Colonization of Australia with a Maori dominated Australia

[Malone]

What would have happened if, in the centuries before European colonisation, the Maoris or another similar Polynesian warrior culture had come to rule Australia over the indigenous aboriginal populations?

Given that they mounted a more effective military resistance to European encroachment than the Australian aborigines, it appears that the Maori in New Zealand were able to obtain a "fairer" outcome in the end which is still evident now.

 

[The Ranger]

It would be bad luck for the Australian aboriginals, but the Maori might be slightly better to them then the whites were. But given how warlike they were probebly not by much.

 

[Bishop Len]

If they get there I can't see Polynesians settling the whole continent, maybe one region though. The closest they came to Australia as I understand is passing through what's now northern Papua New Guinea. If some did make a southern journey it's feasible they might colonise bits of the east coast. But as a seafaring culture I don't imagine they would penetrate deep into the interior. Also I imagine they would probably at least partially blend into the local Aboriginal cultures they settle near. With all they unique flora and fauna they are bound to adopt some practices and food packages.

Of course if they bring their usual collection of dogs, rats and maybe pigs they ecological impact would be massive. Their arrival could drive some species extinct earlier. Yams and tarro might lead to a change in agricultural change and settlement patterns by Aboriginal people if they adopt them.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Most or all of the east coast of Australia could be dominated by a Maori-esque culture. Reason I say Maori-esque is because these would be very different to the OTL Maori, although a history of conflicts with Australian Aboriginals would ensure they have a martial culture (unlike the Moriori, another early Maori offshoot), fortifications, etc. It depends how early they get there. Australia is warm and rather suited for Maori agriculture, meaning the population will rapidly expand. There would be dozens of different Australian Maori tribes and even assuming an early 14th settlement date, there would be some language divergence.

This means there would be a lot of resistance on the part of the Maori to any European settlement of Australia. I'd say it would be enough that there would only be settlements in places there would be few or no Maori i.e. Western Australia and maybe South Australia and parts of Victoria (the latter two depend how fast Maori settlement, or agricultural civilisation in general, expands). Likely Tasmania too since it's akin to North Island in terms of suitability for Maori agriculture. I could see France having a slightly better chance of taking a chunk of Australia than OTL.

It would be bad luck for the Australian aboriginals, but the Maori might be slightly better to them then the whites were. But given how warlike they were probebly not by much.

That depends. It would depend on where the Maori settlement was and how many there were. Some groups might even assimilate into Aboriginal culture, most groups might have alternating periods of peace and war that would culminate in Aboriginal displacement, and some groups might commit a near-total genocide of local Aboriginal tribes akin what the Maori did to the Moriori people.

Of course if they bring their usual collection of dogs, rats and maybe pigs they ecological impact would be massive. Their arrival could drive some species extinct earlier. Yams and tarro might lead to a change in agricultural change and settlement patterns by Aboriginal people if they adopt them.

Aboriginals would definitely hunt feral pigs. They'd be a useful source of protein, can grow larger than kangaroos, and are probably fattier too. Adopting agriculture depends on how culture evolves. It's likely there'd be at least some mixed Polynesian-Aboriginal groups, and these groups would be well-suited to adopt agriculture and transmit it to other Aboriginal groups. The more sedentary groups (like the Gunditjmara eel farmers) would be most suited. But many Aboriginal groups would be destroyed or totally displaced as is the typical conflict of hunter-gatherer vs farmer.

 

[Bishop Len]

Most or all of the east coast of Australia could be dominated by a Maori-esque culture. Reason I say Maori-esque is because these would be very different to the OTL Maori, although a history of conflicts with Australian Aboriginals would ensure they have a martial culture (unlike the Moriori, another early Maori offshoot), fortifications, etc. It depends how early they get there. Australia is warm and rather suited for Maori agriculture, meaning the population will rapidly expand. There would be dozens of different Australian Maori tribes and even assuming an early 14th settlement date, there would be some language divergence.

This means there would be a lot of resistance on the part of the Maori to any European settlement of Australia. I'd say it would be enough that there would only be settlements in places there would be few or no Maori i.e. Western Australia and maybe South Australia and parts of Victoria (the latter two depend how fast Maori settlement, or agricultural civilisation in general, expands). Likely Tasmania too since it's akin to North Island in terms of suitability for Maori agriculture. I could see France having a slightly better chance of taking a chunk of Australia than OTL.

That depends. It would depend on where the Maori settlement was and how many there were. Some groups might even assimilate into Aboriginal culture, most groups might have alternating periods of peace and war that would culminate in Aboriginal displacement, and some groups might commit a near-total genocide of local Aboriginal tribes akin what the Maori did to the Moriori people.

Aboriginals would definitely hunt feral pigs. They'd be a useful source of protein, can grow larger than kangaroos, and are probably fattier too. Adopting agriculture depends on how culture evolves. It's likely there'd be at least some mixed Polynesian-Aboriginal groups, and these groups would be well-suited to adopt agriculture and transmit it to other Aboriginal groups. The more sedentary groups (like the Gunditjmara eel farmers) would be most suited. But many Aboriginal groups would be destroyed or totally displaced as is the typical conflict of hunter-gatherer vs farmer.

While conflict between Aboriginals and any Polynesian settlers is inevitable I could definitely see the possibility of a more peaceful coexistence after the initial wave of settlement. Polynesian taking coastal areas and trading with Aboriginal groups further inland. Land and food scarcity wouldn't be a major issue for a long time and I believe that was one of the drivers of the Maoris martial turn during their classical era.

 

[Arkenfolm]

While conflict between Aboriginals and any Polynesian settlers is inevitable I could definitely see the possibility of a more peaceful coexistence after the initial wave of settlement. Polynesian taking coastal areas and trading with Aboriginal groups further inland. Land and food scarcity wouldn't be a major issue for a long time and I believe that was one of the drivers of the Maoris martial turn during their classical era.

Land would still be a huge issue because instead of Aboriginals occupying the desired land, it would be other Maori. Very likely food too since Australia is notoriously prone to droughts and floods. So the option becomes either another war with the Aboriginals or starting a war with nearby Maori tribe, and the former would be appealing in many cases because of a belief they'd be less organised and prepared.

 

[CommieScum]

Land would still be a huge issue because instead of Aboriginals occupying the desired land, it would be other Maori. Very likely food too since Australia is notoriously prone to droughts and floods. So the option becomes either another war with the Aboriginals or starting a war with nearby Maori tribe, and the former would be appealing in many cases because of a belief they'd be less organised and prepared.

But Australia is a much more vast land than New Zealand

 

[Arkenfolm]

But Australia is a much more vast land than New Zealand

In eastern Australia the good land is hemmed in against relatively high mountains. Inevitably any expansion runs into the option of "strike out into the unknown and displace the local Aboriginal group" or "strike out into the slightly lesser unknown and fight the local Maori tribe." There is no place unsettled.

 

[Bishop Len]

Land would still be a huge issue because instead of Aboriginals occupying the desired land, it would be other Maori. Very likely food too since Australia is notoriously prone to droughts and floods. So the option becomes either another war with the Aboriginals or starting a war with nearby Maori tribe, and the former would be appealing in many cases because of a belief they'd be less organised and prepared.

In the long run you are probably right sadly. That said a lot would depend on when the Polynesians arrived, how many arrive and if there's a continuous flow of settlers or merely one initial founder population that grows. Say they arrive around the same time the Maori land did in New Zealand. They would have a few centuries before European arrival in which to spread and grow. I'm not sure its enough to densely settle even the east coast.

And Australia's drought prone nature combined with the Polynesians ability to migrate via the ocean might mean they simply move enmass to a more suitable place down or up the coast.

 

[Arkenfolm]

In the long run you are probably right sadly. That said a lot would depend on when the Polynesians arrived, how many arrive and if there's a continuous flow of settlers or merely one initial founder population that grows. Say they arrive around the same time the Maori land did in New Zealand. They would have a few centuries before European arrival in which to spread and grow. I'm not sure its enough to densely settle even the east coast.

And Australia's drought prone nature combined with the Polynesians ability to migrate via the ocean might mean they simply move enmass to a more suitable place down or up the coast.

If we assume an average growth rate of a little over 1.3% per year (IIRC reasonable for a premodern population tapping into an untapped niche with lots of opportunity for expansion i.e. agriculture), that gives a doubling time of 50 years. If the date is 1300 (around the settlement of New Zealand) and we envision a founding population of 200, then that gives over 150,000 people from natural growth alone by the time Europeans showed up in the late 18th century. 150,000 Maori would amount to around 20% of premodern Australia's population and is slightly more than New Zealand at the peak of its precolonial Maori population (around 110,000). It does not account for the fact that there would almost guaranteed be mixed Maori-Aboriginal people, including those with mostly Aboriginal ancestors who were culturally Maori.

In truth I'd expect it to be slightly higher since the two Maori populations would be in constant contact and have frequent trade (Australia Maori would want jade, New Zealand Maori would want goods like possum-skin cloaks or other things made from the pelts of Australia's wildlife), so immigration and emigration between the two populations would exist.

So probably you'd have a Maori heartland between northern NSW and southern Queensland and settlement stretching a little further north into Central Queensland (warmer climates are best for kumara) and everywhere else in Eastern Australia has much fewer Maori or the Maori rule over Maori-ised Aboriginals, etc.

 

[Crazy Boris]

I wonder if, after the initial colonization and aftershocks, when things settle down and the Maori and Aboriginals aren’t in a state of open conflict, the Aboriginals more in contact with the Maori could set up organized polities adjacent to Maori settled regions both as a way to better defend against hostile Maori and to take advantage of potential trade routes out of east Australia by trading resources from more inland areas to the coastal Maori. Having Aboriginal states with ties to Maori trade could have wide-reaching effects on Australia as these states compete for better access to desired resources and trade connections and could bring tribes further out into the web as tributaries and mercenaries.

Something else to think about is Maori social structure here. Depending on when and how they arrive in Australia, they might carry over iwi tribal associations from New Zealand and all the alliances and rivalries that come with that, could form new and totally separate iwi in a similar manner to how the NZ ones formed, or they could consider themselves as a single iwi just based on living in Australia so separate from the rest of Maoridom

 

[Bishop Len]

If we assume an average growth rate of a little over 1.3% per year (IIRC reasonable for a premodern population tapping into an untapped niche with lots of opportunity for expansion i.e. agriculture), that gives a doubling time of 50 years. If the date is 1300 (around the settlement of New Zealand) and we envision a founding population of 200, then that gives over 150,000 people from natural growth alone by the time Europeans showed up in the late 18th century. 150,000 Maori would amount to around 20% of premodern Australia's population and is slightly more than New Zealand at the peak of its precolonial Maori population (around 110,000). It does not account for the fact that there would almost guaranteed be mixed Maori-Aboriginal people, including those with mostly Aboriginal ancestors who were culturally Maori.

In truth I'd expect it to be slightly higher since the two Maori populations would be in constant contact and have frequent trade (Australia Maori would want jade, New Zealand Maori would want goods like possum-skin cloaks or other things made from the pelts of Australia's wildlife), so immigration and emigration between the two populations would exist.

So probably you'd have a Maori heartland between northern NSW and southern Queensland and settlement stretching a little further north into Central Queensland (warmer climates are best for kumara) and everywhere else in Eastern Australia has much fewer Maori or the Maori rule over Maori-ised Aboriginals, etc.

Fair enough. I wouldn't have thought the growth rate would be so high considering the millennias that the Aboriginals have inhabited the land and were only a few hundred thousand in number when Europeans showed up. What do think the population might be if Polynesians settle around a thousand or so years earlier when their migrations took them closest to Australia in OTL? Larger surely but would it radically change things? I don't know enough about ocean currents and trade winds to know if sustained contact would be plausible.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Fair enough. I wouldn't have thought the growth rate would be so high considering the millennias that the Aboriginals have inhabited the land and were only a few hundred thousand in number when Europeans showed up.

It was still around 750K despite most of Australia being desert, a lack of large game animals, poor shipbuilding skills, and very poor connections and trade routes to the larger world. The thing is the Maori would be bringing resources Australia did not have--domesticated animals (dogs and pigs) and domesticated plants, which would let the Maori population rapidly expand. It helps that Maori agriculture is more productive in Australia than New Zealand because of the climate.

What do think the population might be if Polynesians settle around a thousand or so years earlier when their migrations took them closest to Australia in OTL? Larger surely but would it radically change things? I don't know enough about ocean currents and trade winds to know if sustained contact would be plausible.

In that case I think most of Eastern Australia would be Maori with the remnant Aboriginal groups in that area living in dense jungle in the north (which also has very poor soil) or certain dry interior highlands on the fringe of the desert, plus parts of western Tasmania. Just checking the map shows there's maybe 750K-900K km2 that would make for decent settlement in eastern Australia, and all but Tasmania is going to have conditions akin to the most densely populated part of precolonial New Zealand (area of modern Auckland and regions north). Plugging in New Zealand's precolonial population density gets me 355K people in that area. It might be a bit higher. But a lot depends on political complexity, that is, getting the manpower to reclaim land, build flood protections, and irrigate dry land.

A higher estimate could be up to 1 million people (about the population density of Indonesia in 1 AD). But IMO it's going to be somewhere in between unless they become part of the Malay cultural realm and get Malay, Javanese, etc. settlers, envoys, missionaries, etc. and start setting up true state societies which have iron tools, more advanced construction and engineering, livestock like horses and water buffalo, and the wide variety of crops used in those societies. In the more remote parts of Indonesia, this didn't really happen until the 13th century or so when the various chiefdoms built a sturdier society than what came before and created strong local states like Ternate, Gowa-Talloq, etc.

What would be interesting is these connections to the Malay world eventually expanding to Australia (maybe they trade Tasmannia peppers?). Perhaps it's in the 16th century or so on the eve of European arrival to the region. You might have a turbocharged Musket Wars-esque scenario brought about by introduction of new crops and tools, trading spices for weapons, and above all, arrival of Christianity and Islam. I'd say that would totally fragment the local Polynesian ethnicity but if they arrived in 300 AD than by 1600 AD they'll be at least several different cultures with different lifestyles and speaking quite different languages.

 

[Comte de Dordogne]

Personally, I imagined a scenario of Maori colonization of Australia, but with a later origin.
Europeans came into contact with New Zealand earlier, in the mid-17th century, and introduced certain animals, tools and weaponry.
With Europeans introducing some modern technologies, but still too far away to overwhelm the indigenous Maoris, I wondered if it was possible for the latter to expand into certain Pacific archipelagos but also onto the eastern coast of Australia.
If so, what form would this take?

 

[Gloss]

Fair enough. I wouldn't have thought the growth rate would be so high considering the millennias that the Aboriginals have inhabited the land and were only a few hundred thousand in number when Europeans showed up. What do think the population might be if Polynesians settle around a thousand or so years earlier when their migrations took them closest to Australia in OTL? Larger surely but would it radically change things? I don't know enough about ocean currents and trade winds to know if sustained contact would be plausible.

Just because you live somewhere for long doesn't mean you are able to exploit the natural resources that well, otherwise agriculturalists wouldn't replaced so many hunter-gatherers in Europe, Central-Southern Africa, South-East Asia and other regions.

 

[Metempsychosis]

It would be bad luck for the Australian aboriginals, but the Maori might be slightly better to them then the whites were. But given how warlike they were probebly not by much.

Looking at the Moriori, I doubt it.

 

[Malta]

Was thinking on if this could have been a plausible scenario.

New Caledonia in the Melanesian islands was colonized by the Lapita culture around the 1300 BCish timeframe and after that to the East the more classical Polynesian island of Fiji was colonized around 900 BC.

What if instead around this time Polynesian/Melanesian/Lapitan explorers followed the Australian Northeastern current from New Caledonia and made landfall in Northeastern Australia as the current appears to push through the coral sea islands and onto the coast of Queensland.

https://www.imosoceanreport.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/STAR1.4-Pattiaratchi.et.al.Figure1.jpg

In essence they kind of swing back to Australia earlier than their OTL swing back that lead them to New Zealand.

 

[Henry III]

Australian over Polynesian Islands lack large mammals for farming and transportation and Australia is one of the most dangerous places to live

It's why the native aboriginal is never got past tribal societies because of how dangerous the place is

 

[Malta]

Australian over Polynesian Islands lack large mammals for farming and transportation and Australia is one of the most dangerous places to live

It's why the native aboriginal is never got past tribal societies because of how dangerous the place is

We know the Polynesians at least brought with them pigs, chicken and dogs as far East as Hawaii so those could definitely make the trip to Australia with little ATL intervention. And we know cattle and sheep were introduced to Australia proper well enough in OTL (cough Australian Cattle/Sheep Dogs Cough) Given their historical colonization patterns bringing along cattle and sheep would have been a waste but in this ATL scenario it would be quite the opposite.

How much were the Melanesians connected to the Malay trade and possibly could this ATL lead to it being strengthened. Especially if now the Polynesians have a need for large cattle what with all the land they are expanding into.

 

[Henry III]

We know the Polynesians at least brought with them pigs, chicken and dogs as far East as Hawaii so those could definitely make the trip to Australia with little ATL intervention. And we know cattle and sheep were introduced to Australia proper well enough in OTL (cough Australian Cattle/Sheep Dogs Cough) Given their historical colonization patterns bringing along cattle and sheep would have been a waste but in this ATL scenario it would be quite the opposite.

How much were the Melanesians connected to the Malay trade and possibly could this ATL lead to it being strengthened. Especially if now the Polynesians have a need for large cattle what with all the land they are expanding into.

I mean stuff like horse's or Ox to work farms I have never see pigs or dogs working in than manner

Their would need to be more sophisticated ships built and not boats to transport cows and horses to Polynesia and Australia

I remember reading Jarard diamond book Guns, Germs and Steel that had a section on Polynesian descendants

Pushed out of contemporary China partly due to Northern Chinese also their is the north and south Chinese divide in China

If they had the animals and better food production sooner or later the islands would be conquered by one tribal group

But they need wood and trade so they don't end up like East Island that's the island with the famous statues