New research shows Māori adapted quickly in the face of rapid climate change(theconversation.com)
theconversation.com
New research shows Māori adapted quickly in the face of rapid climate change
https://theconversation.com/new-research-shows-ancestral-maori-adapted-quickly-in-the-face-of-rapid-climate-change-194155
6 comments
It feels like they're implying rapid climate change killed the moas in less than 200 years, coincidentally right after human arrival. Nothing to do with being hunted to extinction?
Strange article.
Strange article.
As a kiwi let me tell you, there's a lot of revisionist history happening with regards to Maori in progressive circles. theconversation.com is a VERY progressive publication.
It's absolutely bizarre. I've got a friend working in healthcare in New Zealand and she was given a mandatory class which taught that "Western science" is "imperialist" and that Maori traditional knowledge is "just as valid." For reference, Maori traditional knowledge is stuff like ghosts (taniwha) and spiritual energy (mana).
It's like they're taking the noble savage trope to the craziest ends and just running with it; public outcomes be damned. Some really unhinged ideologues are in positions of power right now.
It's like they're taking the noble savage trope to the craziest ends and just running with it; public outcomes be damned. Some really unhinged ideologues are in positions of power right now.
Any details on that? Having worked in health in New Zealand in a patient facing role for all my working life, I’ve never heard of such a thing. I’ve worked in public, private and research/academic roles.
Taniwha aren't ghosts, and mana isn't spiritual energy, you've got it confused with mana in computer games.
At least go on Wikipedia for five minutes on this stuff, eh?
At least go on Wikipedia for five minutes on this stuff, eh?
Taniwha can be considereed ghosts, in that they are creatures from stories - a leprechaun could be considered a ghost for the same reason.
That's a really long bow to draw.
So what are they then if that's a really long bow to draw?
It makes sense to just call the creature what it is in its cultural context as opposed to trying to put an ill-fitting separate cultural notion on it, imo. If something is a taniwha it's a taniwha, and if someone is curious what a taniwha is they can look it up themselves and understand its a creature from a specific region's folklore.
I feel that trying to rename culturally-specific things that don't have a neat translation, like folkloric beings, is generally always poorly fitting. It's like when the qilin is called a unicorn, when a qilin is a fish-scaled deer or ox with lizardly facial features and no affiliation with femininity or maidenhood. So basically almost nothing like a unicorn.
I feel that trying to rename culturally-specific things that don't have a neat translation, like folkloric beings, is generally always poorly fitting. It's like when the qilin is called a unicorn, when a qilin is a fish-scaled deer or ox with lizardly facial features and no affiliation with femininity or maidenhood. So basically almost nothing like a unicorn.
Like I said leprechaun, taniwha, unicorn... all mythical entities - just like ghosts.
Isn't it funny how people can draw these various mythical creatures but only after another person has shown them how.
Isn't it funny how people can draw these various mythical creatures but only after another person has shown them how.
Exactly.
It is puzzling that those individuals feel the need to attempt to suppress what they elect not to agree with.
It is puzzling that those individuals feel the need to attempt to suppress what they elect not to agree with.
This is like a plain text version of a Facebook meme.
It's political correctness gone mad!
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/09/10/has-politic...
> At best, the notion of political correctness having gone too far is intellectually dishonest; a fallacy similar to a straw-man argument or an ad hominem attack. At worst, it serves as a rallying cry to cover up the excesses of the most illiberal in our society.
It's political correctness gone mad!
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/09/10/has-politic...
> At best, the notion of political correctness having gone too far is intellectually dishonest; a fallacy similar to a straw-man argument or an ad hominem attack. At worst, it serves as a rallying cry to cover up the excesses of the most illiberal in our society.
It's also a slap in the face to non western scientists who ended up contributing despite all odds. Imagine telling Satyendranath Bose that the theory of Bose condensates is just as valid as random tribal animism.
> Some really unhinged ideologues are in positions of power right now.
Yes this may be true, but Jacinda won the election fair and square
Yes this may be true, but Jacinda won the election fair and square
Any source for this? I am in contact with a number of health science professionals in New Zealand and they haven't seen anything like this or science denial based on race. Generally you tend to see more science denial from the right wing parties such as the NZ National party. I'm not saying labour or for that matter any political party is "good" - but other than homeopathy and friends - science dentist sits pretty firmly on the right.
You don't even need to go into progressive circles. Check out https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/in-new-zealand-conse...
And? It's not exactly news that European attitudes and practices don't necessarily work that well when transposed to a different ecosystem.
Look at Australia for example. The indigenous people figured out thousands of years ago how to manage native bush.
I'm not saying we should replace science with traditional knowledge. But indigenous practices are absolutely worthy of study, and can guide science.
Look at Australia for example. The indigenous people figured out thousands of years ago how to manage native bush.
I'm not saying we should replace science with traditional knowledge. But indigenous practices are absolutely worthy of study, and can guide science.
Two points: Firstly, the article has zero example of the "native knowledge" in question. Secondly, the Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand, arriving a scant couple centuries before Europeans, and had done tremendous damage to the native environment by the time Europeans got there.
> Firstly, the article has zero example of the "native knowledge" in question.
You mean apart from this link that specifically talks about use tradition harvesting practices and local knowledge to find the kōura to study?
https://niwa.co.nz/our-science/freshwater/research-projects/...
> Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand
Completely untrue. They are absolutely indigenous to NZ.
I'm so tired of this stupid myth being brought up again and again. Yes, Maori arrived in NZ. They were the first people to do so. They are the indigenous people of NZ.
Unless you want to argue that to be "indigenous", you literally need to have evolved in that place, which is a nonsense argument as far as humans are concerned.
You mean apart from this link that specifically talks about use tradition harvesting practices and local knowledge to find the kōura to study?
https://niwa.co.nz/our-science/freshwater/research-projects/...
> Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand
Completely untrue. They are absolutely indigenous to NZ.
I'm so tired of this stupid myth being brought up again and again. Yes, Maori arrived in NZ. They were the first people to do so. They are the indigenous people of NZ.
Unless you want to argue that to be "indigenous", you literally need to have evolved in that place, which is a nonsense argument as far as humans are concerned.
Yes, Maori arrived in NZ. They were the first people to do so.
So you don't count as indigenous if you weren't the first? That's bad news for all the Clovis-descended peoples we now call Native Americans, since they were the second major wave of human migration. That is of course ridiculous, because time of inhabitation is a significant part of being indigenous. If it were discovered another group had beaten the Maori to New Zealand, would that suddenly make them not indigenous in your eyes?
So you don't count as indigenous if you weren't the first? That's bad news for all the Clovis-descended peoples we now call Native Americans, since they were the second major wave of human migration. That is of course ridiculous, because time of inhabitation is a significant part of being indigenous. If it were discovered another group had beaten the Maori to New Zealand, would that suddenly make them not indigenous in your eyes?
Merriam Webster - Indigenous: of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group
Wikipedia - Indigenous peoples are culturally distinct ethnic groups whose members are directly descended from the earliest known inhabitants of a particular geographic region and, to some extent, maintain the language and culture of those original peoples
By what measure are Maori not indigenous to NZ? If another group arrived first, they certainly didn't stay, and even by your own measure of "time of inhabitation", Maori have been here the longest (at least 350 years before Europeans).
Wikipedia - Indigenous peoples are culturally distinct ethnic groups whose members are directly descended from the earliest known inhabitants of a particular geographic region and, to some extent, maintain the language and culture of those original peoples
By what measure are Maori not indigenous to NZ? If another group arrived first, they certainly didn't stay, and even by your own measure of "time of inhabitation", Maori have been here the longest (at least 350 years before Europeans).
It grinds my gears that people still believe that shit, even here..
That's a polite way of putting it.
There's also a lot of reactionary right wing response to anything involving Maori which isn't disparaging or outright racist - as evidenced by the apoplectic reaction from some quarters to merely hearing Maori spoken in the media.
A lot of things I hear described as "revisionist" just come down to lack of knowledge of NZ history - eg: claims about "legal" Maori land sales are usually made by people woefully unaware of the actions and conduct of the Maori Land Court.
My thought after reading the article is that they were hunted to the brink, and then climate change did them in. Somewhat akin to what also (or may in a few more decades) happen to the American Buffalo. Rich Māori having holding pens for the last of the Moa just for curiosity sake is a funny thought.
NZ today is a tough place to stay alive. One of my closest brushes with death happened there in a rapidly rising river that trapped me on a small island for 3 days without a shelter. Once I extracted myself out, the general feeling from the rangers and locals is what happened to me wasn't so rare, except somehow I managed to survived.
NZ today is a tough place to stay alive. One of my closest brushes with death happened there in a rapidly rising river that trapped me on a small island for 3 days without a shelter. Once I extracted myself out, the general feeling from the rangers and locals is what happened to me wasn't so rare, except somehow I managed to survived.
> NZ today is a tough place to stay alive.
This might be a low effort reply, but a bunch of us manage too :)
In all seriousness every country has it's own unique things that locals are very much familiar with and outsiders it's just foreign to.
Australia - predisposed to critters that want to kill you. Checking your shoes for spiders is a thing.
America - well I'll leave the obvious out, but there's some pretty nasty deserts you'd not want to be caught out in, or the odd cat 4 Tornado, or my favourite from last visit, walking past a tree that had head high claw marks all through it (either Cougar or Bear, wtf, that was like a 20min walk from the hotel in boulder!!)
Then there's Canada -40c anyone? That's really not meant for human survival.
This might be a low effort reply, but a bunch of us manage too :)
In all seriousness every country has it's own unique things that locals are very much familiar with and outsiders it's just foreign to.
Australia - predisposed to critters that want to kill you. Checking your shoes for spiders is a thing.
America - well I'll leave the obvious out, but there's some pretty nasty deserts you'd not want to be caught out in, or the odd cat 4 Tornado, or my favourite from last visit, walking past a tree that had head high claw marks all through it (either Cougar or Bear, wtf, that was like a 20min walk from the hotel in boulder!!)
Then there's Canada -40c anyone? That's really not meant for human survival.
The actual feeling of the rangers and locals would've been "FFS, the weather forecasts are pretty specific, everyone knows heavy rain means floods, but at least we're not searching for your body."
Source - former ranger.
Source - former ranger.
Having moved from Australia to New Zealand, I’d say the opposite.
There’s nothing here that can kill you.
No bushfires. No snakes. Very few sharks. Spiders are rare, and white tails don’t kill. It doesn’t get hot enough to kill you. There’s water everywhere, but it doesn’t seem to flood.
I’m assuming your rising river was on the South Island. Definitely plenty of opportunities to get yourself in trouble down there, but you’d have to go well out of your way.
Earthquakes are the only new danger, and they’re mostly in the south / Wellington.
No crocodiles. No camels (car accidents).
Both countries have bikie/gang violence, but I’m not sure that’s a real danger for gen pop.
There’s nothing here that can kill you.
No bushfires. No snakes. Very few sharks. Spiders are rare, and white tails don’t kill. It doesn’t get hot enough to kill you. There’s water everywhere, but it doesn’t seem to flood.
I’m assuming your rising river was on the South Island. Definitely plenty of opportunities to get yourself in trouble down there, but you’d have to go well out of your way.
Earthquakes are the only new danger, and they’re mostly in the south / Wellington.
No crocodiles. No camels (car accidents).
Both countries have bikie/gang violence, but I’m not sure that’s a real danger for gen pop.
Floods are pretty regular, but in places like the Hauraki Plains and Canterbury, mostly regional farming areas. Main people affected are farmers, livestock and farming infrastructure.
> except somehow I managed to survived.
We don't have many deaths from hikers and trampers. Most are from falls, others from drowning. I'm sure you prepared for the hike, many tourists do not and it's often national news when someone goes missing off a trail.
If you go for long tramps, you take your own food and shelter. And hopefully either an emergency beacon or check the area for cell service.
The fact you were there for 3 days, I assume you either never told anyone where you were - and they weren't aware you were stranded, and you didn't have any method for contacting emergency services.
If you did have a method for contacting them, if you have food, they'll quite happily let your suffer for up to 5 days as they know hypothermia is unlikely, you'll either be a little dehydrated or hungry - but provided you're not injured, they'll let you trek back on your own - they'll only send people out if you don't come back after a few more days. If you were injured, they'd have sent the Westpac helicopter to you within a week (when it's convenient or you're on a flight path convenient to other rescues). Most of the time that helicopter is used for immediate evacuation scenarios (strokes, heart attacks, etc) - and hikers usually aren't in that bucket.
They might be miserable, but being hungry with a shattered ankle, you're not a priority.
We don't have many deaths from hikers and trampers. Most are from falls, others from drowning. I'm sure you prepared for the hike, many tourists do not and it's often national news when someone goes missing off a trail.
If you go for long tramps, you take your own food and shelter. And hopefully either an emergency beacon or check the area for cell service.
The fact you were there for 3 days, I assume you either never told anyone where you were - and they weren't aware you were stranded, and you didn't have any method for contacting emergency services.
If you did have a method for contacting them, if you have food, they'll quite happily let your suffer for up to 5 days as they know hypothermia is unlikely, you'll either be a little dehydrated or hungry - but provided you're not injured, they'll let you trek back on your own - they'll only send people out if you don't come back after a few more days. If you were injured, they'd have sent the Westpac helicopter to you within a week (when it's convenient or you're on a flight path convenient to other rescues). Most of the time that helicopter is used for immediate evacuation scenarios (strokes, heart attacks, etc) - and hikers usually aren't in that bucket.
They might be miserable, but being hungry with a shattered ankle, you're not a priority.
>If you go for long tramps, you take your own food and shelter.
I actually didn't bring a tent, as I was on my way to a hut.
> The fact you were there for 3 days, I assume you either never told anyone where you were - and they weren't aware you were stranded, and you didn't have any method for contacting emergency services.
I checked into a ranger station. It was Easter Weekend, so no one was there.
> If you did have a method for contacting them, if you have food, they'll quite happily let your suffer for up to 5 days as they know hypothermia is unlikely,
It rained and snowed the entire time. I was without shelter, and the island I was on was quickly disappearing as the water level of the river kept rising. I attempted to make a shelter out of sticks and grass, only to find the ground waterlogged, so I instead laid on top of it. I woke up in the middle of the night completely surrounded by water. I was so cold, I prayed for death. At the end of the last night, I was clutching onto a tree trunk on the only patch of ground sticking above the water, as waves licked my feet, waiting to be washed away into the river, as I watched logs like the ones next to me float into, and quickly escape the beam of my head torch.
So when I say,
> except somehow I managed to survived.
Believe me.
I actually didn't bring a tent, as I was on my way to a hut.
> The fact you were there for 3 days, I assume you either never told anyone where you were - and they weren't aware you were stranded, and you didn't have any method for contacting emergency services.
I checked into a ranger station. It was Easter Weekend, so no one was there.
> If you did have a method for contacting them, if you have food, they'll quite happily let your suffer for up to 5 days as they know hypothermia is unlikely,
It rained and snowed the entire time. I was without shelter, and the island I was on was quickly disappearing as the water level of the river kept rising. I attempted to make a shelter out of sticks and grass, only to find the ground waterlogged, so I instead laid on top of it. I woke up in the middle of the night completely surrounded by water. I was so cold, I prayed for death. At the end of the last night, I was clutching onto a tree trunk on the only patch of ground sticking above the water, as waves licked my feet, waiting to be washed away into the river, as I watched logs like the ones next to me float into, and quickly escape the beam of my head torch.
So when I say,
> except somehow I managed to survived.
Believe me.
Sorry - that sounds horrible, what island were you on that snows during Easter? Also, always assume some asshole burnt down the hut. Apart from that being a semi-regular occurrence now, it also just .. happens. Assholes book and stay at DoC cabins too. Also lots of drinking and illegal bonfires.
For anyone else who's worried about making a similar trip, please use this govt-made website which talks about what's recommended, as well as has an online service for logging your walks. If there isn't anybody to tell that you're going on one of these hikes, that means you shouldn't go. It isn't optional.
https://www.adventuresmart.nz/
For anyone in other countries without this service - if you're backpacking in hostels, or have a booking at a hotel after - ring and tell the staff before you go. If it's through AirBnB.. Well, I hope you make friends with someone who can check in with you before you leave!
For anyone else who's worried about making a similar trip, please use this govt-made website which talks about what's recommended, as well as has an online service for logging your walks. If there isn't anybody to tell that you're going on one of these hikes, that means you shouldn't go. It isn't optional.
https://www.adventuresmart.nz/
For anyone in other countries without this service - if you're backpacking in hostels, or have a booking at a hotel after - ring and tell the staff before you go. If it's through AirBnB.. Well, I hope you make friends with someone who can check in with you before you leave!
The article doesn't say that.
It says the settlers could no longer hunt them as it was uneconomical. Its well known Moa were hunted in large numbers until their were none left. They left that out because its common knowledge to the target reader.
It says the settlers could no longer hunt them as it was uneconomical. Its well known Moa were hunted in large numbers until their were none left. They left that out because its common knowledge to the target reader.
> At the time of settlement, the south had colonies of the large flightless moa. The early settlers rapidly adapted to this temperate climate, living on a diet of moa, seafood and vegetables grown in their garden plots.
> But then the Little Ice Age interfered with this lifestyle. After 1350, conditions became significantly colder in the south. By around 1400-1420, moa hunting became uneconomic and put these fledgling communities under immense pressure. Once again, people had to adapt quickly.
This is plainly misleading. It implies without explicitly stating that the Little Ice Age interfered with their moa-eating lifestyle by making moa hunting uneconomical.
> But then the Little Ice Age interfered with this lifestyle. After 1350, conditions became significantly colder in the south. By around 1400-1420, moa hunting became uneconomic and put these fledgling communities under immense pressure. Once again, people had to adapt quickly.
This is plainly misleading. It implies without explicitly stating that the Little Ice Age interfered with their moa-eating lifestyle by making moa hunting uneconomical.
Yeah, I'm confused about the wording here. That is the crux of their entire argument and I would think if they had evidence the Little Ice Age interfered with Mao hunting as opposed to simple overexploitation they would say so.
Simply hunted to extinction. It's a shame history is being rewritten in front of our eyes.
That implication wasn't clear to me, from reading the article.
This is kind of surprising, I am a Palauan, and people from what anthropologists know settled Palau from Southeast Asia around 1000 BC, so I sort of assumed the pacific was settled well before the common era. I never imagined an island settlement so recent, literally within written history at least from a European perspective.
Settling deep into the Pacific required pretty advanced sailing technology. Hawaii was only settled in ~1100 CE. I don't think anyone else managed to build a ship that could sail within 50 degrees of the wind direction untill the 1600's.
Is there evidence of other cases where there was no such adaptive behaviour in other human groups? I study adaptation to shocks in modern societies and I am ashamed to admit we have no clue why it does not work.
I imagine there are important definitional aspects that come into play. When the article says,
> Models developed from radiocarbon dates and the distribution of archaeological sites indicate the population shifted back to the north and grew between 1350 and 1450. In the north, soils were ideal for agriculture and temperatures were warmer.
does that mean that people literally migrated, or merely that the northern population grew predominately through, e.g., a greater reproductive rate while the southern shrank in-place according to similar dynamics? If the latter, is that actually adaptation in the sense you mean?
> Models developed from radiocarbon dates and the distribution of archaeological sites indicate the population shifted back to the north and grew between 1350 and 1450. In the north, soils were ideal for agriculture and temperatures were warmer.
does that mean that people literally migrated, or merely that the northern population grew predominately through, e.g., a greater reproductive rate while the southern shrank in-place according to similar dynamics? If the latter, is that actually adaptation in the sense you mean?
Not really, adaptation in my context means changes in what you do, so that you cope better with a new stressor.
Migration as adaptation is really less interesting for me, while learning new practices, tools and even management styles without migrating means higher levels of adaptive behaviour.
Migration as adaptation is really less interesting for me, while learning new practices, tools and even management styles without migrating means higher levels of adaptive behaviour.
I figured as much. My point is that nothing in the paper abstract (I cannot access the actual paper) seems to necessarily imply adaptation as I assume you mean it, notwithstanding that that is the terminology the authors choose to use. Rather, the adaptation seems more like a semantic sleight of hand--if you look at each population in isolation, each responded as you might expect if there were no abrupt, substantial cultural changes. The southern population, which more heavily relied on hunting and lived in an environment where they could not easily shift to agriculture, declined; whereas the northern culture happened to live in an environment and with habits that benefited from the climate shift. But if you arbitrarily (from the perspective of aliens looking down from space) draw a circle around both populations, call them "Maori", and analyze relative changes in population over a specific window of time, you can elect to discern adaptation within that collective population.
You could just as well draw a circle around all of human civilization and write about how supremely adaptive humans are. Or you could draw a narrower circle around just that southern population and tell a story about how hopelessly rigid human cultures can be even in the face of impending doom.
Maybe the actual paper has some substance capable of supporting a more concrete claim of extraordinary adaptation (i.e. beyond what we typically see in human populations), but if so it's not apparent from the abstract.
You could just as well draw a circle around all of human civilization and write about how supremely adaptive humans are. Or you could draw a narrower circle around just that southern population and tell a story about how hopelessly rigid human cultures can be even in the face of impending doom.
Maybe the actual paper has some substance capable of supporting a more concrete claim of extraordinary adaptation (i.e. beyond what we typically see in human populations), but if so it's not apparent from the abstract.
I read the original article here [1] but really adaptation is not the main point of it. Therefore the "conversation" materials are misleading in title, still they triggered this discussion, which is more interesting than both, thanks!
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2207609119
[1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2207609119
I mean, there's North Sentinel island...
Sorry that I don't know about this case, please can you specify what do you mean exactly?
Self isolation in extreme. Nobody knows for sure what language they speak, what they call themselves, nothing. We don't even know how many there are.
What we do know is that they survived on a rather small island in Indian ocean with stone age technology for ... well we don't know because they don't want to talk to us. But they did get trough 2004 tsunami just fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese
What we do know is that they survived on a rather small island in Indian ocean with stone age technology for ... well we don't know because they don't want to talk to us. But they did get trough 2004 tsunami just fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese
Migrations from too hot areas to warm or cold ones is what is going to happen. But moving to an empty area is different from moving to a heavily populated one. Moving thousands of people is different than moving maybe billions. It's not going to be easy and probably not cooperative. And that will be probably happening together with sea level rising and the resulting destruction / relocation of infrastructure. Very interesting times, much more than now.
you are overestimating the damage caused by higher sea level and severely underestimating the damage caused by moving the freshwater saltwater line. I live in the Netherlands where we're basacally set up for sea level rises and severe storms that could happen once every 10000 years. so we have plenty of margin.
But the movenement of the freshwater/saltwater line is something we cannot control and it has severe impacts on fishing and the ecosystem now.
But the movenement of the freshwater/saltwater line is something we cannot control and it has severe impacts on fishing and the ecosystem now.
Agreed. Maybe my use of infrastructure is improprer. I meant it to encompass farmland. We had problems with the salt wedge underground when the Po river had not enough water this summer, the sea entered the river mouth for kilometers and farmers couldn't pump fresh water from underground because it got salty.
[deleted]
(And the people who would become the Moriori migrated from the South Island to the Chathams)
But this isn't surprising, the crops they brought with them from Hawaiki grew better in the North Island, so when the moa population collapsed (entirely due to hunting) it makes sense that population density would shift from the areas good for moa to the areas good for agriculture.
There's no evidence that I've ever seen that ties the extinction of moa to the Little Ice Age.