Truth is the daughter of time, not of authority[1] – attributed to Francis Bacon
Significance today of historic and pre-historic population estimates
In the second decade of the twenty-first century, approaching 200 years since the formation of New Zealand, the country is divided by race; this ‘partnership’ is intended by its most determined supporters to result in apartheid, a dual system of government.[1]
Colonisation is supposed to have brought great harm to Maori. That claim is supported by questionable population estimates from the first arrival of the British, with a picture of little change during the murderous tribal wars and a rapid decline following 1840. This picture of rapid and disastrous consequences of colonisation is basic to many grievances that have been paid off by Treaty settlements and to continuing claims for special treatment.
This division by race is supported by international calls for special rights to ‘indigenous’ peoples, as set down in the “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”.[2] It is then important for the main protagonists to assert Maori as indigenous first comers and to deny the evidence of previous settlement to support those beliefs.
Both of those claims must be considered carefully. The straightforward model outlined here provides a more balanced picture, based in data rather than suppositions, to indicate a major population decline and social breakdown during the tribal wars of the first decades of the nineteenth century, which produced a demographic deficit that resulted in further population decline which was apparent in early census counts, before a steadily recovery throughout the fifty years after the Treaty of Waitangi set up a national government which brought peace and security.
That analysis is based on three identified information sources: the census data from 1856-57 to the end of the century, the 1952 review by Nancy Pearce and the estimate of losses in battles by Professor James Rutherford (undated, between 1934 and 1963). It can be compared with the confused way in which today’s conventional wisdom has been constructed – described accurately by Simon Chapple as “Numbers from Nearly Nowhere”.[3]
The intent here is to present the information in a simple form, to move away from the current set of unjustified assertions and build on established facts, and so to provide the reader with a clear alternative analysis to assist a search for a deeper understanding.
A second section here considers some key publications that have put forward the present readily available, and incorrect, picture of little change from first contact to colonisation (despite the murderous and universal warfare) and collapse thereafter.
This then, deals with the Maori population during the nineteenth century. The question of first colonisation, and the identity of the true tangata whenua or indigenous people, is considered in a separate article, ‘Pre-contact Maori population and date of first arrival’.
Once the true story is recognised, we can live together as one people, equal, with pride in the achievements of our nation and recognition of the benefits as people, with such different cultures, joined and worked together.
A model of Maori population through the nineteenth century
National census counts of the Maori population commenced in 1856/1857. After a delay due to the wars of rebellion, these continued in 1874 and then regularly for the remainder of the nineteenth century.
The initial value reported for 1896 caused some dismay (as to Apirana Ngata, who voiced his concern in a paper on Maori population statistics to the 1898 third TACSA [Te Aute College Students Association] conference[4]) as it suggested a significant drop in Maori numbers, to 39,854 from 41,993 in 1891. The 1896 figure was later recognised to have been a poor count, and the 1945 table of census counts includes a revised estimate of 42,113 for that year.
A careful review of nineteenth century Maori census data by Nancy Pearce in her 1952 MA thesis[5] resulted in a number of further well-founded adjustments, which are used in the following calculations. Most importantly, the first 1857/58 census count of 57,049 was adjusted to 59,700. Pool presented a second set of adjustments[6], which are less convincing, and are not used.
The period covered by census counts commenced with a very negative population distribution, a shortage of both young and females which alone provides an explanation of the population decline. There was a steady recovery of both that demographic deficit and of the population decline throughout the latter part of the century; stability was reached around 1890, followed by a population growth that has continued since.
Table 1. Proportion of young in the population and the ratio of males to 100 females for Maori in nineteenth century censuses.
| young proportion | males per 100 females | ||
| young | adult | ||
| 1857 | 27% | 124 | 136 |
| 1874 | 34% | 115 | 121 |
| 1881 | 34% | 119 | 124 |
| 1891 | 34% | 113 | 123 |
| 1901 | 37% | 109 | 119 |
The obvious cause is female infanticide, which had been frequently observed, and was referred to by Maori speakers. There are many references to this practice in both early reports and recent studies.[7] Pool however, reached the opposite conclusion, that “there is little sound evidence … to support the idea of widespread infanticide, male or female.”[8] This incorrect claim has, unfortunately, been widely accepted and reported as it allows the cause to be found in the coming of British colonisation, giving support to demands for restitution.
The observed demographic deficit, with an initial shortage of young and females (the breeding stock), provides an adequate explanation of the decline and the steady recovery through the decades following the Treaty. This holds no matter what the cause. The following analysis is then not dependent on whether or not female infanticide was significant. Any impact of introduced disease is accounted for as the countback to 1840 relies on the measured change in 1856/57 to 1874 (obviously including all actual trends).
Local and regional counts prior to the first census report similar shortages of young and females. These include an 1844 enumeration of Waikato Maori by Church of England missionaries, Wellington counts of 1845 and 1850, and an 1851 count in a number of pa near the Bay of Islands.[9]
The data from the Waikato 1844 survey give a clear indication of the dire situation around 1840, and of the steady improvement thereafter – a low initial base and subsequent increase. This is shown by a graph of the ratio of children to adult females given by Pool[10], with an increase from an extremely low 70 children per 100 adult females in 1844 to around 100-120 in 1874-1891, and further to 160 in 1930.
It is evident that the demographic imbalance (shortage of young and females), and thus the resulting population decline, existed from 1840, and a reasonable assumption is that the rate of population loss between 1840 and 1856/57 was of a similar magnitude to that measured between the first two census counts of 1856/57 and 1874.
Since the actual figures are used in the count back, any impact from disease or other causes is included. This point must be emphasised: whatever the reason for the observations of demographic imbalance and decline (be it disease and other causes of increased mortality[11], or infanticide, or some other cause), it remains reasonable to note the similarities and take the trend shown by the data for 1856/57 and 1874 back to 1840. Thus, even should there be an acceptance of criticism of the identification of female infanticide as a major driving force, the model holds.
The model, accepting the review by Pearce and making that assumption of similar rate of change back from 1856/57, then gives an estimate of 71,600 for the 1840 Maori population.[12] The choice of Pearce’s revised population estimate for 1856/57 is significant. Use of the original census figures suggests an 1840 population of 70,000; use of Pool’s revision suggests an 1840 population of 80,000. [13]
These differing estimates show the variation in possible choices and assumptions in deriving an estimate of the 1840 Maori population from the reported measured data. To this can be added the possibility of a greater rate of loss in the period 1840-1856/57 (as suggested by the 1844 Waikato count), which would most probably move the 1840 estimate to around 75,000. This discussion thus points to a possible range of 71,000-75,000. Further estimates here continue to follow the model best estimate of 71,600.
From 1840 back to 1800, through the tribal wars
While there had been frequent wars between tribes previously, there was a period of particularly destructive and widespread fighting in the first decades of the nineteenth century.[14] There are many accounts and records of the battles fought and the disruption as conquered tribes moved across the country, often to spread the killing and conquer other tribes in their turn. Thus, for example: “Of an estimated 100,000 – 150,000 Maori living in New Zealand at or around 1810, by 1840 probably somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000 had been killed, enslaved or forced to migrate as a result of the wars (working from estimates generated by Ian Pool and others). In the main that occurred in the short space of twenty-five years from 1815 to 1840.” [15]
A more comprehensive count of battle deaths has been provided by historian James Rutherford.[16] That estimation is both thorough and cautious; he comments that: “Any calculation of this sort involves considerable risk of error. Maori evidence, based on oral tradition, has been treated far more cautiously than R.A.F claims for German aircraft shot down in the Battle of Britain; all large claims have been greatly reduced.” Rutherford’s table of battle casualties lists both those killed and total battle casualties.
Battles and probable casualties in the intertribal wars
| number | killed | wounded | total | |
| 1801-1805 | 23 | 2,000 | 300 | 2,300 |
| 1806-1810 | 30 | 2,200 | 400 | 2,600 |
| 1811-1815 | 39 | 1,900 | 400 | 2,300 |
| 1816-1820 | 122 | 6,000 | 900 | 6,900 |
| 1821-1825 | 203 | 11,300 | 3,500 | 14,800 |
| 1826-1830 | 89 | 6,600 | 1,000 | 7,600 |
| 1831-1835 | 61 | 3,200 | 1,200 | 4,400 |
| 1836-1840 | 35 | 2,200 | 500 | 2,700 |
| 1801-1840 | 602 | 35,400 | 8,200 | 43,600 |
There are many reports of further deaths following the battles (killed and eaten), including women and children. There is considerable evidence for such a general loss of life with at times whole groups wiped out. After “a typical contact era battle”, Polack described how “neither sex is spared and infants and children are alike barbarously devoured”.[17]
In order to take account of the full extent of loss of live, including those killed following battle, the estimates of ‘probable casualties’ are used in the calculations. This indicates a population decline of 66,000 between 1800 and 1840 from the following calculations. This is close to an estimate by Rutherford of a population loss of 65,000 from 1801 to 1840, accounted for as follows:[18]
| cause of death | number |
| killed in battle | 32,000 |
| died of wounds | 7,000 |
| killed in captivity | 3,000 |
| deaths from hardships, etc. during dispersals | 10,000 |
| loss from diseases, and other causes | 13,000 |
Peter Buck accepted an estimate of 80,000 killed in battle or died of causes incidental to the wars as probably correct; other early estimates were of around 60,000, 80,000 or 90,000 deaths.[19]
As well as the loss of life in the wars, the model must include the population decline due to the demographic deficit observed in the later part of the century. This is taken in 1840 to be that of the years following, as noted above. Since it is impossible to have had a population decline of that magnitude continuing unbroken further back in time, this development (probably the consequence of widespread female infanticide) is assumed to have developed during that period and is taken as zero in 1800, with a linear change in the rate of loss between 1800 and 1840.
This model calculation produces the following graph, with a population in 1800 of 137,500.[20] Pool reports an estimate by Rutherford of 155,000-166,000 in 1800.[21]
– Denial of serious impact of tribal wars and claims of an immediate harm of colonisation
Pool noted estimates of high losses in the tribal musket wars but then set these aside in order to create a picture of loss only after colonisation, with the rather absurd claim that since they would have died eventually, those many battle deaths would have no significant effect on population numbers.
“The ethnographer Percy Smith was responsible for the claim that there were 80,000 deaths over the first third of the nineteenth century, from both direct and indirect mortality caused by warfare. Yet over 100,000 persons could have been expected to have died over this 30-year period in the ‘normal’ course of events, with or without wars.”[22]
This process of insisting that we should ignore the decline during the musket wars opened the way to imagine a largely successful, benign Maori society throughout that turbulent period, to be followed by significant downturn following colonisation, as: “The rapid Maori population decline after 1840 resulted from the increasing number and density of the Pakeha population.”[23] This claim has been accepted by many commentators today, such as in Te Ara, the Encyclopedia of New Zealand: “Very high levels of mortality meant that the Maori population declined for most of the 19th century. The most rapid decrease occurred between 1840 and 1860, when the Maori population dropped by up to 30%.” Other reports assuming a similarly high population in 1840 suggest a similar sudden plunge, between 30% and 40 %, or even greater.[24]
This version of Maori demographics is shown most graphically in a 2014 Auckland University Press publication written by “internationally renowned scholars” Alistair Woodward and Tony Blakely.[25] Their figure references Pool 1991, but gives very different numbers from those found in that publication: Pool has population estimates of 80,000 in 1840 (noted previously) and 115,000 at contact.[26] I have been unable to establish where they got the numbers shown there (nor of where Pool’s 115,000 comes from). Here is their graph.
The estimates of early populations (read from that graph) are: 150,000 in 1769, 110,000 in 1840, 100,000 in 1844, and 58,000 around 1854-1856 (a little higher in 1854). This suggests a sudden decrease of 42% over 10 years between 1844 and 1854. There is no explanation for any such catastrophic event; there was no great epidemic with such a high loss of life in those years. As Pool reports: “it is worth stressing that there is no record of the great apocalyptic diseases … striking New Zealand in any demographically significant way”.[27]
The only evident reason for the inclusion of assumed data from 1844 in this graph would be the Waikato count, which is discussed by both Pool, and Woodward and Blakely who note: “Francis Fenton, resident magistrate, surveyed the local population in 1844 and again in 1858, and reported a decrease of about 20 per cent, with low proportions at both surveys of children (27 per cent under the age of 14), and he found that males exceeded females by about a third.”[28] That 20% decrease is close to the 17% suggested here, and is nothing like the 40% claimed in their figure 5 (reproduced here). The analysis and the conclusions are not supported by the noted information – what is going on here?
The claimed catastrophe is not explained. In fact, it did not occur, having been artificially constructed by the unrealistically high estimates of the 1840 population. The great harm brought by colonisation is a myth – it simply did not happen. Yet this false version of history is widely accepted.
References
Chapple S 2017. New Zealand Numbers from Nearly Nowhere: 80,000 to 100,000 Māori circa 1769. New Zealand Journal of History, Vol 51, No 2.
Crosby R D 1999. The Musket Wars – A History of Inter-Iwi Conflict 1806-45. Reed, Auckland
Moon P 2008. This horrid practice, the myth and reality of traditional Maori cannibalism. Penguin.
Pearce, N.G. 1952. The size and location of the Maori population, 1857-96. M.A. thesis, Victoria University, Wellington
Pool I 1991. Te iwi Maori: New Zealand population past, present and projected. Auckland University Press
Robinson J L 2011. The corruption of New Zealand democracy, a Treaty industry overview. Tross Publishing.
Robinson J L 2012. When two cultures meet. Tross Publishing.
Robinson J L 2015. Two great New Zealanders, Tamati Waka Nene and Apirana Ngata. Tross Publishing.
Robinson J L 2020. Unrestrained slaughter: the Maori musket wars 1800-1840. Tross Publishing.
Rutherford J undated document. Note on Maori casualties in their tribal wars 1801-1840. James Rutherford papers, 1926-1963 in MSS & Archives A-42, Box 16, Folder 6, Special Collections, The University of Auckland Library.
Woodward A and Blakely T 2014. The healthy country? A history of life and death in New Zealand. Auckland University Press
[1] It is long past time for New Zealand to recognise the falsity of many of the myths dominating popular opinion, and return to the truth of the real history of the first and later settlers. Some facts and the resulting simple analysis presented here provide a step in that direction.
[1] Robinson 2021
[2] https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
[3] Chapple 2017
[4] Robinson 2015, page 205
[5] Pearce 1952
[6] Pool 1991
[7] As a few examples: Joel Polack 1838, “New Zealand; being a narrative of travels and adventures during a residence in that country between the years 1831 and 1837”, London, pages 344-5; Harrison Wright 1959, “New Zealand 1769-1840: early years of Western contact”, Harvard Historical Monographs; Margaret Orbell 1978, “The traditional Maori family”, Chapter in: Koopman-Boyden P, “Families in New Zealand society”, Methuen; Paul Moon 2008, “This horrid practice, the myth and reality of traditional Maori cannibalism”, Penguin, page 123; Robinson 2015, page 302; Robinson 2012, pages 70-75
[8] Pool 1991, page 47
[9] Robinson 2012, pages 56-57
[10] Pool 1991, figure 4.2, page 72; Robinson 2012, page 56
[11] As pointed out by Woodward and Blakely 2014
[12] Robinson 2015, page 307
[13] Robinson 2011, page 14; Robinson 2012, page 55, figure 3; Pool 1991, page 76, table 5.2
[14] Moon 2008; Robinson 2020
[15] Crosby 1999, page 17
[16] Rutherford, undated document
[17] Possibly the first Jewish settler in New Zealand, Polack came to Hokianga in 1831, established a general store at Kororareka in 1832 and built New Zealand’s first brewery in 1835. He returned to England in 1837 and later wrote two successful books based on his experiences in New Zealand, which he also illustrated. Robinson 2012, page 69
[18] Robinson 2015, page 304
[19] Robinson 2015, page 296
[20] Robinson 2015, page 310 (tidied)
[21] Pool 1991, page 43
[22] Pool 1991, page 44
[23] Pool 1991, page 58
[24] https://teara.govt.nz/en/population-change/page-6
[25] Woodward and Blakely 2014, page 55, figure 5
[26] Pool 1991, page 41, table 3.2,
[27] Pool 1991, page 84
[28] Woodward and Blakely 2014, page 62