Likely population growth rate?

What would be a likely population increase over a period of 1-200 years for a society that shifts from semi-agricultural supplemented with hunting (think New Guinea and the Maori) to full on agriculture? I'm trying to figure out a likely number for my timeline. The initial population would be around 75,000 (about a sixth of maximum capacity for their form of agriculture due to cultural reasons), and the cultures shift to Chinese style wetland rice farming. Assume the cultural reasons preventing population growth are removed as well.

Does anyone know what the birth and death rates for rural southern China were around the 1500s? I'm assuming the death rates from disease would be similar since Taiwan has a similar climate to Southern China.

Some ideas and potential issues:
While the technology of Chinese rice farming is there, the initial population density is too low for the labor needed.
Warfare and raids from other villages is still common, although due to low initial pop. density, conflicts due to lack of resources should take a while to appear.
The land and climate is very suitable for agriculture.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The first generation would probably see a slight increase but a relative decrease because of a lower initial life expectancy (in part because of new diseases brought by sedentarity) - on the other hand, it could probably get to 10-20 times in a while on the same territory, unless it really was not good for agriculture.
 
Last edited:
Predicting population growth is already complicated enough, but you also have to bring into account immigration and what the surrounding populations are like. If there are raiders then there are likely immigrants as well, since seeking group protection is often reason for urbanization.
 
Thanks for the responses guys.

The cultures are already sedentary for the most part, just widely scattered over a large area. Most raids are conducted by neighboring villages as a way to collect trophies (human heads). Since I'm trying to look at the entire lowland population as a whole, immigration between villages shouldn't affect the numbers. I'm discounting immigration from China for now.

Barring warfare, epidemics, natural disasters and famine, how long would it take for a population to increase 10-20 times assuming a 15th century birth and death rate?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Thanks for the responses guys.

The cultures are already sedentary for the most part, just widely scattered over a large area. Most raids are conducted by neighboring villages as a way to collect trophies (human heads). Since I'm trying to look at the entire lowland population as a whole, immigration between villages shouldn't affect the numbers. I'm discounting immigration from China for now.

Barring warfare, epidemics, natural disasters and famine, how long would it take for a population to increase 10-20 times assuming a 15th century birth and death rate?

There would be a short decline in the first generation at worst, a sharp boost in the second, a short phase of high fertility which would probably lead to a doubling or tripling in a generation, and then hm... The problem really depends on "birth death rate" where? China had to recover from a few disasters and so had lots of population growth while France had a generally stable population since half of it didn't die off if a mandarin made a rounding error in administrative paperwork (basically, assume hydraulic empires to have a stably rising population unless something goes wrong in which case it can get very very wrong very fast and have a sharp decline, old settled societies will have more stable growth or even stagnation unless things really go wrong, like major pandemics or the like).

I'd say 10-20 times might take around 4-10 centuries depending on the region. If epidemics and warfare don't happen, lowball it but the problem is that some epidemic diseases are pretty much endemic to settled civilizations.
 
Top