Just a question, I know you've covered the Maori extensively, with the Pakanga in particular. But my question, which may have been covered, is if the Maori practice cannibalism as they did in OTL. Also how is cannibalism treated by societies in Aururia?
Well they got the Aururian crop package at , i think, the same time the Maori settled the islands. So Id guess, that with a better food supply, cannibalism might not have been needed as much? Tho I dont know much about how the Maori munched on other men..
One of the Pakanga posts (the conquest of Mahratta in Post #93 I believe) involves the Maori conquering an Aururian town and then telling the defeated enemy warriors that their arms will be "smoked and eaten." I'd assumed it was a typo of some kind, but some other post clarifies it as ritual cannibalism.
Cannibalism existed in Aotearoa as of 1618, although it was considerably rarer than the historical equivalent. It was largely a ritualised part of wafare where warriors would sometimes eat the hearts and arms of defeated warriors, to absorb their
mana. It has continued to decline since then, although certainly practiced by some Pakanga, who tended to be the traditionalists anyway. The practice has been openly opposed by Christian missionaries, and more diplomatically opposed by Plirite missionaries who suggest that it's better to substitute the protection of a victorious
ariki iwi (king) and their
mana, rather than relying on consuming the
mana of someone who couldn't win a battle.
I imagine that there would still be occasional instances of ritual cannibalism around by the 1720s, but very rare and mostly only conducted by the remaining followers of traditional Maori religion.
And fava beans: how well do they grow in Aururia?
Quite well; they're cultivated extensively in modern Australia. They're particularly widespread around the OTL Spencer Gulf, and I suspect that they have become part of the Aururian crop package in those regions.
I'd say India or SE Asia (continental, not Greater Indonesia) as models for European colonization: these are advanced, densely populated gunpowder states with a quite canny political tradition, and the area is simply a hellagone long way from Europe: the logistics before the 19th century are pretty poor for moving large numbers of Europeans out that way (it took eight months to get the First Fleet out there in 1787). Unlike in the Americas or New Zealand OTL, by the time transportation gets easier the population will have hit bottom and rebounded. Again unlike OTL the disease environment is far from safe for Europeans, and with the population recovery there isn't going to be a lot of unclaimed land for settlers to just squat on.
I think that different parts of agricultural Aururia are move vulnerable than others, and there won't be a uniform pattern. For instance, the Atjuntja in the west never really became a gunpowder state as they were under strong Dutch influence from early on, and have been a formal protectorate for a while now. *Tasmania is extremely vulnerable due to small population most of which lives close to the coast, although of course right now it's a question whether the Yadji try to intervene and how that plays out. Even Durigal has its problems. On the other hand, the interior regions of the Five Rivers and now the Dominion are very hard to project power into since it's a case of first getting to Aururia and then trying to work inland.
I would note though that by now the disease environment isn't that much worse for Europeans. The two worst diseases (Marnitja and blue-sleep) are by now naturalised in Europe anyway, so aren't any more hostile to Europeans who come colonising than those who stay at home. There are a couple of localised diseases which are bad (swamp-rash in much of the Five Rivers), but there's still significant parts of Aururia where the disease environment is no worse for Europeans than in Europe.
I finally caught up with the latest posts, and I have to say it: this TL is getting better and better. Keep it up, Jared!
Thanks. I think this sequence benefitted from being written in a sequence and having time to review and update before posting, rather than being posted one chapter at a time as written.
I am curious was Aotearoa's ultimate population will end up being. 'Carrying capacity' is kind of a non-factor for (early) modern populations, as (at least until today...) the technology for improving yields usually outpaces population growth. Nonetheless NZ is not a particularly fertile place, and while not a small place does have plenty of mountains/hills etc. I do quite like the image of a densely populated and urbanised country that is extremely distant from pretty much anywhere else. Bit of a 'Chrysalids' vibe, but with a Polynesian spin.
I'd estimate the carrying capacity of Aotearoa with existing technology and crops to be around 4-6 million. As you note the carrying capacity is largely irrelevant at the moment because the population has declined due to diseases and warfare, but that would be the theoretical maximum.
With the South Seas being a lot more commercially active, a 20th- or 21st-century Aotearoa can probably import food from trade partners on Aururia. You can probably feed another few hundred thousand on imported Javanese rice.
With 20th or 21st century technology a country can essentially import whatever amount of food it can afford, although Aururia or possibly *Indonesia would be the cheapest source.
It's a South Seas Japan. Japan is mostly mountains and infertile land, yet has had a very sizable population since early AD times. Only the late settlement of Aotearoa prevents it from being as densely populated as Japan.
Well, I'd also note that Japanese agriculture uses rice, which yields higher per acre than Aururian crops do. Aururian crops yield better per worker, but can't do as many crop rotations a year as rice can. So even in the best case scenario pre-modern Aotearoa wouldn't have an equivalent population to Japan (though certainly the Aotearoan population could still be higher than it is now).
