246
14 New Zealand Palaeodemography
For this population to reduce to 156,000 in 1801 (adopting Rutherford’s higher
estimate for the total population in the North Island of 166,000 and assuming that
there were 10,000 survivors in the non-pa areas) gives a decline rate of 0.645% per
annum. This is 51.7% of the most probable decline rate based on skeletal evidence
for the non-pa areas (1.251% per annum of Option 2).
As we have seen, if there were 10,000 survivors from the non-pa areas in the
North Island in 1801 and the decline rate from Option 2 were fully applied, this
would correspond to a total non-pa population in 1445 of 884,000. Combining pa
and non-pa populations would give an estimate for the total population of the North
Island in 1445 of 2,444,000. Though the non-pa population would have represented
36.15% of the total North Island population in 1445, by 1801 it would represent
only 6.0%. If the non-pa population was only 6,000 in 1801, then the pa population
would have decreased at an average rate of 0.6377% per annum which is 50.9%
of the Option 2 skeletal decline rate of 1.251% per annum. Both estimates for the
differential rate of population decline in the pa areas as opposed to the non-pa areas
of the North Island are comparable with the 50% differential decline rate Lamb
records for Little Ice Age England between Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire and
the more populous Norfolk. With 6,000 survivors from the non-pa areas in 1801,
the population estimate for the non-pa areas in 1445 would be 530,000. The total
population of the North Island in this case would be 2,091,000. Though in 1445 this
non-pa population would have been 25.4% of the total North Island population, by
1801 the remnant non-pa population would represent only 3.6% of the total North
Island population, a figure close to extinction.
The same results lead to a calculation for the “half-life” of a pa of 107.1 years
where there are 10,000 survivors from the non-pa areas in 1801 and of 108.3 years
where there are 6,000 survivors. This is discussed further in Chapter 15. The halflife is higher for smaller numbers of survivors, but is bounded above by 110.1 years
for Rutherford’s total North Island estimate of 166,000 in 1801.
14.8 A Summary
With a total defended living area for 90% of large pa of over 15 million m 2 , the
obvious question arises, in the light of discussion in Chapter 11, as to why pa with
such a population capacity would have been built to serve a supposedly maximum
prehistoric population in 1801 of less than 200,000. The suggestion of abandonment
because of tapu (taboo) cannot explain such an extraordinary discrepancy, especially
when, as Fox claims, “Excavation and radiocarbon dating have shown that most
pa have a history of occupation covering several hundred years, which included
successive alteration of the defences” [34].
In a global climate context, the answer to such a discrepancy between pa capacity
and pa populations in 1801 is obvious: the demographic pattern is the reverse of the
one generally accepted. The population at the end of the 18th century is a minimum,
not a maximum population for the period from 1400. The majority of pa were built,
14 New Zealand Palaeodemography
For this population to reduce to 156,000 in 1801 (adopting Rutherford’s higher
estimate for the total population in the North Island of 166,000 and assuming that
there were 10,000 survivors in the non-pa areas) gives a decline rate of 0.645% per
annum. This is 51.7% of the most probable decline rate based on skeletal evidence
for the non-pa areas (1.251% per annum of Option 2).
As we have seen, if there were 10,000 survivors from the non-pa areas in the
North Island in 1801 and the decline rate from Option 2 were fully applied, this
would correspond to a total non-pa population in 1445 of 884,000. Combining pa
and non-pa populations would give an estimate for the total population of the North
Island in 1445 of 2,444,000. Though the non-pa population would have represented
36.15% of the total North Island population in 1445, by 1801 it would represent
only 6.0%. If the non-pa population was only 6,000 in 1801, then the pa population
would have decreased at an average rate of 0.6377% per annum which is 50.9%
of the Option 2 skeletal decline rate of 1.251% per annum. Both estimates for the
differential rate of population decline in the pa areas as opposed to the non-pa areas
of the North Island are comparable with the 50% differential decline rate Lamb
records for Little Ice Age England between Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire and
the more populous Norfolk. With 6,000 survivors from the non-pa areas in 1801,
the population estimate for the non-pa areas in 1445 would be 530,000. The total
population of the North Island in this case would be 2,091,000. Though in 1445 this
non-pa population would have been 25.4% of the total North Island population, by
1801 the remnant non-pa population would represent only 3.6% of the total North
Island population, a figure close to extinction.
The same results lead to a calculation for the “half-life” of a pa of 107.1 years
where there are 10,000 survivors from the non-pa areas in 1801 and of 108.3 years
where there are 6,000 survivors. This is discussed further in Chapter 15. The halflife is higher for smaller numbers of survivors, but is bounded above by 110.1 years
for Rutherford’s total North Island estimate of 166,000 in 1801.
14.8 A Summary
With a total defended living area for 90% of large pa of over 15 million m 2 , the
obvious question arises, in the light of discussion in Chapter 11, as to why pa with
such a population capacity would have been built to serve a supposedly maximum
prehistoric population in 1801 of less than 200,000. The suggestion of abandonment
because of tapu (taboo) cannot explain such an extraordinary discrepancy, especially
when, as Fox claims, “Excavation and radiocarbon dating have shown that most
pa have a history of occupation covering several hundred years, which included
successive alteration of the defences” [34].
In a global climate context, the answer to such a discrepancy between pa capacity
and pa populations in 1801 is obvious: the demographic pattern is the reverse of the
one generally accepted. The population at the end of the 18th century is a minimum,
not a maximum population for the period from 1400. The majority of pa were built,