the existence of a fast ocean road from the Spice Islands to New
Zealand exploiting another of the major warm currents flowing out of the WPWP.
It accords too with the leap-frogging migration strategy that suggests that New
Zealand as the largest Pacific archipelago would be easily discovered and an early
and natural choice for a colony. Finding evidence to establish definitively that New
Zealand was settled in Lapita times is nonetheless a challenge.
Study of the past climate and morphology of New Zealand makes it clear that
archaeological evidence for a Lapita-age first settlement may be difficult to find.
There is evidence of extreme erosion in successive warm wet periods since the
Lapita era. Early estuarine and riverine landscapes dating back more than 3,000
years could lie buried under perhaps 15 m of alluvium. Coastal settlement sites of
that age would have been destroyed by continuous coastal erosion, to say nothing of
recorded nationwide tsunamis, estimated to occur every 500 years [3].
Searching for evidence in fields such as demography, and climatology, has
yielded strong evidence for a Lapita-age first settlement.
Our argument for a very early first settlement of New Zealand is neither easy
nor obvious. It is based on complex and sometimes indirect evidence, ranging from
global climate history and statistical analysis of skeletal data, to power law analysis
of pa rank size distribution curves. A combination of evidence from many fields
and the development of new contexts in which to view this evidence are needed to
unravel the demographic history of New Zealand on which our argument depends.
In contrast, our argument against a late first settlement – our focus in this chapter –
is simple. It requires only a reductio ad absurdum to demonstrate demographic
fallacies implicit in arguments for a late first settlement. Before we can issue our
challenge to a late first settlement date, however, we need to discuss some of the
demographic parameters involved.
Of prime importance is the contentious issue of population growth rates. As
archaeologists in the last decade have claimed increasingly later settlement dates for
Eastern Polynesia and New Zealand, they have suggested correspondingly higher
population growth rates. In some cases in tropical Polynesia higher rates for limited
periods may be reasonable. But for New Zealand, prior to AD 1200, a distinction needs to be made between population growth rates appropriate to the settled
hunter/gatherer life mode of New Zealand Maori before the introduction of the
kumara (in about AD 1200 by our calculation: see Chapter 17) and the higher
population growth rates possible for limited periods for the horticulturally based
societies of tropical Polynesia. It is interesting that Dye and Komori’s detailed study