11.3 Time as the Fundamental Variable
187
fast-growing population one-third of males were children. By 1700, with a population of 53,430, there would be 29 people defended by each pa, with 10 warriors
defending them. The figures would look even more absurd if the total population
capacity for pa, rather than the number of pa, were used in the calculations and a
longer period of use than 100 years allowed for.
In other words, from a demographic viewpoint, the estimate of 166,000 in 1801,
conceived of as close to the maximum prehistoric population achieved in New
Zealand, is far too small to account for the 7,000 registered pa, even assuming,
as we do here, that no pa built in one period was still being used in another.
If, as Aileen Fox noted, archaeological evidence suggests that most pa were occupied for several centuries [13], so that earlier pa were still being used in a later
century or centuries, this would further lower already absurdly low figures.
We have considered the improbably high population growth rate of 1.056% per
annum needed to reach a population of 166,000 in AD 1801 from a founding population of 300 at AD 1200. Even with a growth rate as high as this, the problem
of matching conjectured populations to pa capacity is extreme. That a population
growth rate of 1.056% per annum lacks feasibility can readily be illustrated by
considering it in the context of world population growth rates for the period AD
1200–1800 and also in the context of the population growth rates estimated by Dye
and Komori for the same period for Hawaii. Table 11.1 computes three population
growth rates for a conjectured late first settlement of New Zealand in AD 1200,
based on a founding population of 300, with
(i) average world population growth rates,
(ii) Dye and Komori’s estimates for population growth rates for Hawaii, and
(iii) the population growth rates needed to take a founding population of 300 to
166,000 in AD 1801.
The population growth rates listed in the table refer to the preceding period.
In Table 11.1 low fluctuating population growth rates for the world and Hawaii
from AD 1200 to 1800 (based on Dye and Komori’s data) are in marked contrast
to the continuous hypothetical high rate needed to achieve Rutherford’s estimate,
assuming a late settlement date for New Zealand of AD 1200. The demographic
implausibility of a late settlement date for New Zealand is clear from these practical
examples. The long period of negative growth rates for Hawaii during the Little Ice
Age, despite its proximity to the equator, is striking.
We may need to counter the argument that Eastern Polynesian immigrants arriving in AD 1200 as first settlers would have multiplied rapidly because they had
entered a pristine environment. The global and Hawaiian population growth rates
in Table 11.1 reflect both the problems of El Niño-associated drought and famine
in Eastern Polynesia and the global harshness of the Little Ice Age to which New
Zealand, situated in the high latitudes, would have been vulnerable. The medieval
migrants reaching New Zealand were far from entering a paradise. Nor, we argue,
were they arriving in uninhabited islands. The demographic implausibility of a late
first settlement, clear from Table 11.1 and from the problem of matching late migrant
187
fast-growing population one-third of males were children. By 1700, with a population of 53,430, there would be 29 people defended by each pa, with 10 warriors
defending them. The figures would look even more absurd if the total population
capacity for pa, rather than the number of pa, were used in the calculations and a
longer period of use than 100 years allowed for.
In other words, from a demographic viewpoint, the estimate of 166,000 in 1801,
conceived of as close to the maximum prehistoric population achieved in New
Zealand, is far too small to account for the 7,000 registered pa, even assuming,
as we do here, that no pa built in one period was still being used in another.
If, as Aileen Fox noted, archaeological evidence suggests that most pa were occupied for several centuries [13], so that earlier pa were still being used in a later
century or centuries, this would further lower already absurdly low figures.
We have considered the improbably high population growth rate of 1.056% per
annum needed to reach a population of 166,000 in AD 1801 from a founding population of 300 at AD 1200. Even with a growth rate as high as this, the problem
of matching conjectured populations to pa capacity is extreme. That a population
growth rate of 1.056% per annum lacks feasibility can readily be illustrated by
considering it in the context of world population growth rates for the period AD
1200–1800 and also in the context of the population growth rates estimated by Dye
and Komori for the same period for Hawaii. Table 11.1 computes three population
growth rates for a conjectured late first settlement of New Zealand in AD 1200,
based on a founding population of 300, with
(i) average world population growth rates,
(ii) Dye and Komori’s estimates for population growth rates for Hawaii, and
(iii) the population growth rates needed to take a founding population of 300 to
166,000 in AD 1801.
The population growth rates listed in the table refer to the preceding period.
In Table 11.1 low fluctuating population growth rates for the world and Hawaii
from AD 1200 to 1800 (based on Dye and Komori’s data) are in marked contrast
to the continuous hypothetical high rate needed to achieve Rutherford’s estimate,
assuming a late settlement date for New Zealand of AD 1200. The demographic
implausibility of a late settlement date for New Zealand is clear from these practical
examples. The long period of negative growth rates for Hawaii during the Little Ice
Age, despite its proximity to the equator, is striking.
We may need to counter the argument that Eastern Polynesian immigrants arriving in AD 1200 as first settlers would have multiplied rapidly because they had
entered a pristine environment. The global and Hawaiian population growth rates
in Table 11.1 reflect both the problems of El Niño-associated drought and famine
in Eastern Polynesia and the global harshness of the Little Ice Age to which New
Zealand, situated in the high latitudes, would have been vulnerable. The medieval
migrants reaching New Zealand were far from entering a paradise. Nor, we argue,
were they arriving in uninhabited islands. The demographic implausibility of a late
first settlement, clear from Table 11.1 and from the problem of matching late migrant