14.5 Differential Rates of Population Decline
237
protect the horticultural areas of the northern part of the North Island and their stored
harvests. Higher sea surface temperatures, especially on the northwest coast of the
North Island lapped by the warm East Australian Current, may have partly reduced
the loss of marine biota, but even in the north of the North Island loss of biota seems
to have been extreme. Ironically, part of this loss appears to have been associated
with deforestation in order to clear land for horticulture. Visser, for example, claims
that the deforestation associated with the introduction of horticulture in the north
of the North Island coincides with the disappearance of large fauna. He notes that
the loss of large fauna was more severe in the north of the North Island than in the
south of the South Island. In the north large land fauna disappeared after about AD
1300 and seals were rare by 1500. In the south of the South Island sea mammals
may have been available until the 1800s [6].
Yet, with pa protecting the survival advantages of the north which were largely
based on an ability to grow tropical cultivars, one would expect differential rates of
survival between populations living in the major pa areas (recorded in Walton’s map
by pa distribution) and those living in other areas of New Zealand. The numbers and
large population capacity of pa make the point that tribal survival was at stake and
that in the north the protection of horticultural land and harvests was a priority.
In the south of the South Island which had small populations both in absolute
numbers and in relation to resources, seal and marine populations appear to have
survived possibly without major depletion. But although the settled hunter/gatherer
populations of the South Island may have suffered lower decline rates than tribes in
the southern part of the North Island, any southern amelioration of the overall population decline of New Zealand would have been small, given the smaller populations
of the South Island. By contrast in the southern part of the North Island, with high
populations by the beginning of the Little Ice Age, significantly lower temperatures
than the north of the North Island and deteriorating resources, population decline
rates in the Little Ice Age may have been extreme. It is not unreasonable to suggest that population decline rates in the south of the North Island may have been
very much more than those of Maori in the major pa areas to the north. The global
context for the Little Ice Age, discussed in Chapter 12, can be invoked here: there
is evidence to suggest that in some countries there was just such a differential in
population decline rates between richer and poorer areas.
It seems likely that since the time of Rakaihautu (about AD 840 by our calculations) the north of the North Island may have been the most densely populated part
of New Zealand. It would always have possessed the highest average mean temperatures in New Zealand, the advantage of good soils and good access to forest,
estuarine and marine resources. In the Medieval Climatic Optimum and, still more
relevantly, in the Little Ice Age, because of higher temperatures (due both to latitude
and perhaps to the flow of the warm East Australian Current along the west coast
of the North Island) it possessed the best land for growing the tropical cultivars that
became a key to survival in the Little Ice Age.
A positive consequence of there being a long-established high population density
in the north of the North Island is that in the Little Ice Age a significant proportion
of New Zealand’s population would have lived in conditions which optimized their
237
protect the horticultural areas of the northern part of the North Island and their stored
harvests. Higher sea surface temperatures, especially on the northwest coast of the
North Island lapped by the warm East Australian Current, may have partly reduced
the loss of marine biota, but even in the north of the North Island loss of biota seems
to have been extreme. Ironically, part of this loss appears to have been associated
with deforestation in order to clear land for horticulture. Visser, for example, claims
that the deforestation associated with the introduction of horticulture in the north
of the North Island coincides with the disappearance of large fauna. He notes that
the loss of large fauna was more severe in the north of the North Island than in the
south of the South Island. In the north large land fauna disappeared after about AD
1300 and seals were rare by 1500. In the south of the South Island sea mammals
may have been available until the 1800s [6].
Yet, with pa protecting the survival advantages of the north which were largely
based on an ability to grow tropical cultivars, one would expect differential rates of
survival between populations living in the major pa areas (recorded in Walton’s map
by pa distribution) and those living in other areas of New Zealand. The numbers and
large population capacity of pa make the point that tribal survival was at stake and
that in the north the protection of horticultural land and harvests was a priority.
In the south of the South Island which had small populations both in absolute
numbers and in relation to resources, seal and marine populations appear to have
survived possibly without major depletion. But although the settled hunter/gatherer
populations of the South Island may have suffered lower decline rates than tribes in
the southern part of the North Island, any southern amelioration of the overall population decline of New Zealand would have been small, given the smaller populations
of the South Island. By contrast in the southern part of the North Island, with high
populations by the beginning of the Little Ice Age, significantly lower temperatures
than the north of the North Island and deteriorating resources, population decline
rates in the Little Ice Age may have been extreme. It is not unreasonable to suggest that population decline rates in the south of the North Island may have been
very much more than those of Maori in the major pa areas to the north. The global
context for the Little Ice Age, discussed in Chapter 12, can be invoked here: there
is evidence to suggest that in some countries there was just such a differential in
population decline rates between richer and poorer areas.
It seems likely that since the time of Rakaihautu (about AD 840 by our calculations) the north of the North Island may have been the most densely populated part
of New Zealand. It would always have possessed the highest average mean temperatures in New Zealand, the advantage of good soils and good access to forest,
estuarine and marine resources. In the Medieval Climatic Optimum and, still more
relevantly, in the Little Ice Age, because of higher temperatures (due both to latitude
and perhaps to the flow of the warm East Australian Current along the west coast
of the North Island) it possessed the best land for growing the tropical cultivars that
became a key to survival in the Little Ice Age.
A positive consequence of there being a long-established high population density
in the north of the North Island is that in the Little Ice Age a significant proportion
of New Zealand’s population would have lived in conditions which optimized their