Lands of Red and Gold

[Hendryk]

Australia’s isolation from the rest of the world ended in 1310, when the first Maori [4] exploration canoe landed in Raduru lands [Illawarra, NSW]. After this initial contact, the Maori started to make trading visits north and south. In time, after chasing after rumours of bronze, they reached Tjul Najima. Here they established what would become one of their major trade routes, exchanging their greenstone [jade], kauri amber, and textiles and cordage made from New Zealand flax for the local tin and gum cider.

So now the Maoris have made contact with a bona fide literate culture.

With their new ships, and with their keen eye for anything which might turn a profit, the Islanders expanded their incipient trading network into a major enterprise.

Ah, the trading thalassocracy we'd been waiting for! As for the Pliri faith, I'm reminded of the spread of Islam throughout the Indonesian archipelago.

 

[Pooh-Bah]

Another excellent and enjoyable update.

To bring order to the Island, the Nangu had established an institution of a yearly assembly by the elders (chiefs) of each of the bloodlines. This assembly met to decide on the law, resolve disputes between bloodlines, and dispense other judicial functions. In 1240, the assembled elders voted to convert the whole of the Island to the Pliri faith.

This seemed somewhat reminiscent of Iceland's Althing; although I might be wrong.

Theirs is still a society of small holdings and socially divided bloodlines, rather than a unified

You seem to have lost a bit here Jared.

 

[Falklandia]

Another awesome update, Jared!

You seem to have lost a bit here Jared.

Not at all, he just left things in

 

[john]

another awesome update
thanks man, keep'em coming

 

[Nugax]

I call making the Islander map!

 

[sahaidak]

Great piece of work again, Jared.
However, I have some proposals regarding the Nangu foreign policy.

To the east, Islander traders regularly visit ports in the Yadji lands and on Tjul Najima. Occasionally, they venture much further. Some bold Islander captains have been known to call as far north-east as the Nyumigal and Raduru of southern New South Wales, and there have been occasional diplomatic contacts with the Patjimunra in the Hunter Valley. Yet such visits remain rare; there are limits to how far Islander ships can sail, and much of the trade here is in Maori hands.

Why? If Maori could sail from their homeland to *Australia, the Nangu could do the same. Only because

The Islanders honour a tacit peace with Maori trading vessels

?
The Nangu are better equipped (you mentioned rudder on some ships instead of Maorian steering oar), richer (as middlemen of the whole continent) and have higher level of political organization (after all, Council of Elders, even without great authority, and powerful port captain of Jugara are better exercizes in statesmanship than internecine warfare of Maori).
I don't see any reasons for the Islanders to honor their treaties with the Maori as soon as they have enough ships to transport landing parties to Aotearoa. The Nangu need Maorian goods? Yes, but they can receive them from the Maori and sail home to sell the goods with bargain. Why should they lose profits, allowing the Maori to trade with *Australia? The inhabitants of *New Zealand were divided into warring tribes. It should be possible to use one tribe against another, to sell bronze weapons to weaker of them, to get some trade privileges as result of such policy, and finally to settle places, emptied by inter-Maorian wars, with the *Australians (primarily the Nangu, of course, but also, for example, their Kurnawal mercenaries, if they'd choose to hire them).
In short, I think that the Nangu could do with Aotearoa what the British did with India.
Population of the Nangu domains could be close to 100, 000 (you mentioned 50, 000 of them on the Island alone, and beside that - prosperous mainland colonies and outposts), at the same time the Maori in OTL numbered some 200, 000. Ratio 1:2 with divided and technologically backward enemy allows for the successful conquest. The UK had some 8 million against Bengalian 20 to 30 million and won spectacularly.

 

[The Sandman]

Why? If Maori could sail from their homeland to *Australia, the Nangu could do the same. Only because
?
The Nangu are better equipped (you mentioned rudder on some ships instead of Maorian steering oar), richer (as middlemen of the whole continent) and have higher level of political organization (after all, Council of Elders, even without great authority, and powerful port captain of Jugara are better exercizes in statesmanship than internecine warfare of Maori).
I don't see any reasons for the Islanders to honor their treaties with the Maori as soon as they have enough ships to transport landing parties to Aotearoa. The Nangu need Maorian goods? Yes, but they can receive them from the Maori and sail home to sell the goods with bargain. Why should they lose profits, allowing the Maori to trade with *Australia? The inhabitants of *New Zealand were divided into warring tribes. It should be possible to use one tribe against another, to sell bronze weapons to weaker of them, to get some trade privileges as result of such policy, and finally to settle places, emptied by inter-Maorian wars, with the *Australians (primarily the Nangu, of course, but also, for example, their Kurnawal mercenaries, if they'd choose to hire them).
In short, I think that the Nangu could do with Aotearoa what the British did with India.
Population of the Nangu domains could be close to 100, 000 (you mentioned 50, 000 of them on the Island alone, and beside that - prosperous mainland colonies and outposts), at the same the Maori in OTL numbered some 200, 000. Ratio 1:2 with divided and technologically backward enemy allows for the successful conquest. The UK had some 8 million against Bengalian 20 to 30 million and won spectacularly.

Because the Maori won't have remained technologically backward, especially if they could find sources of metals on New Zealand. And with agriculture making its way to New Zealand, there will be a heck of a lot more Maori than in OTL.

And because war is bad for business. Why wage an expensive war and then more expensive occupation to conquer a much larger land that's quite a ways away from your center of power when it would distract you from making money hand over fist from monopolizing all of the international trade in *Australia and the Cider Isle that isn't heading to New Zealand?

 

[Chargone]

please note that in our time line the British had enough trouble with and respect for the Maori that the entire colonization thing ended with a Treaty, basically making them British citizens [for all that it was never upheld properly by anyone], not conquest.

the wars there after were, in many ways, civil wars with people of both British and Maori origin on both sides [to some degree or another].


that with a MUCH bigger technological gap, and a population Advantage numbering in the ridiculous.

there would be a tendency, i think, for Maori who were getting screwed over by the deal [if they noticed, anyway] to make a go of attacking [and possibly wiping out] the Nangu. if they could get orginized enough to do it. which they did prove capable of doing if they saw a real need.

also, as well as the previous post, take into account that sailing from NZ to australia and back is still a Hugely risky proposition. why take such a big risk when someone else is willing to and there's plenty of profit to be made without?

 

[Mark-ITSOT]

You do all realise that a regular trade route between Australia and New Zealand would represent a feat of trans-oceanic navigation unmatched by any Old World civilisation at an equivalent stage of development to the Islanders.

Right?

 

[Julius Vogel]

You do all realise that a regular trade route between Australia and New Zealand would represent a feat of trans-oceanic navigation unmatched by any Old World civilisation at an equivalent stage of development to the Islanders.

Right?

IIRC Jared has discussed earlier in the thread, can't remember what page though sorry.

I guess that if the feat of managing two way navigation up the Polynesian Arc for several generations during the migrations can be achieved then there is at least the basic skill of long distance navigation. Now if a POD can be achieved where these skills do not dissapear soon after settlement in NZ, then perhaps the Maori could have the ability to reach Australia, which it is believed they did IOTL anyway. The POD being that Australia has a lot to offer the Maori in this POD that they didn't in the IOTL, that being metals, trade goods and cultural goods - which creates an incentive to keep navigational skills and develop trade routes that didn't exist IOTL

 

[Jared]

So now the Maoris have made contact with a bona fide literate culture.

Indeed. Two, actually; the Maori also have contact with the Patjimunra in the Hunter Valley (New South Wales), who also inherited literacy from the Watjubaga Empire.

Ah, the trading thalassocracy we'd been waiting for! As for the Pliri faith, I'm reminded of the spread of Islam throughout the Indonesian archipelago.

In terms of its origin and spread, the Pliri faith is somewhere between Islam and Buddhism. That is to say, like Buddhism, the Pliri faith was once prominent in its region of origin (the Murray basin), but has since been largely eclipsed there while spreading elsewhere. Like Islam, it has spread along trade routes.

In terms of its actual religious tenets, the Pliri faith is, well... there'll be a post on that soon enough.

Another excellent and enjoyable update.

Thanks.

This seemed somewhat reminiscent of Iceland's Althing; although I might be wrong.

There's certainly some resemblance there, although the details are quite different.

You seem to have lost a bit here Jared.

Another awesome update, Jared!

Not at all, he just left things in

No matter how much I edit things... Anyway, that's fixed now.

another awesome update
thanks man, keep'em coming

Danke.

Great piece of work again, Jared.
However, I have some proposals regarding the Nangu foreign policy.

Why? If Maori could sail from their homeland to *Australia, the Nangu could do the same. Only because

Well, not precisely. The Nangu don't have many bases to project power or resupply from before going east. Their easternmost base where they have any real control is on the west side of Tasmania. Sailing from there all the way to New Zealand is not going to be an easy feat. It can be done, but doing it in a way which projects power is something else again.

?
The Nangu are better equipped (you mentioned rudder on some ships instead of Maorian steering oar), richer (as middlemen of the whole continent) and have higher level of political organization (after all, Council of Elders, even without great authority, and powerful port captain of Jugara are better exercizes in statesmanship than internecine warfare of Maori).

The Maori haven't been static, either, particularly in terms of political organisation. The Maori are organised into several kingdoms by now.

I don't see any reasons for the Islanders to honor their treaties with the Maori as soon as they have enough ships to transport landing parties to Aotearoa. The Nangu need Maorian goods? Yes, but they can receive them from the Maori and sail home to sell the goods with bargain. Why should they lose profits, allowing the Maori to trade with *Australia?

There is no way that the Nangu can project power as far as Aotearoa. They are at pretty much the limit of their operating radius to reach the eastern coast of New South Wales. Waging war all the way across the Tasman is not going to be feasible.

The inhabitants of *New Zealand were divided into warring tribes. It should be possible to use one tribe against another, to sell bronze weapons to weaker of them, to get some trade privileges as result of such policy, and finally to settle places, emptied by inter-Maorian wars, with the *Australians (primarily the Nangu, of course, but also, for example, their Kurnawal mercenaries, if they'd choose to hire them).

New Zealand was divided into warring tribes in OTL, but ATL New Zealand is another matter altogether. It's not a case of small tribes, but established kingdoms. The Maori have not been static, and they do have a large population to work with. Waging war with them is not going to be practical.

In any case, the Nangu don't have the population base to make settlements all the way across the Tasman. The Island itself supports only fifty thousand people, and including the people in all of their outposts and colonies, they'd have maybe another ten or fifteen thousand maximum. The Maori would have at least half a million people, and wouldn't be operating at the end of a three thousand kilometre supply line.

In short, I think that the Nangu could do with Aotearoa what the British did with India.
Population of the Nangu domains could be close to 100, 000 (you mentioned 50, 000 of them on the Island alone, and beside that - prosperous mainland colonies and outposts), at the same time the Maori in OTL numbered some 200, 000.

Their outposts aren't that populous, except for Jugara near the mouth of the Murray, and the people there aren't majority Nangu.

Ratio 1:2 with divided and technologically backward enemy allows for the successful conquest. The UK had some 8 million against Bengalian 20 to 30 million and won spectacularly.

The Maori aren't like India, especially in terms of long supply lines. The British had a devil of a time conquering them, and that was with much better sailing and military technology. The Nangu have a much lower population base than Britain, a minor military advantage, and are facing Maori who are more organised and several times more numerous than they were in OTL.

Because the Maori won't have remained technologically backward, especially if they could find sources of metals on New Zealand. And with agriculture making its way to New Zealand, there will be a heck of a lot more Maori than in OTL.

Indeed. The introduction of potatoes caused a huge population boom in NZ when they arrived in OTL. Agriculture here is going to do the same thing. The Maori will have a huge population advantage compared to what the Nangu can bring across the Tasman.

And because war is bad for business. Why wage an expensive war and then more expensive occupation to conquer a much larger land that's quite a ways away from your center of power when it would distract you from making money hand over fist from monopolizing all of the international trade in *Australia and the Cider Isle that isn't heading to New Zealand?

This is pretty much it. The tacit peace the Nangu have with the Maori is good for both sides. Neither side really gains much out of fighting each other. The Maori are going to sail to Australia - they can't really be kept out - and the Nangu have trouble sailing to to New Zealand or much of the eastern coast of Australia.

there would be a tendency, i think, for Maori who were getting screwed over by the deal [if they noticed, anyway] to make a go of attacking [and possibly wiping out] the Nangu. if they could get orginized enough to do it. which they did prove capable of doing if they saw a real need.

Actually, I doubt that the Maori could project power that far. Kangaroo Island is a hell of a long way away. What might happen would be a state of hostility where any Maori or Nangu ships which met each other in Tasmania or eastern Australia would fight. This is risky, for the Nangu in particular. The Nangu aren't trading as representatives of a nation, they are individual trading ventures. The Nangu captains would be risking a lot if there was a perpetual state of war. It's just not worth the effort, or the risk.

You do all realise that a regular trade route between Australia and New Zealand would represent a feat of trans-oceanic navigation unmatched by any Old World civilisation at an equivalent stage of development to the Islanders.

Right?

Given what the various Austronesian peoples accomplished in OTL with Neolithic technology, I don't think it's that unreasonable. The Polynesians were very good navigators; they went a third of the way around the world. Other Austronesian peoples went all the way across the Indian Ocean using a similar level of technology.

Come to that, a lot of other cultures at early stages of development have managed to sail across the Indian Ocean, too. That started way back in 2500 BC. The Phoenicians managed to sail all around Africa, and from what I can tell, their ships were less seaworthy than the Polynesian techniques.

That said, the Maori aren't making weekly trips across the Tasman or anything like that. The trade is not that frequent, and limited to a few high-value, low-bulk items. The Maori do lose some ships on the voyages to and fro, but enough make it for the trade to be sustainable.

I guess that if the feat of managing two way navigation up the Polynesian Arc for several generations during the migrations can be achieved then there is at least the basic skill of long distance navigation. Now if a POD can be achieved where these skills do not dissapear soon after settlement in NZ, then perhaps the Maori could have the ability to reach Australia, which it is believed they did IOTL anyway. The POD being that Australia has a lot to offer the Maori in this POD that they didn't in the IOTL, that being metals, trade goods and cultural goods - which creates an incentive to keep navigational skills and develop trade routes that didn't exist IOTL

Indeed. The Maori seem to have kept long-range navigational skills for a while in OTL - long enough to settle Norfolk, the Chathams, and maybe the Kermadecs. The long-range navigational skills faded eventually, but they were around for a few generations.

ATL, the Maori have a very powerful incentive to keep up their skills. Polynesian navigational techniques were good enough to maintain trans-oceanic contact - they sailed between islands which were further apart than Australia is from NZ. What they lacked in OTL was an incentive to trade. The smaller islands didn't have the much of a population base or anything worth trading for; the OTL Maori did have the population base, but not any commodities worth trading for. The ATL Maori do have enough of an incentive.

 

[sahaidak]

Well, not precisely. The Nangu don't have many bases to project power or resupply from before going east. Their easternmost base where they have any real control is on the west side of Tasmania. Sailing from there all the way to New Zealand is not going to be an easy feat. It can be done, but doing it in a way which projects power is something else again.
The Maori haven't been static, either, particularly in terms of political organisation. The Maori are organised into several kingdoms by now.
There is no way that the Nangu can project power as far as Aotearoa. They are at pretty much the limit of their operating radius to reach the eastern coast of New South Wales. Waging war all the way across the Tasman is not going to be feasible.
New Zealand was divided into warring tribes in OTL, but ATL New Zealand is another matter altogether. It's not a case of small tribes, but established kingdoms. The Maori have not been static, and they do have a large population to work with. Waging war with them is not going to be practical.
In any case, the Nangu don't have the population base to make settlements all the way across the Tasman. The Island itself supports only fifty thousand people, and including the people in all of their outposts and colonies, they'd have maybe another ten or fifteen thousand maximum. The Maori would have at least half a million people, and wouldn't be operating at the end of a three thousand kilometre supply line.
Their outposts aren't that populous, except for Jugara near the mouth of the Murray, and the people there aren't majority Nangu.
The Maori aren't like India, especially in terms of long supply lines. The British had a devil of a time conquering them, and that was with much better sailing and military technology. The Nangu have a much lower population base than Britain, a minor military advantage, and are facing Maori who are more organised and several times more numerous than they were in OTL.
Indeed. The introduction of potatoes caused a huge population boom in NZ when they arrived in OTL. Agriculture here is going to do the same thing. The Maori will have a huge population advantage compared to what the Nangu can bring across the Tasman.
This is pretty much it. The tacit peace the Nangu have with the Maori is good for both sides. Neither side really gains much out of fighting each other. The Maori are going to sail to Australia - they can't really be kept out - and the Nangu have trouble sailing to to New Zealand or much of the eastern coast of Australia.
Actually, I doubt that the Maori could project power that far. Kangaroo Island is a hell of a long way away. What might happen would be a state of hostility where any Maori or Nangu ships which met each other in Tasmania or eastern Australia would fight. This is risky, for the Nangu in particular. The Nangu aren't trading as representatives of a nation, they are individual trading ventures. The Nangu captains would be risking a lot if there was a perpetual state of war. It's just not worth the effort, or the risk.
Given what the various Austronesian peoples accomplished in OTL with Neolithic technology, I don't think it's that unreasonable. The Polynesians were very good navigators; they went a third of the way around the world. Other Austronesian peoples went all the way across the Indian Ocean using a similar level of technology.
Come to that, a lot of other cultures at early stages of development have managed to sail across the Indian Ocean, too. That started way back in 2500 BC. The Phoenicians managed to sail all around Africa, and from what I can tell, their ships were less seaworthy than the Polynesian techniques.
That said, the Maori aren't making weekly trips across the Tasman or anything like that. The trade is not that frequent, and limited to a few high-value, low-bulk items. The Maori do lose some ships on the voyages to and fro, but enough make it for the trade to be sustainable.
Indeed. The Maori seem to have kept long-range navigational skills for a while in OTL - long enough to settle Norfolk, the Chathams, and maybe the Kermadecs. The long-range navigational skills faded eventually, but they were around for a few generations.
ATL, the Maori have a very powerful incentive to keep up their skills. Polynesian navigational techniques were good enough to maintain trans-oceanic contact - they sailed between islands which were further apart than Australia is from NZ. What they lacked in OTL was an incentive to trade. The smaller islands didn't have the much of a population base or anything worth trading for; the OTL Maori did have the population base, but not any commodities worth trading for. The ATL Maori do have enough of an incentive.

Understood. The author always knows better. I forgot that the Maori would progress too. Butterfly net begins to fall apart, isn't it?

The Maori haven't been static, either, particularly in terms of political organisation. The Maori are organised into several kingdoms by now...
The Maori would have at least half a million people

Poor Dutch, poor British, and Spaniards, and all of them. Even the OTL Maori were enough pain for the European settlers, and now they would be even more numerous, more unified and better armed at the moment of first contact. I guess, there wouldn't be White New Zealand in this TL (as well as White Australia). Jared, you've changed by now whole structure of the international trade in the late 19th - 20th centuries. Awesome.

 

[Geekhis Khan]

Great stuff! I now know more about the history of "Altstralia" D) than I do of OTL Australia!

Jared, any hope of a quick update on the Maori that'll let us see how much they've progressed since contact?

 

[Hendryk]

The Maori haven't been static, either, particularly in terms of political organisation. The Maori are organised into several kingdoms by now.

Jared, any hope of a quick update on the Maori that'll let us see how much they've progressed since contact?

I second Geekhis, it would be great to see how the butterflies have affected the Maori. Just their having made the transition from chiefdoms to actual kingdoms is already a significant change. I'm guessing it will now look more like, say, Madagascar, in terms of how it will deal with European imperialism--it could still get claimed by some power but will probably no longer be suitable as a settlement colony.

 

[Admiral Matt]

Come to that, a lot of other cultures at early stages of development have managed to sail across the Indian Ocean, too. That started way back in 2500 BC. The Phoenicians managed to sail all around Africa, and from what I can tell, their ships were less seaworthy than the Polynesian techniques.

That's been confirmed?!?

 

[Fulcrumvale]

I realize that this might seem like an odd question, but is a population base of 50,000 really enough to dominate regional trade? I'd just expect that the number of people needed to run one ship (the crew, the builders, repair crews, teamsters subcontractors--sail producers, bronze smiths, lumber crews etc.--bureaucrats and so on) would be such that you'd need significantly more people than that to truly dominate trade on the scale that the Islanders are.

 

[sahaidak]

I realize that this might seem like an odd question, but is a population base of 50,000 really enough to dominate regional trade? I'd just expect that the number of people needed to run one ship (the crew, the builders, repair crews, teamsters subcontractors--sail producers, bronze smiths, lumber crews etc.--bureaucrats and so on) would be such that you'd need significantly more people than that to truly dominate trade on the scale that the Islanders are.

By 1000 B.C. there were some 200, 000 Phoenicians (and many of them weren't sailors or merchants). With this tiny population they maintained stable trade net, which included Northern Africa, Western Asia and Southern Europe.

 

[Jared]

Understood. The author always knows better. I forgot that the Maori would progress too. Butterfly net begins to fall apart, isn't it?

Yes, the changes spread to Tasmania in the ninth century and New Zealand in the fourteenth century, and a couple of minor changes in parts of Polynesia during the sixteenth century. They will spread around the world during the seventeenth century.

Poor Dutch, poor British, and Spaniards, and all of them. Even the OTL Maori were enough pain for the European settlers, and now they would be even more numerous, more unified and better armed at the moment of first contact. I guess, there wouldn't be White New Zealand in this TL (as well as White Australia).

While I haven't worked out all of the details of the future of Australasia, at worst the demographics will be much like Mexico, i.e. the majority of the population are of indigenous descent. The population of ATL Australasia will be at least 5.5 million. Even allowing for the destructive effects of epidemics, warfare etc, that's still going to leave 1-2 million survivors. Their population will rebound fast enough that any European colonists will be outnumbered, I suspect.

Jared, you've changed by now whole structure of the international trade in the late 19th - 20th centuries. Awesome.

The butterflies from diseases alone would do that, but yes, there's going to be lots of other things going on. A large increase in the international gold supply, some new crops which will greatly increase the carrying capacity of some parts of the globe, various new spices, Australian sandalwood, and a whole lot of other things are going on.

Great stuff! I now know more about the history of "Altstralia" D) than I do of OTL Australia!

That's probably true for me, too, actually. My knowledge of Australian history is not good, since I wasn't born or educated here.

Jared, any hope of a quick update on the Maori that'll let us see how much they've progressed since contact?

A full update will have to wait, although was a brief update contained in the overview of post #11. For ease of reference, here it is:

In New Zealand, the Maori have benefitted immensely from the introduction of Australian domesticated crops and animals, although they also suffered from the arrival of blue-sleep and Marnitja, both of which have become endemic diseases. The Maori have been transformed from a hunter-gardener people into a culture of warrior-farmers. They have acquired knowledge of ceramics, writing, and metallurgy from Australia, and adapted them to suit their own culture. The Maori are unfortunately limited in their metallurgy, because New Zealand has virtually no native sources of tin; all of their bronze must be imported from Australia, and this is almost prohibitively expensive. Still, the fertile and well-watered lands of New Zealand support a much higher population density than virtually any part of Australia. The Maori population is more highly-concentrated in the North Island, but farming has spread throughout both of the main islands. The introduction of metal weapons and farming meant an increasing population and a long series of wars, which ended with consolidation into several major kingdoms in both of the main islands. The Maori are linked to Australia by small-scale but regular trade contact, and by much less frequent contact with their old homelands in Polynesia. Fortunately for the inhabitants of Polynesia, the travel time required, and the infrequency of those contacts, means that so far they have not been afflicted with Australian diseases.

I second Geekhis, it would be great to see how the butterflies have affected the Maori. Just their having made the transition from chiefdoms to actual kingdoms is already a significant change. I'm guessing it will now look more like, say, Madagascar, in terms of how it will deal with European imperialism--it could still get claimed by some power but will probably no longer be suitable as a settlement colony.

The details of the pre-contact Maori will probably have to wait until I've finished writing some of the other posts (although I agree that they'll probably be more of a protectorate than anything else). I'm currently writing about the Yadji (two posts), the faith of the Good Man, then a follow-up post or two on the Murray kingdoms, then the Daluming kingdom around Coffs Harbour. A post on the Maori will probably follow on from that.

On that note, though, I may need to bounce a few ideas off people who know more about actual Maori history. Any volunteers?

That's been confirmed?!?

I didn't know that the Phoenician circumnavigation of Africa was seriously disputed. The reference is from Herotodus, but I don't know of any particular reason to disbelieve it. There's even a reconstruction project going on here to try to duplicate the voyage.

I realize that this might seem like an odd question, but is a population base of 50,000 really enough to dominate regional trade?

It is given their technological advantage, and the fact that most of the other peoples aren't really interested. The Atjuntja don't care, the Yadji are too bogged down in a long-term struggle to control the Murray Mouth to worry about displacing the Islanders, and the Tasmanian peoples are too busy hating each other. I would expect the Islander trading monopoly to dissolve eventually, but not in the short term.

I'd just expect that the number of people needed to run one ship (the crew, the builders, repair crews, teamsters subcontractors--sail producers, bronze smiths, lumber crews etc.--bureaucrats and so on) would be such that you'd need significantly more people than that to truly dominate trade on the scale that the Islanders are.

The volume of trade which the Islanders conduct is not all that large. Aside from the important food shipments (which are short-range), there's trade in what are mostly low-bulk items, high value items. This is an era where long-range trade is not really conducted in bulk goods. Much like the Phoenicians, in fact, who sailed out of the Med as far as Britain in the north and the Gulf of Guinea in the south.

By 1000 B.C. there were some 200, 000 Phoenicians (and many of them weren't sailors or merchants). With this tiny population they maintained stable trade net, which included Northern Africa, Western Asia and Southern Europe.

Indeed. The other thing about the Islanders is that they are even more specialised in terms of their trading; they are not self-sufficient in food production, which as far as I know the Phoenicians were. Much as the Greeks did, the Islanders specialise mostly in production of various trade goods (dyes, some textiles, and a few other luxuries) and import their food from the Mutjing on the Eyre Peninsula. This lets them use most of their population to be involved in the shipping or otherwise connected to the trade market.

 

[Julius Vogel]

I'm not sure that you would find many deep specialists in Maori history about here, probably just a bunch of us with relatively superficial
knowledge.

I've probably studied as much as you would have, assuming you went to school or university in NZ, so by all means ask away, but no promises.

 

[mojojojo]

Will any of the Maori convert to the Pliri faith?