11.3 Time as the Fundamental Variable
185
internal migrations was replaced by the kind of conflict over land and resources that
was common in tropical Polynesia during resource shortages.
The limitation in carbohydrate sources and the possibility of early adult deaths
from tooth decay and blood poisoning associated with dependence on fern root
as a staple food, however, both prescribed a low population growth rate for New
Zealand, without the extreme fluctuations characteristic in the tropics. In New
Zealand, this being so, the achievement of significant population levels implies a
long demographic history and an early first settlement.
11.3 Time as the Fundamental Variable: The Demographic
Implications of a 0.5% p.a. Growth Rate in Prehistoric
New Zealand
Rates of population change, estimates of founder populations and first settlement
dates are all open to dispute and can be chosen, consciously or unconsciously,
in accordance with a demographer’s beliefs. Each such package of choices, and
most notably the first settlement date, carries demographic implications and consequences. To illustrate the problems and absurdities that can arise from the choice
of an inappropriate date for first settlement, we focus now on the late settlement
date of AD 1200, widely adopted by archaeologists following a seminal paper by
Atholl Anderson in 1991 [8]. Our argument is effectively a demographic reductio
ad absurdum.
For illustration we choose a 0.5% per annum rate of increase, the highest rate
that might conceivably be chosen for a settled hunter/gatherer society for a limited
period in advantageous circumstances. We note, however, that it is quite improbable
that such a rate could be sustained over the 600-year period being considered. A
simple calculation shows that even with a 0.5% rate of increase it would take 250
years for a founding population of 300 to grow to 1,000. This rate of increase is less
than half the rate needed to achieve John Rutherford’s estimate for the population
of the North Island in 1801 of 166,000 (1.056% per annum). But it is twice the
average rate of population increase estimated by Dye and Komori over 1,830 years
in Hawaii (0.25% per annum).
With a first settlement in AD 1200, even with a population growth rate of 0.5%
per annum, the New Zealand population at the time of Cook’s visit would be only
5,150. Even the improbably high population growth rate of 0.5% per annum is
clearly untenable in view of Cook’s 1770 estimate of 100,000 in both islands [9].
Cook’s estimate, attributed by some to Georg Forster who took part in Cook’s
second voyage, was based on shipboard observations together with a handful of
landings and was probably not an over-estimate. (This is discussed in more detail
in Chapter 13.) The historian John Rutherford proposed two estimates for the population of the North Island in 1801, one of 155,000, one of 166,000, but Dorothy
Urlich considered these to be under-estimates. She suggested a figure of 175,000
185
internal migrations was replaced by the kind of conflict over land and resources that
was common in tropical Polynesia during resource shortages.
The limitation in carbohydrate sources and the possibility of early adult deaths
from tooth decay and blood poisoning associated with dependence on fern root
as a staple food, however, both prescribed a low population growth rate for New
Zealand, without the extreme fluctuations characteristic in the tropics. In New
Zealand, this being so, the achievement of significant population levels implies a
long demographic history and an early first settlement.
11.3 Time as the Fundamental Variable: The Demographic
Implications of a 0.5% p.a. Growth Rate in Prehistoric
New Zealand
Rates of population change, estimates of founder populations and first settlement
dates are all open to dispute and can be chosen, consciously or unconsciously,
in accordance with a demographer’s beliefs. Each such package of choices, and
most notably the first settlement date, carries demographic implications and consequences. To illustrate the problems and absurdities that can arise from the choice
of an inappropriate date for first settlement, we focus now on the late settlement
date of AD 1200, widely adopted by archaeologists following a seminal paper by
Atholl Anderson in 1991 [8]. Our argument is effectively a demographic reductio
ad absurdum.
For illustration we choose a 0.5% per annum rate of increase, the highest rate
that might conceivably be chosen for a settled hunter/gatherer society for a limited
period in advantageous circumstances. We note, however, that it is quite improbable
that such a rate could be sustained over the 600-year period being considered. A
simple calculation shows that even with a 0.5% rate of increase it would take 250
years for a founding population of 300 to grow to 1,000. This rate of increase is less
than half the rate needed to achieve John Rutherford’s estimate for the population
of the North Island in 1801 of 166,000 (1.056% per annum). But it is twice the
average rate of population increase estimated by Dye and Komori over 1,830 years
in Hawaii (0.25% per annum).
With a first settlement in AD 1200, even with a population growth rate of 0.5%
per annum, the New Zealand population at the time of Cook’s visit would be only
5,150. Even the improbably high population growth rate of 0.5% per annum is
clearly untenable in view of Cook’s 1770 estimate of 100,000 in both islands [9].
Cook’s estimate, attributed by some to Georg Forster who took part in Cook’s
second voyage, was based on shipboard observations together with a handful of
landings and was probably not an over-estimate. (This is discussed in more detail
in Chapter 13.) The historian John Rutherford proposed two estimates for the population of the North Island in 1801, one of 155,000, one of 166,000, but Dorothy
Urlich considered these to be under-estimates. She suggested a figure of 175,000