Pre-contact Maori population and date of first arrival
Significance today of historic and pre-historic population estimates
Reworking carbon dating and discounting evidence
Pre-contact Maori population and
date of first arrival
Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination, to their traditional lands and resources, to self-determination, autonomy and self-government, with autonomous authority over independent indigenous education systems and healthcare services.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.[1]
Significance today of historic and pre-historic population estimates
In the third 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.[2]
Colonisation is supposed to have brought great harm to Maori; that claim is supported by false 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. An analysis of the Maori population in the nineteenth century, with a model describing the probable demographic trends, is presented in a separate article, ‘Maori nineteenth century population: model estimates’.
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, noted above. It is then considered important by the protagonists of two peoples to assert Maori as indigenous first comers and to deny the evidence of previous settlement.
The question of the date of first colonisation, determining the identity of the true tangata whenua or indigenous people, noting evidence from several disciplines including possible population estimates before first European arrival, is summarised here. There are many sources of information which together provide convincing support for settlement many centuries before the coming of today’s Maori.
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.
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.
Early oral history[3]
Here in New Zealand, the term indigenous is held to refer to the tangata whenua, the first people to come to these previously uninhabited lands. The ancestors of the members of currently recognised iwi came here in a series of canoes some time around the thirteenth century. The question of whether they were the first comers, therefore, has a particular importance, in politics as well as our fascination with the story of our lands. If they were to be accepted as the first to arrive, they can take the title of ‘indigenous’ and thus claim the many special rights determined by the Waitangi Tribunal and outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
There are no written records to refer to – Maori were illiterate. The early story could only be understood by listening to the memories of the various tribes, and adding the messages of archaeology. Many such accounts have been recorded during the first hundred years of the new nation.
The foremost authority on this early period in the history of New Zealand is Sir Peter Buck (Te Rangihoa). He was a student at Te Aute College and remained a friend and colleague of fellow students and members of the activist Te Aute College Students Association (TACSA) and the Young Maori Party, and fellow Members of Parliament, Sir Apirana Ngata and Sir Maui Pomare. All worked hard to better Maori health (Buck and Pomare were medical doctors). After the First World War, Buck was appointed as Chief Maori Medical Officer, and in 1921 was named director of the Maori Hygiene Division in the Department of Health.
While he was a Member of Parliament (1909-1914), Buck became interested in the history of the Polynesian peoples of the Pacific. He had joined the Polynesian Society in 1907 and published brief articles on the material culture of Niue, the Cook Islands and New Zealand Maori, some in Dominion Museum bulletins, the rest in the Journal of the Polynesian Society. Through several meticulous studies, amply illustrated by his skilful line drawings, Buck established himself as the leading authority on Maori material culture.
Buck became a celebrity on the lecture circuit, particularly with a lecture on ‘The coming of the Maori’, which he gave as the Cawthron Lecture in Nelson in 1922 and at the Pacific Science Congress at Melbourne in 1923. The Cawthron Lecture was published in 1925, reprinted by the Board of Maori Ethnological Research in 1929, and republished in a much revised and expanded version by the Maori Purposes Fund Board in 1949; it has been reprinted numerous times since. He became a professional anthropologist, with a research fellowship at the Bishop Museum in Hawaii, and was appointed Bishop Museum visiting professor of anthropology at Yale University and promoted to Director of the Bishop Museum in 1936, a position he held until his death in 1951.
Over many years, Buck talked with many fellow Maori and other Polynesians, and travelled widely to small Pacific communities; he identified three settlement periods.[4]
The first settlement period (apart from a possible previous ‘Maui nation’) was by three canoes (Kahutara, Taikoria and Okoki) with the settlers referred to by Buck as “the tangata whenua” (the original people of the land). They occupied territories along the west coast of the North Island, and soon “increased in numbers”. Some subsequently moved to the south, including early tribes of the South Island, Waitaha and Rapuwai. Buck suggested that the Moriori of the Chatham Islands may have been descended from these first immigrants. There are a number of reports of the peaceful lives of tangata whenua[5], which accords with the later weak resistance of the Moriori when they were conquered and massacred by Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama in 1835.
“The second influx of settlers to New Zealand is associated primarily with Toi, one of the most widely known names in early Maori history.”[6] A number of voyaging canoes came, bringing settlers. They found people living here; Buck suggests that “they were numerous”. There were a number of conflicts between the first people and the newcomers, with tangata whenua being killed by Manaia so that the newcomers could possess the land.[7] “After the arrival of Toi and Whatonga from Eastern Polynesia, inter-marriages took place between the two migrations, and in the times of Awa-nui-a-rangi (circa 1200 [according to Buck]) wars of extermination commenced, ending in the practical extinction of the men of the tangata-whenua, whilst the women and children were absorbed by the conquerors.”[8]
The third settlement period is the best known (Buck calls it “the most famous event in Maori history”), the coming of seven famous canoes, Tainui, Te Arawa, Matatua, Kurahaupo, Tokomaru, Aotea and Takitimu. Many accounts suggest that the newcomers were advanced, warlike, agricultural tribes who destroyed or drove out the previous settlers, the first comers, including the Waitaha and the Moriori, and chased them away from their lands, following bloody battles.
That pattern is recounted in many regional accounts, having been repeated across the country. Andreas Reischek, who lived in New Zealand from 1877 to 1889 and travelled throughout the country, was fluent in te reo and a friend of Tawhiao who allowed him to travel freely in the ‘King Country’, reported that: “The chiefs told me the Maori are a mixed race … They landed at different spots in the North Island and found them inhabited by dark-coloured men with curly black hair and small of stature. These original inhabitants – they called them Ngatimaimai – were found to be good husbandmen and hunters, but poor warriors. So, the Maori conquered them, killed the men and took possession of the women.”[9]
Newcomers did not build a population anew, but took many of the existing people, as: “(circa 1200 [according to Buck]) wars of extermination commenced, ending in the practical extinction of the men of the tangata-whenua, whilst the women and children were absorbed by the conquerors.”[10] By taking the children and adding the women as breeding stock, there would be little or no change in following population numbers, which can be calculated as continuing almost uninterrupted from the time of first settlement.
This is the way that those people, guided by their tikanga and matauranga Maori, treated the existing inhabitants when they came as newcomers. Now they complain about other newcomers who brought peace and equality along with British law and citizenship, and insist on a return to that traditional culture, which had shown its brutal consequences those many years before – and again during the murderous inter-tribal musket wars of the 1820s and 1830s. If the British had treated them in the same way that they dealt with the then people of this land, they would indeed have some reasons for complaint; but that had not happened.
It is possible to debate, and disagree over the precise meanings of ‘indigenous’ and ‘tangata whenua’. What is indisputable, however, is the way in which early Maori treated others when their traditional culture was dominant.
The continued existence of Waitaha after they had been driven south is recognised by Ngai Tahu today. “Waitaha were the first people of Te Waipounamu, journeying here aboard the Uruao waka. They were followed by the migrations of Ngati Mamoe and finally Ngai Tahu. By the mid-18th century, through warfare, intermarriage, and political alliances, a common allegiance was formed.”[11] “Ngati Mamoe moved to the South Island about the sixteenth century, to intermarry with Waitaha and to assume control. From the seventeenth century Ngati Mamoe and Ngai Tahu tribes gradually united.”[12]
Waitaha have been subsumed into Ngai Tahu by proximity and intermarriage. Why is there no recognition that Maori have similarly been subsumed into, and united with, the comprehensive New Zealand mix? There has been considerable intermarriage and most, if not all, Maori are today of mixed ancestry – and we surely live together. The answer is found in the current insistence of separation by race in order to support grievance so as to be given considerable settlements and separate legal rights and privileges.
The oral histories, the collective memories of Maori across the country collected and reported by many observers (and other island peoples, as collected by Buck) have been supported by much other evidence. Thus, for example, Adkins noted evidence from local chiefs, geology, archaeology, with the differing tools and carving, when outlining the movements of Waitaha and Mua-upoko across the North Island and into the South Island – much is known about these pre-Maori peoples.[13]
Evidence from archaeology[14]
There have been many subsequent discoveries since Buck carried out his investigations, which either suggest a possibility of either the coming of other peoples or an earlier arrival date for the first Polynesian settlers. These include archaeological digs across the country, which provide evidence suggesting that other peoples settled here before the Maori (whose ancestors came in the seven named canoes), possibly as much as one thousand years, or even more, prior.
A 1952 paper on “Geological Evidence of the Antiquity of Man in the New Zealand Area” by G. L. Adkin of Geological Survey[15] summarises some of this evidence. His picture is similar to that of Buck. “The findings of archaeology and tradition supplementary to the geological evidence and suggesting a scheme of successive migrations to the New Zealand region … there is evidence of three separate and variant native cultures having been brought to and spread through these islands.
(1) The Waitaha … a people of superior material culture, Polynesian, culturally archaic
(2) The Ngatimamoe, a people apparently largely Polynesian but with a possible Melanesian quality
(3) The Fleet or Hawaiki Maori, a people predominantly Polynesian, but also possessing traits of culture and practice said to be unknown in oceanic Polynesia.”
Adkin notes the possibility of settlement dates far before the now accepted circa 1250, or the then commonly accepted date of 1000 A.D., and the resulting uncertainty. Thus, “the incoming date of the Waitaha (put at 1,300 years earlier, around 300 B.C.) is open to the objection that this seems too lengthy a period for their sojourn in Horowhenua [Adkin’s study had been in the Levin area], but apart from this a very much earlier date for them than has hitherto been attached to human immigrants to this country has much to warrant it.”
Further archaeological research adds support to the possibility of a very early date of first settlement, suggesting that ancestors of the Maori of today arrived many centuries after the first settlers.
One extensive report of very substantial archaeological digs by T Russell Price over some 25-years at Poukawa, in the Hawke’s Bay Region (from 1956 on), provided evidence of possible human presence some thousands of years ago, with dating both from layers identifying well-dated eruptions, and from carbon dating.[16] This was serious work; among the scientists who visited the site were Sir Charles Fleming and Professor Harold Wellman, both of whom I have known, and whom I respect highly. “What almost nobody realised in the late 1960s is that a hard core of top scientists who had visited the Poukawa site were totally behind Price and Pullar.”
“Occupation of this site has continued over a long period. The older occupation appears to have commenced prior to the commencement of the peat formation and hence also before the water level of ancient Lake Poukawa had reached its highest level. If the rate of peat formation has been substantially uniform peats commenced forming at about ‘post’-glacial sea level maximum, say 4,500 years ago. The stratigraphically lowest discoveries lie below this peat and may conceivably pre-date ca. 4,500 years ago. … The site demonstrates human occupation of this area of much greater antiquity than anything previously anticipated.”[17]
In this online publication of Price’s work, Doutré also notes a 1996 report by Richard Holdaway of finding kiore rat bones beneath Taupo tephra ash, and thus that the kiore rat (and the people it came with) had been in New Zealand for at least 1,100-years before Maori arrived in 1300 AD.
A supposedly damning critique of the work of Price has been published by Bruce McFadgen, who carried his own dig at the Poukawa site.[18] Doutré considered this work at some length (in Part 4) and concluded that McFadgen’s work was deeply flawed. I have studied McFadgen’s paper carefully, and I agree completely with Doutré. It is simply ridiculous, since McFadgen had dug in a different spot, in a swamp and on land that had been ploughed, whereas Price dug on a rise and showed that the key layers had not been disturbed.
Despite its lack of any validity, McFadgen’s work has been accepted, and quoted: removal of any evidence of previous occupation fits well with the current orthodoxy of Maori as first comers. For example, a detailed outline of many archaeological digs dismissed Poukawa, based on that paper.[19]
There are considerable other items of information on possible early settlement. One such concerns stone structures in the Northland Waipoua forest, which extend over hundreds of acres.[20] “Although early Europeans knew of the structures and wondered about their origin, it was not until 1983 that a group of archaeologists from Auckland University were employed by the then NZ Forest Service to investigate and document these structures. …
The archaeologists made detailed notes on stone walls, hearths, altars, obelisks, rock carvings, standing stone circles, circular stone mounds, and stone lined waterways. They took samples for carbon dating. …
In 1988 archaeological records were transferred from Kaikohe to the National Archives in Wellington. On the agreement for the transfer of archives it states: ‘Prior consultation requires approval of the Te Roroa-Waipoua Archaeological Committee or other subsequent Te Roroa authority’.” The Te Rorora iwi and DOC then modified the transfer agreement to include a 75-year embargo on the records!
“One of the archaeologists, Noel Hilliam, who worked on the sites, who saw the dating, said that the initial dating went back to 2225 BC. That is 3,150 years before Maori history began in New Zealand. Many have tried to obtain the records. Eventually some were released, but the carbon dating has never been released.” Why the secrecy? Most probably because it challenges the claim of Maori for indigenous, first people status.
Nothing is certain; we should investigate further the possibility that has been raised, and demand to be allowed to continue this fascinating research. Instead, there has been a steady move to the assertion that major settlement came only with the Maori.
Guidance from demography
In 1991, demographer Ian Pool presented a set of inferred populations with a growth rate of 0.5% per year (suggested by referenced analysis as “a rather rapid growth for antiquity”) for various founding population sizes (100-400) and dates of arrival (1000 AD and back to 500 AD).[21] A copy of that table is shown here.
Those estimates require settlement around the year 700 AD or before in order to lead to a population around 100,000 by 1769 (this discussion follows Pool by reference to a population of around 100,000 on contact, but does not fix that number as the most probable count; it may have been greater, at 150,000 or 200,000), even assuming the highest settler population of 400. Any later date of settlement would preclude the attainment of that population based on his analysis. Arrival of 400 in 1000 AD suggests a population of only 22,000 in 1769.
An initial 400 would only reach 4,843 in the five centuries from 1250 to 1750, and would need to multiply by another twenty plus times to reach 100,000. For a settlement population of 400 to reach 100,000 in the five centuries, 1250-1750, would require a tripling every century, an unrealistic growth rate of 1.1%, more than double the 0.5% that researchers identify as “a rather rapid growth for antiquity”.
Most current claims are for settlement in 1250 or 1350. This is not feasible given these accepted possible rates of growth. There is no way that a population of around 100,000 in 1769 or 1800 could be reached from 1250 without an unfeasibly high growth rate.
The next section, considering skeletal remains, make it clear that there was no such period of high population increase following the arrival of today’s Maori. Maori (the Polynesians who arrived around 1250 or 1350) could not have been the first settlers, the indigenous people. A challenge is set down here: any reliance on the current accepted picture of that unique first settlement must include a reasonable and well-based analysis of numbers, of how many came and the subsequent population changes.
Pool’s conclusions were that: “on the basis of what is currently known about prehistoric population dynamics, that a size much greater than the 100,000 persons suggested by Cook, and supported by some recent modelling, seems improbable”, and “in 1769 the population may have been about 100,000, even slightly below this figure”.[22] He then estimates the population at contact as 115,000, but this number is not clearly established.[23] This is a ridiculously definitive statement given the wide range of possibilities from his play with numbers. Although any estimate based on such a range of possibilities is considerable, this estimate has been widely used to argue that the Maori population changed little through the documented tribal wars before dropping rapidly after 1840.
It is common to read into a statement what one desires, to focus only on whatever issue is thought to be most significant. Consider the following statement, making two different points, each in turn with an emphasis marked in bold print.
Based on reasonable estimates of founding numbers and population growth, the Maori population may have reached around 100,000 by the time of first contact, provided the first arrival of Polynesians was 700 AD or earlier.
The argument presented by Pool was that any number greater than 100,000 in 1769 is unlikely. This does not follow; that play with numbers is indicative, but certainly cannot differentiate between 100,000, 150,000 or 200,000. But that estimate of about 100,000 (an example of Simon Chapple’s “numbers from nearly nowhere”[24]) has become widely accepted.
Now consider the same statement with a different emphasis.
Based on reasonable estimates of founding numbers and population growth, the Maori population may have reached around 100,000 by the time of first contact, provided the first arrival of Polynesians was 700 AD or earlier.
Thus, Maori can not have been the first, indigenous, people. This part of the argument is more definite, but has been set aside and ignored.
A review of skeletal evidence[25]
“Abstract:
“Skeletal and comparative evidence of mortality is combined with fertility estimates for the precontact Maori population of New Zealand to determine the implied rate of precontact population growth. This rate is found to be too low to populate New Zealand within the time constraints of its prehistoric sequence, the probable founding population size, and the probable population size at contact.
“Rates of growth necessary to populate New Zealand within the accepted time span are calculated. The differences between this minimum necessary rate and the skeletally derived rate are too large to result solely from inadequacies in the primary data. Four alternative explanations of this conundrum are proposed:
1) skeletal evidence of precontact mortality is highly inaccurate;
2) skeletal evidence of fertility is severely underestimating actual levels;
3)there was very rapid population growth in the earliest part of the sequence up to 1150 A.D., from which no skeletal evidence currently is available; or
4) the prehistoric sequence of New Zealand may have been longer than the generally accepted 1,000-1,200 years.
“These alternatives are examined, and a combination of the last two is found to be the most probable. The implications of this model for New Zealand prehistory and Oceanic paleodemography are discussed.”
This is a detailed paper, referencing much specialist information. Two important comments in the conclusions section are:
“The implications of this paper for the prehistory of New Zealand follow from our consideration of the skeletal evidence. In the absence of skeletal data dated before 1150 A.D., we conclude that the third and fourth interpretations are the most likely to have applied, i.e., that New Zealand was probably first settled before 750 A.D. and that the overall trend of population growth was more sigmoid than linear…
“A greater understanding of the credibility of the “density-dependent” demographic model as it applies to precontact Polynesia may be reached when better control for levels of infant representation in skeletal series is achieved. Also future access to data from multiple collections of well-dated skeletal material in single island sequences may allow such questions regarding the importance of density-dependent processes in precontact Polynesian society to be tackled. Given the emphasis that such population pressure models have been given in the interpretation of culture history in prehistoric Oceania, analysis of the actual demographic data becomes a major research priority.”
Reworking carbon dating and discounting evidence [26]
In 1984, historian Kerry Howe wrote that New Zealand was settled by 750 AD.[27] In 2003, he makes first a reference to a theory of the possible initial arrival of East Polynesian culture in New Zealand c.800 – c.1000.[28] But this is then largely discounted: “When humans first arrived in New Zealand remains an issue of some contention. The dates commonly accepted from research in the 1960s to the 1980s suggested settlement took place about 1000 AD or even earlier. Atholl Anderson’s reworking of radio carbon dates, which has culled now questionable unidentified charcoal samples, suggests that settlement may have been much later than previously thought: it is now dated to the thirteenth century.”
That paper by Anderson, and its conclusions, are referred to similarly in other overview papers.[29] Many readily available sources simply tell of that later date, the thirteenth century, which is considered to have been established. For example, online New Zealand Immigration Government information, A brief history, states simply that: “The first people to arrive in New Zealand were ancestors of the Maori. The first settlers probably arrived from Polynesia between 1200 and 1300 AD.” In official circles, that is the accepted story, and Maori are thus held to be established as a first people.
What did Anderson say; what did he prove? I could not download that critical paper[30] online; only the abstract is there. I approached (one after the other) the National Library, Te Papa and the libraries of Victoria University, Auckland University and Canterbury University, and Atholl Anderson himself. None had a hard copy or an electronic source. It is simply not readily available in New Zealand. Finally, I paid £15 (nearly $30) to the Cambridge publishers of the Antiquity journal and I have an electronic copy – that I can forward to anyone interested. It should be readily available to anyone who wants to understand the different theories of early colonisation; indeed, I am concerned that those who prepare official historical information do not assure that it is easy to access.
Anderson carried out an extensive cull of carbon dating. He dismissed most that use charcoal dates, which may be several hundred years old when carbonised, as the wood can come from well-established trees. “Excluded also are determinations on materials regarded as unreliable for New Zealand prehistory: freshwater shell, re-crystallized shell, fish, seal and human bone (because of heavy marine diet), bone carbonate, whole bone, soil and peat.”
Cases where there is only one sample are discarded: “All single dates – cases where a unique stratigraphic context has only one radiocarbon date and no independent evidence of age (e.g., a clear tephrochronological context) and in which the sample constituents were not identified – are open to question on the ground of inbuilt age. They are discarded until further comparative results are obtained.”
Anderson notes the importance of the work at Poukawa before referencing the flawed paper by McFadgen (see above) as discounting the conclusions: “Now that the once controversial site at Poukawa can be disregarded (McFadgen 1979), no archaeological remains are recorded as sealed by airfall material from either the massive Taupo eruption of c. 1800 b.p. [b.p. is ‘before the present; this is 200 AD] or the Kaharoa eruption which affected mainly the Bay of Plenty and areas to the north about 700 b.p. [1300 AD]”
What remains is a set of dates from what he considers to be well-established digs only: “When the radiocarbon chronology is culled in the light of this analysis, no reasonably acceptable date ranges extend earlier than the 12th century AD, and an initial colonization at about that time appears robust in the face of potential objections.” (In most references, this first date has become the thirteenth century.)
Anderson has noted the importance of his suggestion: “Decreasing the length of New Zealand’s prehistory from nearly 2000 years in the early settlement hypothesis, and from about 1000 years in the orthodox model, to around 700 years, means that all of the time-dependent issues in it need to be reconsidered.”
This statement ignores the fact that the only information source that Anderson will accept as trustworthy, the skeletal data, proves that Maori cannot have been the first settlers; people must have been here many centuries before them.
This has been taken as a definitive judgement. But a great deal of research has been set aside here, and the conclusion reached by Anderson is in no way convincing. There is considerable evidence suggesting that people arrived around the year 800, and much evidence pointing to people in New Zealand around a thousand years before that. We are asked to set aside a great deal of evidence and accept Maori as first comers.
Conclusion
There is considerable information (some summarised here) of people living in New Zealand before the coming of the ancestors of today’s Maori, and much is known of the culture and movements of the early Waitaha and Mua-upoko, gathered from many sources such as oral history and the many branches of archaeology (including artifacts, geology and carbon dating). Further analysis, from demographics and skeletal evidence, insists that the probable population at the time of the coming of Europeans could only have developed if the first arrivals were are 700 AD, or earlier. Maori were certainly not the first settlers, and there is much further information on evidence of early settlers, some (not considered here) suggesting colonisation as much as 2,000 years ago.[31]
There is then a wide range of evidence, from many disciples, presenting a consistent picture of several waves of settlement of New Zealand prior to the arrival of Europeans. That conclusion is in stark contradiction with the current narrative which claims a first arrival in 1250 AD or later. A considerable body of thorough research has been set aside, with a ready acceptance of contrary opinion based on argument that, on close inspection, is far from conclusive. That dismissal of evidence of prior settlement is used to support the Maori claim to be indigenous, and therefore worthy of special rights; history and pre-history have been distorted to support a divisive political movement.
This considerable collection of information, some of which is noted in these two articles, challenge the current narrative which forms the basis for public information and teaching in schools.
“The content for Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories curriculum will focus on three big ideas:
- Maori history is the foundational and continuous history of Aotearoa New Zealand.
- Colonisation and its consequences have been central to our history for the past 200 years and continues to influence all aspects of Aotearoa New Zealand society.
- Aotearoa New Zealand’s histories have been shaped by the exercise and effects of power.”[32]
The current version of Maori history insists that Maori were the first colonisers, and remain as the indigenous people. The picture presented in readily available sources is that: “The first people to inhabit New Zealand were Maori, who are believed to have arrived from East Polynesia between 1250 and 1300 CE”[33]; and “Maori originated with settlers from East Polynesia, who arrived in New Zealand in several waves of canoe voyages between roughly 1320 and 1350”[34].
Questionable, but currently widely accepted, numbers have also been used to support a picture of harm following colonisation. “There were barely 100,000 Maori in New Zealand when James Cook first visited in 1769, and demographers estimate the population to have been 70,000 to 90,000 when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed in 1840. 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%.”[35] That conclusion has been refuted in the companion article, ‘Maori nineteenth century population: model estimates’.
Any challenge to this account, such as the information presented in these two articles, is dismissed, even referred to as a “conspiracy theory”. Thus, as a fairly typical example: “The date of first settlement is a matter of debate, but current understanding is that the first arrivals came from East Polynesia between 1250 and 1300 CE. … Today, speculation about pre-Maori settlers may include conspiracy theories opposing academic research. Some public figures have used these theories to undermine Maori status as first settlers.”[36]
This creates a challenge to the reader. If the current dominant narrative is accepted, these two articles can be dismissed as part of a conspiracy theory. It certainly does undermine Maori status as first settlers, and the previous article suggests a higher population both at first contact and in 1840, with a population decline thereafter being the consequence of a serious population imbalance (shortage of young and females). These conclusions are based on identified information and explained analysis, so it is up to the reader to consider where the facts lead and which account should be accepted. Once recent narratives are set aside, a factual base becomes evident, bringing both stories of earlier settlement and post-contact demographics together in a consistent account.
References
Adkin G L 1948. Horowhenua: its Maori place names and their topographical and historical background. Department of Internal Affairs.
Adkin G L 1952. Geological Evidence of the Antiquity of Man in the NZ Area. file:///C:/Users/User/Documents/My%20Documents/Treaty%20and%20related/First%20immigrants/Geological%20Evidence%20of%20the%20Antiquity%20of%20Man%20in%20the%20NZ%20Area%20-%20Kete%20Horowhenua.html
Anderson A 1991. The chronology of colonisation in New Zealand. Antiquity 65: 767-795.
Brewis A A, Molloy M A, Su’e’on D G 1990. Modeling the Prehistoric Maori Population. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 81:343-356
Buck P (Te Rangi Hiroa) 1938. Vikings of the sunrise. Whitcombe and Tombs; republished as Vikings of the Pacific by 1959, University of Chicago
Buck P (Te Rangi Hiroa) 1949. The coming of the Maori. Reprinted 1982, Whitcoulls Ltd.
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.
Darwin C 1906 and 1928, reprint 2003. The origin of species and The voyage of the Beagle. Everyman’s Library.
Doutré M undated. Poukawa revisited … The History Changing, Archaeological Work of Treaton Russell Price (1901 – 1986). Posted in seven parts, starting with http://www.celticnz.co.nz/PoukawaRevisited/PoukawaPart1.html)
Howe K R 1984. Where the waves fall. George Allen and Unwin
Howe K R 2003. The quest for origins: who first discovered and settled New Zealand and the Pacific islands?. Penguin
McFadgen B G 1979. The antiquity of man at Lake Poukawa. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand. Vol. 9:375–382. Online at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03036758.1979.10419412
Ngai Tahu 1998. Te Whakataunga: Celebrating Te Kereme the Ngai Tahu claim. https://ngaitahu.iwi.nz/ngai-tahu/te-whakataunga-celebrating-te-kereme-the-ngai-tahu-claim/
Pool I 1991. Te iwi Maori: New Zealand population past, present and projected. Auckland University Press
Prickett N (editor) 1982. The First Thousand Years: Regional Perspectives in New Zealand Archaeology. Dunmore
Reischek A (1845-1902). Yesterdays in Maoriland. Wilson & Horton.
Robinson J L 2021, He Puapua: blueprint for breaking up New Zealand. Tross Publishing.
Robinson J L 2022. Regaining a nation. Tross Publishing.
Smith E Percy 1910. Maori wars of the nineteenth century: Wars of the northern against the southern tribes of New Zealand in the nineteenth century. Kiwi Publishers
Smith P 1910. History and Traditions of the Maoris of the West Coast North Island of New Zealand Prior to 1840.
United Nations 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
Waikanae Watch, June 10, 2021, Are Maori indigenous to New Zealand? https://waikanaewatch.org/2021/06/10/are-maori-indigenous-to-new-zealand/
Waitangi Tribunal 1991. The Ngai Tahu claim: supplementary report on Ngai Tahu legal personality. https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_68475221/Report%20on%20Ngai%20Tahu%20Legal%20Personality.pdf
Walter R, Buckley H, Jacomb C and Matisoo-Smith E 2017. Mass Migration and the Polynesian Settlement of New Zealand. Journal of World Prehistory 30: 351-376
[1] United Nations 2007; noted in Robinson 2021, pages 56, 59-61 and 70
[2] Robinson 2021
[3] Robinson 2021, pages 39-43
[4] Buck 1949, pages 4-64, and Buck 1938; much of this information is in Robinson 2019
[5] Smith 1910, page 22
[6] Buck 1949, pages 22-35
[7] Smith 1910, page 34
[8] Smith 1910, Preface
[9] Reischek, p197-
[10] Robinson 2022, page 19, quoting from Smith 1910.
[11] Ngai Tahu 1998
[12] Waitangi Tribunal 1991
[13] Adkin 1948, pages 108-129
[14] Robinson 2021, Appendix 2, pages 167-172
[15] Adkin 1952
[16] Doutré, undated
[17] This is quoted in Part 4 of the report by Doutré.
[18] McFadgen 1979
[19] Prickett 1982
[20] Waikanae Watch, June 10, 2021
[21] Pool 1991, page 38, Table 3.1
[22] Pool 1991, pages 53 and 57
[23] Pool 1991, page 41, Table 3.2
[24] Chapple 2017
[25] Brewis et al, 1990
[26] Robinson 2021, Appendix 2, pages 167-172
[27] Howe 1984
[28] Howe 2003
[29] such as Walter et al 2017
[30] Anderson 1991
[31] Robinson 2022, pages 15-20
[32] https://aotearoahistories.education.govt.nz/about/content-structure; “Teaching and learning about the histories of Aotearoa New Zealand—School leaders and kaiako experiences with early curriculum implementation”, NZCER, 2025, https://www.nzcer.org.nz/research/publications/teaching-learning-histories-aotearoa-new-zealand
[33] AI Overview
[34] Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ori_people
[35] Te Ara, the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, https://teara.govt.nz/en/population-change/page-6
[36] Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-M%C4%81ori_settlement_of_New_Zealand_theories