186
11 Challenging a Late First Settlement Date for New Zealand
[10]. Rutherford’s two estimates were derived from different sources, one compiled
from estimates for individual tribes and one compiled from estimates for different areas. Despite the discrepancy involved we have chosen in this and following
chapters to work with the range provided by these three estimates.
An unrealistic population growth rate of 1.056% per annum, sustained improbably over 600 years, would be needed to achieve Rutherford’s higher estimate of
166,000 in 1801. But even if this unrealistic growth rate were successfully defended,
the late settlement theorists’ problems would not end there.
The claim that there is no direct archaeological evidence for settlement in New
Zealand prior to AD 1200 may technically be true, if one accepts Anderson’s arguments for the dismissal of all radiocarbon dates before AD 1200 on the grounds
that they offend chronometric hygiene. But it is effectively misleading. There is, in
fact, compelling archaeological evidence for an early first settlement. Seven thousand Maori pa (hilltop forts) are currently listed on the New Zealand Archaeological
Association’s national site register (personal communication, Tony Walton, 16/2/06:
the precise number is 6,956, and excludes gun-fighting pa). Maori pa are the most
visible artefacts in New Zealand. While no pa may yet have been dated to before
AD 1200, this is irrelevant to an argument for an early first settlement. Their evidence is implicit, not explicit. The sheer number of pa, their distribution, density and
the massive labour investment they represent bespeak very high populations needed
both for building and manning them. Both tradition and, as we shall see in Chapter
13, the observations of early Europeans suggest that, although, as modern analysis
shows, over 50% of pa had an area of less than 2,100 m 2 [11], there were also pa
that housed and defended thousands.
A peak population at the time of European contact – an essential premise for
the theory of late first settlement – presupposes lower populations earlier. This
intensifies the dilemma of there being too many pa for conceivable levels of
population.
Consider the demographic pattern this late settlement theory entails and its consequences in relation to the number of pa. As we have suggested, an unrealistically
high average growth rate of 1.056% per annum maintained over the 600 years from
AD 1200 to 1801, with an effective founder population of 300, could give a population of 166,000 in 1801. Most pa are dated from about AD 1400 to AD 1700, with
datings said to be evenly spaced over this time [12]. This claim is not entirely free of
contention because of confusion between initial construction and later fortifications.
But as the possibility of even spacing over time is the best case for late settlement
theorists to adopt, we consider it first.
If, with this scenario, one-third of pa (2,319) were built and manned in the period
AD 1400–1500, despite an unrealistically high population growth rate (1.056% per
annum), we would have a population of only 2,454 in AD 1400, rising to 7,020
by AD 1500. This would mean that as late as AD 1500 there would be a population of fewer than 3 being defended by each of the 2,310 pa then built. At AD
1600, with a population of 20,079, still assuming that one-third (2,319) of pa were
built and manned in the period AD 1500–1600, there would be fewer than 9 people
defended by each pa, with only 3 warriors to defend each pa, assuming that in a very
11 Challenging a Late First Settlement Date for New Zealand
[10]. Rutherford’s two estimates were derived from different sources, one compiled
from estimates for individual tribes and one compiled from estimates for different areas. Despite the discrepancy involved we have chosen in this and following
chapters to work with the range provided by these three estimates.
An unrealistic population growth rate of 1.056% per annum, sustained improbably over 600 years, would be needed to achieve Rutherford’s higher estimate of
166,000 in 1801. But even if this unrealistic growth rate were successfully defended,
the late settlement theorists’ problems would not end there.
The claim that there is no direct archaeological evidence for settlement in New
Zealand prior to AD 1200 may technically be true, if one accepts Anderson’s arguments for the dismissal of all radiocarbon dates before AD 1200 on the grounds
that they offend chronometric hygiene. But it is effectively misleading. There is, in
fact, compelling archaeological evidence for an early first settlement. Seven thousand Maori pa (hilltop forts) are currently listed on the New Zealand Archaeological
Association’s national site register (personal communication, Tony Walton, 16/2/06:
the precise number is 6,956, and excludes gun-fighting pa). Maori pa are the most
visible artefacts in New Zealand. While no pa may yet have been dated to before
AD 1200, this is irrelevant to an argument for an early first settlement. Their evidence is implicit, not explicit. The sheer number of pa, their distribution, density and
the massive labour investment they represent bespeak very high populations needed
both for building and manning them. Both tradition and, as we shall see in Chapter
13, the observations of early Europeans suggest that, although, as modern analysis
shows, over 50% of pa had an area of less than 2,100 m 2 [11], there were also pa
that housed and defended thousands.
A peak population at the time of European contact – an essential premise for
the theory of late first settlement – presupposes lower populations earlier. This
intensifies the dilemma of there being too many pa for conceivable levels of
population.
Consider the demographic pattern this late settlement theory entails and its consequences in relation to the number of pa. As we have suggested, an unrealistically
high average growth rate of 1.056% per annum maintained over the 600 years from
AD 1200 to 1801, with an effective founder population of 300, could give a population of 166,000 in 1801. Most pa are dated from about AD 1400 to AD 1700, with
datings said to be evenly spaced over this time [12]. This claim is not entirely free of
contention because of confusion between initial construction and later fortifications.
But as the possibility of even spacing over time is the best case for late settlement
theorists to adopt, we consider it first.
If, with this scenario, one-third of pa (2,319) were built and manned in the period
AD 1400–1500, despite an unrealistically high population growth rate (1.056% per
annum), we would have a population of only 2,454 in AD 1400, rising to 7,020
by AD 1500. This would mean that as late as AD 1500 there would be a population of fewer than 3 being defended by each of the 2,310 pa then built. At AD
1600, with a population of 20,079, still assuming that one-third (2,319) of pa were
built and manned in the period AD 1500–1600, there would be fewer than 9 people
defended by each pa, with only 3 warriors to defend each pa, assuming that in a very