Maori population changes in the nineteenth century
By John Robinson
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. Claims for special treatment and compensation are based on a narrative that colonisation brought great harm to Maori. This is supported by a picture of little population change during the murderous tribal wars and a rapid decline following 1840.
The analysis outlined here corrects that picture, describing 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 following the formation of a national government.
A population model is here based on three identified information sources: the census data from 1856-57 to the end of the century, the 1952 review by Nancy Pearce in her Victoria University M.A. thesis, The size and location of the Maori population, 1857-96, and the estimate of losses in battles by Professor James Rutherford (Note on Maori casualties in their tribal wars 1801-1840, in the James Rutherford papers, 1926-1963, Special Collections, The University of Auckland Library).
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.
Census data from 1857/58 and adjustments
National census counts of the Maori population commenced in 1856/1857. After a delay due to the wars of rebellion, these continued from 1874. The initial value reported for 1896 caused some dismay as it suggested a significant drop in Maori numbers, to 39,854 from 41,993 in 1891. That was later recognised to have been a poor count, and the 1945 table of census counts gave a revised estimate of 42,113.
A careful review by Nancy Pearce resulted in several 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. Demographer Ian Pool presented a second set of less clear adjustments in his 1991 book, Te iwi Maori: New Zealand population past, present and projected.
The period covered by census counts commenced with a very negative population distribution (Table1), a shortage of both young and females which alone provides an explanation of the population decline. There was a steady recovery of that demographic deficit and reduction of the population decline. 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.
The obvious cause is female infanticide, which had been frequently observed, with many references to this practice in early reports. Pool wrongly claimed the opposite, that “there is little sound evidence … to support the idea of widespread infanticide, male or female”, which has been accepted in many recent accounts.
An estimate back to 1840
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.
The data from the Waikato 1844 survey give a clear indication of the dire situation around 1840, and of the steady improvement thereafter. This is shown by a graph of the ratio of children to adult females given by Pool, 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.
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. 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.
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. The horrors of those times are described in my 2020 book, Unrestrained slaughter: the Maori musket wars 1800-1840. After battle, neither sex was spared; women, infants and children were ‘barbarously devoured’ and at times whole groups were wiped out.
There are many accounts and records of the battles fought and the resulting disruption as conquered tribes moved across the country, often to spread the killing and conquer other tribes in their turn. As Ron Crosby wrote in his 1999 book, The Musket Wars – A History of Inter-Iwi Conflict 1806-45: “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.”
A more comprehensive count of battle deaths has been provided by Rutherford. 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
In order to take account of the full extent of loss of life, including those killed following battle, the estimates of ‘probable casualties’ are used in the calculations.
As well as the loss of life in the wars, the model includes the impact of the demographic deficit observed in the later part of the century. This is taken in 1840 to be that of the years following. Since it is impossible to have had such a population decline continuing unbroken far back in time, this is assumed to have developed during the period of extensive warfare and is taken as zero in 1800, with a linear change in the rate of loss between 1800 and 1840.
This indicates a population decline of 66,000 between 1800 and 1840. This is close to other estimates: Rutherford suggests a population loss of 65,000, Buck an estimate of 80,000 killed in battle or died of causes incidental to the wars, while other early estimates were around 60,000 to 90,000 deaths.
This model calculation produces the following graph, with a population in 1800 of 137,500. Pool reports an estimate by Rutherford of 155,000-166,000 in 1800.
An alternative account: denial of serious impact of tribal wars and claims of an immediate harm of colonisation
Although Pool noted estimates of high losses in the tribal wars, he set these aside. “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.”
This process of insisting that we should ignore the decline during the musket wars opened the way to imagine a largely successful Maori society throughout that turbulent period, followed by subsequent collapse, when: “The rapid Maori population decline after 1840 resulted from the increasing number and density of the Pakeha population.” This claim has become accepted 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%.”
This version of Maori demographics is shown most graphically in a 2014 Auckland University Press publication, The healthy country? A history of life and death in New Zealand, written by “internationally renowned scholars” Alistair Woodward and Tony Blakely. Their figure 5 references Pool 1991, but gives very different numbers from those found in that publication which were population estimates of 80,000 in 1840 and 115,000 at contact. I have been unable to establish where they got their numbers; in the words of Simon Chapple when considering estimates of the contact population, these were “Numbers from Nearly Nowhere”.
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”. The claimed population collapse is nowhere 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.