Go to National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa
Volume 55, 1924
This text is also available in PDF
(1 MB) Opens in new window
– 363 –

Population.

Cook estimated the Maori population as 100,000. As pointed out by various writers, this estimate could have been only a very rough guess, formed from the coastal tribes that he saw.

The west coast of the North Island he never explored. Northern Taranaki, from the evidence afforded by the denseness of the terraced bills, must have supported a very large population. Whakatane, the Waimana Valley, and the Tanranga district show innumerable signs of close occupation. In the Oruru Valley, in the north, the forts were so close together that they were termed Oruru pa karangatahi (Oruru with the forts aroused by one call). Consider the huge garrisons that must have been required to man the crater-forts near Pakaraka and Ohaeawai, in the Bay of Islands, and the many terraces extending over acres of ground in the Tamaki forts, on Mount Eden, and One Tree Hill. If the present Maori population of Orakei and the villages about Onehunga and Mangere were gathered to man the reconstructed parapets of Maunga-kiekie, how many terraces would they occupy? And yet there were other forts in this same district occupied at the same time. Furthermore, the population was not confined to the coast-line and its immediate vicinity. Occupation depended on food-supplies, and, incidentally, of course, on the ability to hold the territory producing them. The larger rivers and inland lakes produced fish in abundance in their due seasons. This supply was not confined to eels, but smaller fish, not considered by Europeans, made up for their lack of size by their quantity.

– 364 –

Lakes Rotorua and Taupo have no eels, yet the fresh-water fish furnished supplies throughout the year, sufficient being preserved to last between the seasons. The forests teemed with birds, which in turn had their seasons. Hence there were large tribes settled along the courses of the larger rivers, such as the Waikato, Waipa, Whanganui, Waitara, and others, whilst the larger lakes of Rotorua, Rotoiti, Taupo, and Waikaremoana supported large numbers upon their shores. As the forest is being cleared away, signs of terraced occupation are being revealed in inland parts concerning which traditional records are meagre or non-existent. Though many of these sites may have been temporary abiding-places for fishing and hunting purposes, and others again have not been continuously occupied, after making liberal allowances the signs of occupation point to the existence of a large population in pre-European days.

Some rough idea may be formed by comparing these past traces of occupation with the actual villages occupied in a district at the present time. Compare the numbers living at Orakei and Mangere with the number required to man either Maunga-kiekie (One Tree Hill) or Maungawhau (Mount Eden). This having been done, remember that there are none left to man some of the other forts that were occupied at the same time. The fighting Ngati-Tama, who manned and held the many strongholds of that stormy strip of Taranaki coast between the Mokau River and the White Cliffs, the “gateway of the west,” have dwindled down to a single scattered village of barely fifty souls; yet in their day they not only withstood the ceaseless onslaughts of the great Maniapoto and Waikato tribes, but conducted victorious campaigns to the north and to the south. Some of them live in conquered country to the south, but where are the people whom they dispossessed? North and south, cast and west, the same sad comparisons hold. There are stretches of coast with many magnificent pa, girt with fosses and rising strong and impressive with tier on tier of terraces, but with no modern villages nestling at their bases, and no living descendants of the old-time military engineers to recite the history of ancestral achievement. What proportion, then, shall we say existed in the numbers of the men of the past to the men of the present? Were they four times as many? They were at least that. Were they ten times as many? It does not seem improbable. With a present basis of 50,000 this would mean a pre-European population of from 200,000 to 500,000. We shall never know.

Whether the expressed view of some European writers that the diminution of the population had commenced before the advent of their own recent ancestors is in the nature of an excuse or not, we certainly know that the diminution was considerably accelerated after their arrival. The introduction of firearms by civilized traders altered the whole aspect of Maori warfare. What might almost be termed a manly physical exercise degenerated into killing expeditions to avenge old defeats and to acquire new territory. There were never such numbers slain of old as occurred after the acquisition of guns in the first quarter of the nineteenth century.

Archdeacon Walsh estimates that in the campaigns of Hongi Hika, Te Wherowhero, Te Waharoa, and Te Rauparaha, fully one-half of the population were killed. The introduction of epidemic and venereal diseases, and the abuse and misuse of European alcohol, foods, and clothing, all played their part in the decimation of the race. Influenced by the above causes, there was an added infant mortality. To aggravate the introduced wastage of Maori life were the unnecessary European wars of the “forties”

– 365 –

and “sixties.” The wonder is that extinction was still being argued about in 1907.

In the following table the figures for the earlier years are estimates. The lowest ebb appears to have been reached in 1871, with another serious drop in 1896.

[The section below cannot be correctly rendered as it contains complex formatting. See the image of the page for a more accurate rendering.]

Table 1.—Population.
Authority. Year. Population. Increase or Decrease.
Captain Cook 1769–74 100,000
(400,000)
Nicholas 1814 150,000
Rev. W. Williams (estimate) 1835 200,000
(120,000)
Estimate 1840 114,000
Governor Grey 1849 120,000
Mr. McLean 1853 60,000
Judge Fenton 1858 55,970
Estimate 1867 38,540
Estimate 1871 37,520
Colonial Government 1874 45,470
Colonial Government 1891 41,993
Colonial Government 1896 39,854
Colonial Government 1901 43,101
Colonial Government (proper census) 1906 47,731 In. 4,630
Colonial Government (proper census) 1911 49,844 In. 2,113
Colonial Government (proper census) 1916 49,776 Dec. 68
Colonial Government (proper census) 1921 52,751 In. 2,975

Sir Walter Buller, when he made his prognosis in 1884, estimated the population at the low figure of 30,000. Twenty-five years later what should have been a remnant had reached the healthy figures of over 48,000. Archdeacon Walsh held that no reliance could be placed in the figures until the census of 1906. Here proper house-to-house visits were made by properly qualified enumerators, and the assistance of intelligent and trustworthy Maori with local knowledge was obtained. He considered that previous rises in population were due to inaccuracy of returns. He was so sure, of the accuracy of the 1906 census that he further stated, in 1907, “Finality has now been reached, and the next census will show that the Maori population, instead of increasing, has been diminishing all the time, and that if the present rate of declension continues it must soon reach the vanishing-point.” The next census, in 1911, taken by the same system which gained the Archdeacon's confidence, showed an increase of 2,113. The census of 1916 showed a falling-off of 68; but when it is remembered that hundreds of Maori troops were out on war service it will be seen that the decrease was not real. The next census, in 1921, showed an increase of 2,975. This increase ia the more meritorious when it is remembered that, during the period it covered, the influenza epidemic of 1918 carried off over 1,000 victims. Thus, since Archdeacon Walsh said sixteen years ago that finality had been reached, there has been an actual increase of 5,020; and his vanishing-point has, we hope, been deferred for ever as far as extinction is concerned.