254
15 Dating the First Settlement of New Zealand
More refined estimates made from analysis of traditional genealogies in
Chapter 20 suggest a date for the first settlement of New Zealand around 1358 BC.
Interestingly this date fits the peak in El Niño activity Anderson et al. chart in a
recent paper as corresponding to likely “pulses” in the colonization of the Pacific
[7]. In Chapter 20 we argue that a consilience of evidence – climatic, genealogical
and demographic – also places first settlement early in the Lapita colonizing period.
That a first settlement of New Zealand may have taken place so early is not surprising in the light of our central paradigm. Indeed it is perhaps to be expected given
the large landmass and protein richness of New Zealand, which, especially as it was
uninhabited, would have made it a prime migration target for first-wave colonists. A
population growth rate from 1358 BC to AD 1445 of 0.307% per annum, appropriate
to the hunter/gatherer existence of their descendants, supports this likelihood.
Because of inadequacies in data, we have not attempted to estimate South Island
populations. We note, however, that if the South Island population in 1445 were
20% of the total North Island population (418,000–489,000), the average growth
rate from a 1358 BC first settlement to 1445 for an increased total New Zealand population (2,509,000–2,933,000) would only be 0.324–0.330% per annum as opposed
to 0.307% per annum. In this calculation we have kept to a founder population of
289. This corresponds to the mode of pa populations and seems likely to be close
to the modal value of the distribution of sizes of all communities at the onset of the
Little Ice Age.
Tom Dye and Eric Komori have written an interesting paper on Hawaiian
palaeodemography using aggregate 14-C age determinations to establish population
increase and decrease rates over time [8]. Frequency distributions of 14-C age determinations from an extant archaeological carbon deposit are interpreted as reflecting
relative changes in population within a region over time. Two first settlement dates
for Hawaii are considered, AD 1 and AD 400. For the period AD 1–1832 annual
rates of increase vary from –2.53 to 2.75% (though these extreme dates are sustained only for a few decades and the dating of the period of high positive increase
suggests it may represent the effects of Tahitian, Samoan and Marquesan migrations
to Hawaii in the Medieval Climatic Optimum. There is an average 0.25% per annum
over the entire period. With a first settlement date set at AD 400, the mean annual
rate of increase is 0.32% with a range of –1.1 to 2.75% per annum.
However, Dye and Komori’s overall average includes a period of significant population decline of 2.535% per annum during the Little Ice Age. This estimate is
higher than even the highest estimate (2.04% for Option 8 in Table 14.2) derived
from the New Zealand skeletal data. But the overall population growth rate for
Hawaii at 0.25% per annum is less than that of New Zealand, perhaps reflecting the
long-term advantage New Zealand had over Hawaii in possessing the largest land
mass in the Pacific, a land mass 15.6 times that of Hawaii. Internal migration within
New Zealand may have provided an answer to resource shortages in particular areas
for possibly 2,000 years.
The analysis of this section shows the usefulness of a power law approach for
illuminating the early demographic history of New Zealand. The sizes of founder
populations have in the past been guessed. Frequently this has also been the case
15 Dating the First Settlement of New Zealand
More refined estimates made from analysis of traditional genealogies in
Chapter 20 suggest a date for the first settlement of New Zealand around 1358 BC.
Interestingly this date fits the peak in El Niño activity Anderson et al. chart in a
recent paper as corresponding to likely “pulses” in the colonization of the Pacific
[7]. In Chapter 20 we argue that a consilience of evidence – climatic, genealogical
and demographic – also places first settlement early in the Lapita colonizing period.
That a first settlement of New Zealand may have taken place so early is not surprising in the light of our central paradigm. Indeed it is perhaps to be expected given
the large landmass and protein richness of New Zealand, which, especially as it was
uninhabited, would have made it a prime migration target for first-wave colonists. A
population growth rate from 1358 BC to AD 1445 of 0.307% per annum, appropriate
to the hunter/gatherer existence of their descendants, supports this likelihood.
Because of inadequacies in data, we have not attempted to estimate South Island
populations. We note, however, that if the South Island population in 1445 were
20% of the total North Island population (418,000–489,000), the average growth
rate from a 1358 BC first settlement to 1445 for an increased total New Zealand population (2,509,000–2,933,000) would only be 0.324–0.330% per annum as opposed
to 0.307% per annum. In this calculation we have kept to a founder population of
289. This corresponds to the mode of pa populations and seems likely to be close
to the modal value of the distribution of sizes of all communities at the onset of the
Little Ice Age.
Tom Dye and Eric Komori have written an interesting paper on Hawaiian
palaeodemography using aggregate 14-C age determinations to establish population
increase and decrease rates over time [8]. Frequency distributions of 14-C age determinations from an extant archaeological carbon deposit are interpreted as reflecting
relative changes in population within a region over time. Two first settlement dates
for Hawaii are considered, AD 1 and AD 400. For the period AD 1–1832 annual
rates of increase vary from –2.53 to 2.75% (though these extreme dates are sustained only for a few decades and the dating of the period of high positive increase
suggests it may represent the effects of Tahitian, Samoan and Marquesan migrations
to Hawaii in the Medieval Climatic Optimum. There is an average 0.25% per annum
over the entire period. With a first settlement date set at AD 400, the mean annual
rate of increase is 0.32% with a range of –1.1 to 2.75% per annum.
However, Dye and Komori’s overall average includes a period of significant population decline of 2.535% per annum during the Little Ice Age. This estimate is
higher than even the highest estimate (2.04% for Option 8 in Table 14.2) derived
from the New Zealand skeletal data. But the overall population growth rate for
Hawaii at 0.25% per annum is less than that of New Zealand, perhaps reflecting the
long-term advantage New Zealand had over Hawaii in possessing the largest land
mass in the Pacific, a land mass 15.6 times that of Hawaii. Internal migration within
New Zealand may have provided an answer to resource shortages in particular areas
for possibly 2,000 years.
The analysis of this section shows the usefulness of a power law approach for
illuminating the early demographic history of New Zealand. The sizes of founder
populations have in the past been guessed. Frequently this has also been the case