Content uploaded by David A. Swanson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David A. Swanson on Jul 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE NUMBER OF NATIVE HAWAIIANS AND PART-HAWAIIANS
IN HAWAI I, 1778 TO 1900: DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATES BY AGE, ʻ
WITH DISCUSSION*
David A. Swanson**
Abstract. A high level of uncertainty surrounds the size of the Hawaiian population at the
time of first European contact in 1778. Estimates range from 200,000 to 1,000,000. While
some estimates have more of an empirical base than others, none of them takes advantage
of the high level of momentum found in demographic processes, something that is done
in this paper using “backcasting,” a demographic forecasting method run in reverse from
known data. Using a commonly used technique for this purpose, the 1910 count of Native
Hawaiians by age in Hawai i is taken back to 1770 in decennial cycles. Interpolating ʻ
between the 1780 and 1770 estimates yields an estimated 683,200 Hawaiians in 1778. In
addition, an estimate is made for the number of Part-Hawaiians in Hawai i and decennial ʻ
estimates from 1780 to 1900. Comparisons are made in terms of the historical
demographic dynamics of the Native and Part-Hawaiian populations along with some
references to their current demographic situations. Suggestions are made for future
research on these two populations.
Keywords: backcast, cohort change ratio, demographic momentum, social constructs of
race & ethnicity
*Acknowledgments: This paper benefited from comments and advice by a number of
people, including Peter Burke, Sara Kehaulani Goo, Charles Hirschman, Shawn
Kana’iupuni, Carolyn Liebler, Nolan Malone, Nancy Marker, David Takeuchi, Amy Ong
Tsui, and Jane Yamashiro.
**David A. Swanson, University of California Riverside
Email: dswanson@ucr.edu
1
1 Introduction
The future is unknown in terms of many individual events (Will I live another ten
years?). However, while many individual events are unpredictable, patterns often emerge
when individual events are aggregated (based, for example, on the aggregated data found
in an applicable life table, I can ask what is the probability I will live another ten years
and get an answer) and the field of demography is characterized by these patterns. The
momentum of demographic processes create patterns that link the past with the present
and the present with the future (Smith, Tayman & Swanson, 2013: 2). By using this
momentum, the future can be glimpsed, as can the distant past.
This paper represents an exercise in the application of demographic momentum to
the distant past. It follows the idea that the past has something to say not only about the
present, but about the future and in some cases what it has to say may be important for
the present and the future. For example, what would be the expected rate of mortality if a
highly infectious and deadly disease, such as Ebola, were to suddenly appear in the
United States? To answer this question, good predictive models are needed and it is the
past that can help provide guidance. One such example is provided by the population of
Hawai i in 1778, the year of first European contact. Unlike the small population of ʻ
English sailors that initially contacted them, the Hawaiians were quickly devastated by a
constellation of diseases against which they had no immunity. However, the level of
devastation is not well understood because we do not have a good picture of the
Hawaiian population in 1778, one that not only is based on a transparent method that can
be replicated, but one that leverages demographic momentum.
What we have in terms of the estimated population for Hawai i at the time of first ʻ
European contact in 1778 can be seen in Exhibit 1. Clearly, there is a wide range of
estimates of the total population of Hawai i at the time of first European contact in 1778 ʻ
and they reflect a wide range of “methods,” none of which is transparent, replicable, and
based on demographic momentum.1
(EXHIBIT 1 ABOUT HERE)
It is not surprising that uncertainty would surround the number of Hawaiians, a
pre-literate population, at the time of first European contact in the year 1778. No known
census of the Hawaiian population at that time exists. Without a full count, the only
recourse is to estimate the size of this population. The retrospective estimates by Schmitt
and Stannard, as well as some of those provided by the first Europeans known to have
made contact with the Hawaiians, are informed by methods; others are much more
speculative (Schmitt 1968: 18-22). As can be seen in Exhibit 1, the estimates range from
200,000 to 1,000,000.
Estimates for which methodological descriptions are available represent attempts
to reconstruct the Hawaiian population in 1778 using information available at the time of
European contact or earlier. These estimates include the use of counts of houses in
villages visited or observed by the Europeans, their estimates of average household size,
and extrapolation of these estimates to all of Hawai i. In addition, Europeans estimated ʻ
the size of the population by multiplying estimates of the land area of Hawai i by ʻ
2
assumed levels of population density, a technique also applied retrospectively. Sometimes
a variation of this method was used, by multiplying estimates of cultivated land at the
time of first contact by assumed levels of population supported by the cultivated areas
(Cordy 2007, Hommon 2008, Kirch and Rallu 2007, Rallu 2007, Schmitt 1971, Stannard
1989, Schmitt 1968). A review of these estimates shows that no attempt has been made
to leverage demographic momentum to estimate the Hawaiian population in 1778. That
is, to use post-contact data in the form, say, of 19th and 20th century census data in a
retrospective extrapolation, a “backcast.” Thus, this study is unique in that is the first to
leverage demographic momentum in the form of a backcast. In turn, this suggests that the
estimate provided by the study also is “new,” not only in the sense of it being different
than preceding estimates, but also in terms of the data and method used to obtain it.
2 Data and Methods
2.1 The Native Hawaiian Population
The post-contact information used in this study is in the form of US Census Bureau
counts of the Native Hawaiian population in Hawai i by age (and sex) in 1910, 1920, and ʻ
1930 (US Census Bureau 1913, 1922, 1932). The standard forecasting technique
employed (in reverse) is known in demographic circles as the Hamilton-Perry method
(Smith, Tayman & Swanson 2013: 176-179). Briefly, the Hamilton-Perry Method forms a
ratio of an age cohort in one census (e.g., the population aged 5-9 years in 2000) and the
same cohort in the successive census (e.g., the population aged 15-19 years in 2010). This
is known as a cohort change ratio (CCR). The CCRs are then applied to a population by
age (e.g., the 2010 population of Hawai i) to carry it forward in time as a forecast (e.g., toʻ
2020).
When using the Hamilton-Perry Method for forecasting, adjustments are made to
the definition of a CCR to accommodate those born subsequent to the initial census but
counted in the subsequent one (e.g., those aged 0-4 and 5-9 in the 2010 census were born
subsequent to the 2000 census). A minor adjustment also is made to the definition of a
cohort change ratio to deal with the “terminal open-ended age group” (e.g., the
population aged 90 years and over in the subsequent census is the cohort aged 80 and
over in the preceding census). Descriptions and examples of these adjustments can be
found in Smith, Tayman and Swanson (2013: 176-179).
When the Hamilton-Perry Method is used for backcasting rather than forecasting,
the cohort change ratios are run in reverse. A reverse cohort change ratio (RCCR) is the
reciprocal of the corresponding CCR (Swanson and Tayman 2012: 340-353). That is, if
the CCR for those aged 0-4 years in 2000 relative to those aged 10-14 years in 2010 is .
858458, then the corresponding RCCR for those aged 10-14 in 2010 relative to those
aged 0-4 in 2000 is 1/.858458 = 1.164878.
There is no adjustment needed for those aged 0-4 and 5-9 in an RCCR because
the people in these age cohorts were aged 10-14 and 15-19 in the subsequent census (i.e.,
those aged 0-4 in 2000 were aged 10-14 in 2010). However, there is an adjustment
needed for the terminal open-ended age group to avoid the fact that every ten years (in
the US Census context) this group would be ten years younger and, as such, successively
providing less information about the age structure of the population in question. For
example, if one takes the ratio of the population aged 80+ in the 2000 census to the
3
population aged 90+ in the 2010 census and applies this to the population aged 90+ in the
2000, the population aged 80+ is backcasted for the year 1990. This is now the “new”
terminal open-ended age group so an RCCR for 80+/70+ must be applied to this age
group, which, in turn, generates the population 70+ for the year 1980. By the time the
backcasting process reached 1910 the only age information would be for the population
aged 0+ and 1910 would be the terminal point of the backcast. Thus, proportions of the
closed age groups that make up a given open-ended age group are calculated and applied
to the backcasted number in the terminal open-ended age group. For example, in the 2010
census one can redefine the terminal open-ended age group not only as 90+, but also as
80+ and the latter would have three associated age groups, 80-84, 85-89 and 90+. These
proportions can be used to maintain a constant definition of the terminal open-ended age
group as the backcast proceeds. That is, as soon as one has backcasted the population 80+
for the year 2000 from the population aged 90+ in 2010, the proportions can be applied to
the backcasted 80+ population so that the 2000 population aged 80-84, 85-89 and 90+
can be estimated.
In the backcast for the Native Hawaiian population, the 1920 and 1910 US Census
data are used to define the RCCRs using five year age groups, 0-4, 5-9, 10-14,…,70-74,
with a terminal open-ended age group of 75+. This means that the ratio of the population
aged 65+ in 1910 to the population aged 75+ in 1920 is used to generate the terminal
open-ended age group of 65+, with the latter having 65-69, 70-74 and 75+ as its three
associated age groups. The proportions for these three age groups were found by
averaging the respective proportions found in the 1930, 1920, and 1910 census counts for
Native Hawaiians in Hawai i. ʻ
The RCCRs and the adjustments were initially applied to the 1910 census by age
to generate a set of backcasted 1900 estimates by age for the Native Hawaiian population
in Hawai i. The same RCCRs were then applied to the 1900 estimates by age to generateʻ
a set of backcasted 1890 estimates by age. This process was repeated until the 1770
population of Native Hawaiians by age was generated for Hawai i. The backcasting ʻ
proceeded in decennial cycles from 1900 to 1770. 2
2.2 The Part-Hawaiian Population
As was the case with the historical estimates of Native Hawaiians, the estimates of the
Part-Hawaiian population also rely on demographic momentum and “backcasting.”
However, momentum is not sufficient to fill in all of the missing pieces. Thus, in this
paper, backcasting is assisted by other tools, including extrapolation, interpolation and
regression.
There are several points of departure for the development of historical estimates
of Part-Hawaiians in Hawai i. The first is a set of numbers for this population found in ʻ
Table 3-1 for various years from 1853 to 1960 provided by Nordyke (1989: 178). The
numbers prior to 1900 number represent census counts conducted by the Kingdom of
Hawai i before it was annexed by the U.S. and the numbers from 1900 to 1960 (in ten ʻ
year cycles) are taken from the U.S. Census. The Kingdom’s census counts were for the
years 1853, 1860, 1866, 1872, 1878, 1884, 1890, and 1896 (Nordyke, 1989: 178).
The second point of departure is the set of decennial estimates developed for the
total number of Native Hawaiians in Hawai i from 1778 to 1900 (Table 1). The third ʻ
4
point of departure is the U.S. Census Bureau’s decennial data on Part-Hawaiians in
Hawai i from 1910 to 1930. From these data sources, the RCCRs along with ʻ
extrapolation and a time-based regression method were used to develop preliminary
estimates by age that were controlled to known numbers. The result in terms of the total
number of Part-Hawaiians in Hawai i from 1778 to 1900 is found in Table 2.ʻ
Because the backcasting method used to construct the Native Hawaiian
population is discussed earlier in detail only a summary description is provided here.
Using US Census data for 1910, 1920, and 1930, RCCRs were constructed. The RCCRs
and the adjustments were initially applied to the 1910 census by age to generate a set of
backcasted 1900 estimates by age for the Native Hawaiian population in Hawai i. The ʻ
same RCCRs were then applied to the 1900 estimates by age to generate a set of
backcasted 1890 estimates by age. This process was repeated until the 1770 population of
Native Hawaiians by age was generated for Hawai i. The backcasting proceeded in ʻ
decennial cycles from 1900 to 1770. 2 By interpolating between 1770 and 1780 an
estimate for 1778 was produced.
To generate the population of Part-Hawaiians in Hawai i, RCCRs were also ʻ
employed, but they were supplemented with other methods in some periods because of
incomplete data. In addition, there was an important constraint on this population that
was not a constraint on the population of Native Hawaiians: At the moment of first
European contact there were no Part-Hawaiians, only Native Hawaiians. This is a benefit
in terms of estimating the population of Part-Hawaiians from 1778 to the present and
beyond because unlike the population of Native Hawaiians in 1778, there is no
uncertainty about the number of Part-Hawaiians – it was zero. Thus, we know that the
backcasting process has to conform to a population of zero by 1778.
Both the Native and Part-Hawaiian estimates are set to 1780 as the point of
departure because this year matches the decennial census cycle used by the US Census
Bureau. This means that there is some uncertainty about the number of Part-Hawaiians at
this time. We know that at the moment of first contact there were zero Part-Hawaiians,
but we do not know the exact number of Part-Hawaiians as of 1780. We know, however,
that the Part-Hawaiian population was much smaller than the Native Hawaiian population
and all Part-Hawaiians had to be two years or younger in 1780. To begin the construction
of the estimates of Part-Hawaiians from 1870 to 1850, a (reverse) rate (r) of population
change was found for the period from 1860 to 1853 using data provided by Nordyke
(1989: 178) on the number of Part-Hawaiians for these two years, 1,337 and 862,
respectively. The model in Excel terms is r = (POWER((J12/J13),1/7) = 0.939159. This
model was applied to the 1860 number (1,337) to generate estimated numbers in ten-year
cycles back to 1780. The numbers for 1860 to 1780 can be seen in Table 2 as can the
number for 1778, which is zero.
Using the decennial estimates from 1860 to 1790 generated from the reverse
extrapolation, a simple regression model (n = 8) was generated in order to develop
estimates for 1870 and 1880 using year as the independent variable. Constructed in
Excel, the model is N = -3101.35 + 167.34*YR (r2 = .92), where N = number of estimated
Part-Hawaiians and YR = Year. For 1870, the model yielded an estimate of 2,785 Part-
Hawaiians (2,785 ≈ -310135 + (167.3371*1870)) and for 1880, the model yielded an
estimate of 4.459 (4,459 ≈ -320235 + (167.23371*1880). With these estimates for 1870
5
and 1880, an initial complete set of decennial estimates of Part-Hawaiians was available
for Hawai i from 1780 to 1900. ʻ
Once the total population of Part-Hawaiians was constructed, Reverse Cohort
Change Ratios (RCCRs) were constructed for the period 1920-1910 and used to generate
initial estimates by age back to 1860 in decennial cycles. This step followed what was
done for the Native Hawaiian population. These estimates were then “controlled” to the
independently estimated total populations for these years, respectively (Table 2). For the
estimates by age from 1850 back to 1780, knowledge of the age of Part-Hawaiians was
used. Of the nine estimated Part-Hawaiians in 1780, all were in age group 0-4 since none
was older than two years. By 1790, none could have been older than 10-14, by 1800,
none could have been older than 20-24, and so on to 1850 when none could have been
older than 70-74. The survival rates described in endnote 4 were used to survive the
population each decennial cycle by ten years from 1780 forward to 1850 and the number
of births was estimated by finding the difference between the survivors at any given time
and the independently estimated total population. As an example of this process, in 1790
there were four survivors aged 10-14 remaining of the nine Part-Hawaiians in 1780 (who
were aged 0-4). Assuming that births were evenly distributed over the ten year period, of
those born between 1780 and 1784, five were estimated to have reached age 5-9 by 1790
and of those born between 1785 and 1789, seven were estimated to have been alive (and
aged 0-4) in 1790.
3 Results
3.1 The Native Hawaiian Population
The Native Hawaiian population in 1778 is estimated to be 683,200. Using the
methodology just described, the estimated totals for 1780 and 1770 are interpolated to
obtain the 1778 estimate. The interpolation is found by identifying the rate of change
between 1770 and 1780 and then applying that rate of change to the 1770 figure: 683,200
= 803,302*er*8, where r = -0.0292 = [ln(644,383/863,302)]/10.
As shown in Table 1, the total population estimates of Native Hawaiians track
well with the 1900 US Census count and three census counts done by the Kingdom of
Hawai i (It was forcibly annexed by the United States in 1898) for 1890, 1860, and ʻ
1850. Comparing the estimate of 683,200 for 1778 with the estimate of 644,383 for 1780
reveals a decline of 5.7%. By 1800, the decline from the 1778 population is 47.5%, by
1820 it is 70.7%, and by 1840 it is 83.8%. These declines are consistent with the newly-
introduced diseases and related factors that affected the Native Hawaiian population at
the time of first contact to 1840 (Cordy 2007, Kirch and Rallu 2007, Rallu 2007, Schmitt
1970a, Schmitt 1970b, Schmitt & Nordyke 2001).
(TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE)
From 1840 to 1860, the Native Hawaiian population declined by 44.2%, by 1880
the decline from 1840 is 64.2%, and by 1900 the estimated Native Hawaiian population
6
declined by 73.7%. Again, these declines are consistent with the induced diseases and
related factors that affected the Native Hawaiian population from 1840 to 1900 (Cordy
2007, Rallu 2007, Schmitt 1968, Schmitt 1970a, Schmitt 1970b, Schmitt & Nordyke
2001).
3.2 The Part-Hawaiian Population
Table 2 provides the total number of Part-Hawaiians in Hawai i for 1778 and the ʻ
decennial number from 1780 to 1900 in decennial cycles. Starting with an estimated
population of zero in 1778, the number increases to nine in 1780 and to 7,857 by 1900.
The estimates in Table 2 can be compared with census counts and estimates of the
number of Part-Hawaiians for years ending in zero between 1780 and 1900 provided by
Romanzo Adams (1937: 8). Adams provides numbers some years not provided by
Nordyke and his numbers vary in some cases from those provided by Nordyke (1989:
178), whose numbers I used for 1860, 1890, and 1900 (and for which Adams shows the
same numbers for 1860 and 1890, but not 1900). Adams (1937: 8) shows 558 Part-
Hawaiians counted in a census for 1850 while the estimate I constructed for 1850 shows
714, a difference of 156. For 1900, Nordyke (and I) show 7,857 Part-Hawaiians, which is
the official count by the US Census Bureau (then known as the Bureau of the Census).
Adams shows 9,536, which is 1,679 higher than the census number. The reason for this
difference is that Adams believed the racial and ethnic categories used in the 1900 census
did not work well for Hawai’i. Consequently, he modified the 1900 number based on an
estimate of Part-Hawaiians he had for 1896 (8,485) and the 1910 census count of Part-
Hawaiians (12,506).
(TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE)
While the Native Hawaiian population is estimated to have declined from 644,383
in 1780 to 30,546 by 1900, a loss of 613,837, the Part-Hawaiian population is estimated
to have increased from zero in 1778 to 7,857 by 1900. The increase is monotonic and not
dramatic. This is in contrast to the dramatic monotonic decline of the Native Hawaiian
population during this same period, from 683,200 in 1778 to 29,336 by 1900. Largely,
because of the decline in the Native Hawaiian population, the population of Part-
Hawaiians is nearly one quarter its size by 1900. The reason for the dramatic and rapid
decline in the Native Hawaiian population after 1778 is largely due to the introduction of
diseases against which Native Hawaiians had no immunity (Cordy 2007, Nordyke 1989:
13-27, Rallu 2007, Schmitt 1968, Schmitt 1970a, Schmitt 1970b, Schmitt & Nordyke
2001, Stannard 1989, 1990).
3.3 The Number of Native and Part-Hawaiians by Age, 1780 to 1990
Table 3 provides the decennial estimates by five-year age groups (0-4, 5-9,..., 70-74, 75+)
for the Part-Hawaiian population in Hawai i from 1780 to 1900. In it, one can see the ʻ
movement of the members of this population by cohort as they are survived into older
age groups across time. Not until 1860 does this population have members from age 0-4
through 745 years and over.
Table 4 provides the same data for the Native Hawaiian population in Hawai i. Asʻ
one moves from 1780 to 1900, substantial declines are seen across all age groups. The
7
declines to the population of child-bearing years is particularly important since this is the
source of births. Given that the childbearing population is aged from 15 to 44, one sees
that in 1780 there are 286,497 Native Hawaiians of childbearing age. By 1900, there are
only 13,894 Native Hawaiians of childbearing age.
Table 5 provides the combined numbers by five year age groups for the Native
and Part-Hawaiian populations in Hawai i. In 1780 this group was composed of virtually ʻ
all Native Hawaiians, with only nine estimated Part-Hawaiians that were no more than
two years old out of a total of 644,391. By 1900, nearly one-quarter of this combined
population is composed of Part-Hawaiians.
(TABLES 3 THROUGH 5 ABOUT HERE)
4 Limitations
4.1 Native Hawaiians
While the estimates found in Table 1 are not subject to the limitations found in estimates
done using information assembled at or around the time of first contact (Cordy 2007,
Kirch and Rallu 2007, Rallu, 2007, Schmitt 1968, Schmitt 1971, Stannard 1989, Cordy),
they are subject to limitations. The major limitation is the validity of using a constant set
of RCCRs to generate a set of decennial population 130 years into the past from a launch
year of 1910. However, the fact that the estimates track well with the available US census
count of 1900, and the Kingdom’s counts of 1890, 1860, and 1850, supports this
approach.
In addition to tracking well with the census counts, it also is important to note that
the RCCRs are all in excess of 1.00. This means that their corresponding reciprocals, the
CCRs, respectively, are all less than 1.00. This makes sense for Native Hawaiians since
there is virtually no in-migration into Hawai i of this population, which means the CCRs ʻ
are generated only by out-migration and mortality. Evidence suggests that while out-
migration did occur, it was not extensive among Native Hawaiians and to the extent any
appreciable out-migration occurred, it was largely confided to young adult males (see,
e.g., Adams et al. 1925: 10-12, Kana’iupuni and Malone (2006), Schmitt 1968: 38-40,
Schmidt 1977: 90-91, Schmitt and Nordyke 2001: 5).3 Thus, the CCRs can largely be
viewed as survival rates combined with limited out-migration.
Because many of the RCCRs are well in excess of 1.00, the corresponding CCRs
are well below 1.00, which indicates high levels of mortality in the Native Hawaiian
population in the early part of the 20th century. In this regard, the CCRs are consistent
with survival rates that can be generated from the life tables constructed for Native
Hawaiians in the early part of the 20th century by Park, Gardner and Nordyke (1979), who
estimate Native Hawaiian male and female life expectancy at birth in 1920 as 34.21 and
32.90 years, respectively (Park Gardner and Nordyke 1979: 14). In turn, these life
expectancy values at birth circa 1920 are slightly above the estimated life expectancy at
birth for both sexes combined of around 30 years prior to Cook’s arrival (Gardner and
Schmitt 1978: 297). Given the estimated life expectancy of 30 years by Gardner and
Schmitt, the estimated number of Hawaiians at the time of Cook’s arrival found using the
RCCRs may be too low.4 The RCCRs used in the backcast and their corresponding CCRs
can be viewed in Table 6.
8
(TABLE 6 ABOUT HERE)
As an example of the high level of mortality experienced by Native Hawaiians in
the early 20th century, the CCR for Native Hawaiians aged 0-4 in 1910 and 10-14 in 1920
is 0.8584593, which indicates that only about 86 percent of those aged 0-4 in 1910
survived 10 years. Similarly, only about 87 percent of Native Hawaiians aged 5-9 in 1910
survived 10 years while about 84 percent aged 10-14 in 1910 survived 10 years.
However, even these levels of mortality may be too low, given the pre-contact life
expectancy estimated by Gardner and Schmitt (1978: 297).
In addition to the use of this constant set of RCCRs over a long period of time,
there are other cautions in regard to the RCCR method. In terms of the estimates
presented here, whatever errors are present in the 1930, 1920, and 1910 US Census
counts are incorporated into the RCCRs, along with how census enumerators and
respondents determined a resident to be a Native Hawaiian (or not). These and other
issues, in turn, are embedded in the decennial estimates of age from 1900 to 1770. Also,
there are unknown levels of error in the US census of 1900, and the Kingdom’s census
counts of 1890, 1860, and 1850, against which comparisons of the estimates are made.
Similar issues would affect the use of the RCCR method in other backcasts, as well as
affect CCRs in regard to forecasts. Finally, while the backcast to 1770 is consistent with
available information (e. g., the census counts of 1900, 1890, 1860 and 1850), this is not
likely to be the case beyond 1770. Dye (1994) provides evidence that the population of
Hawai i reached a peak in the 17ʻth century and then remained constant or slightly
declined until the time of first contact. As such, the RCCRs used in the backcast to 1770
would need modifications to reflect a plateau in the 18th century that was preceded by
centuries of growth from a small initial resident population most likely established
sometime between 800 AD and 1200 AD (Dye 1994, Rallu 2007). There also is an
empirically-supported, well-researched argument for a plateau reached around 1550 with
a population of 500,000 that is presented by Hommon (2008), who goes on to argue that
by 1778, the Hawaiian population had declined by 10 percent to 450,000.
4.2 Part-Hawaiians
Most of the limitations discussed in regard to the estimates of Native-Hawaiians apply to
Part-Hawaiians along with the issues discussed in Endnotes 2 and 3.
5 Discussion
Once a domain of work subject largely to academic discussion (Adams 1937, Adams et
al. 1925, Cordy 2007, Daws 1968, Dye 1994, Gardner & Nordyke 1974, Kirch and Rallu
2007, McArthur 1970, Nordyke 1989, Rallu 2007, Schmitt 1968, 1970a, 1970b, 1971,
Stannard 1989, 1992 , Thornton 1987), the size of pre-contact indigenous populations in
the Americas and the Pacific Basin has spilled over into the public domain and not
without contentious dimensions (Churchill and Venne 2005, Stannard 2000). As such, it
is not likely that any estimate, no matter how transparent and methodologically sound,
will ever satisfy all parties. However, estimates generated from data and methods that can
be replicated may at least serve to keep the academic debate away from the speculative
9
sphere. This is important because having a reasonable estimate of the number of
Hawaiians at the time of first European contact has implications for situations that may
affect the human race in the future. As mentioned at the outset, one such situation is the
expected rate of population decline caused by the sudden appearance of a highly
infectious and deadly disease. In this regard, the starting point for good predictive models
is good historical data. The sudden appearance of a constellation of such diseases in 1778
may have caused a decline of nearly 6% in the population of Native Hawaiians within a
two year period – about 1 in every 17 Hawaiians alive in 1778 was dead by 1780.
This case study of Hawai i also contributes to the area of research on the effects ʻ
of European exploration and colonization on the indigenous populations in the Western
Hemisphere and parts of the Pacific Basin. It supports arguments by Stannard (1992),
Thornton (1987) and Wright (1992), for example, that the indigenous populations were
larger than previously thought, as was the devastation caused by European contact.
From 1778 to 1900, the Native Hawaiian population declined precipitously. There
was some outmigration of Native Hawaiians from Hawai i, but the decline was ʻ
overwhelmingly due to the fact that deaths consistently outnumbered births each year
(Cordy 2007, Nordyke 1989: 13-27, Rallu 2007, Schmitt 1968, Schmitt 1970a, Schmitt
1970b, Schmitt & Nordyke 2001, Stannard 1989, 1990). For the Part-Hawaiian
population, the story between 1778 and 1900 is just the opposite, births consistently
outnumbered deaths. Why is this so? First, in terms of demographic dynamics, one needs
to understand that the only way a Part-Hawaiian came into the world until around 1800 or
so was through a union between a Native Hawaiian and a non-Hawaiian because there
were no Part-Hawaiians of reproductive age. Once the point was reached where there
were Part-Hawaiians of reproductive age, a Part-Hawaiian could come into the world
through a broader range of unions: (1) Part-Hawaiian and Part Hawaiian; (2) Part-
Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian; (3) Part-Hawaiian and Native Hawaiian; and (4) Native
Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian. From 1778 to today and into the future, the only way a
Native-Hawaiian can come into the world is through a union between two Native
Hawaiians in terms of demographic factors.
Thinking in these terms leads one to realize why today that Part-Hawaiians far
outnumber Native Hawaiians. The US Census Bureau estimates, for example, that there
are 194,660 Part-Hawaiians in Hawai i as of 2010 and 78,389 Native Hawaiians (US ʻ
Census Bureau, 2010). The estimated number of Native Hawaiians in 2010 clearly
indicates that this population has made a comeback by more than doubling from 37,193
in 1900, but the growth in the Part-Hawaiian population is much more dramatic, growing
from 7,857 in 1900 to nearly 195,000 by 2010, which is almost 24 times the number
estimated for 1900. In terms of demographic factors, the changes observed for both
populations are largely due to births outnumbering deaths and the Part-Hawaiian
population has a broader range of possibilities when it comes to births. One avenue of
future work is to develop estimates of the two populations by age and sex. This will
provide a clearer picture of the reproductive capabilities of each of them.
The discussion on unions brings us back to Romanzo Adams (1937). His major
motivation in generating estimates and assembling historical data on Non-Hawaiians,
Native Hawaiians and Part-Hawaiians was his interest in intermarriage and his
observations are pertinent here. Adams notes that there were very few non-Hawaiian
10
women in Hawai’i until well into the 19th century. As such, the source of Part-Hawaiians
was initially through unions between Native-Hawaiian females and non-Hawaiian males,
with the latter population being largely Chinese starting around 1850 because very few
Chinese females came to Hawai’i. By the latter part of the 19th century and especially
following annexation, the potential sources of unions that could produce Part-Hawaiians
broadened considerably in terms of both race and sex. However, the extent of the initial
Chinese impact on the Part-Hawaiian population is seen even today in Hawai’i where
birth certificates for people who have some Native Hawaiian ancestry sometimes
includes a designation of Chinese ancestry, even when there is no actual record of
Chinese ancestry.
The growth in both the Native and Part-Hawaiian populations of Hawai i betweenʻ
1900 and 2010 is not only due to demographic factors (births, deaths, and migration), but
also social factors. As a great deal of research shows, ethnicity and race are social
constructs and fluid (see, e.g., Cornell and Hartmann 2007, Goldstein and Morning 2000,
Nagel 1994, 1995, Omi and Winant 2015, Perez and Hirschman 2009, Yamashiro 2011).
As such, a population defined on the basis of race or ethnicity is subject to change from
factors that are not demographic. Such a change has been documented by Passel (1996),
for example in regard to the American Indian population. Given Passel’s findings and the
“Hawaiian Renaissance” that started in the 1970s, it is likely that some of the recent
changes in the numbers of both the Native and Part-Hawaiian populations, especially in
Hawai i, may be due to social and other non-demographic factors (see, e.g., Kana’iupuni, ʻ
and Liebler 2005, Kana’iupuni, and Malone 2006, Ledward 2007, Stephan 1991). A focus
on “Part-Hawaiian” shows that multiracial classifications also are social and political
constructions since there are many other ethnic combinations that are not uniformly
classified or debated (Morning 2012). It is equally likely that changes impacting Hawai’i
in the past led to changes in the definition of Native Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian in
terms of self-identification, as well as identification by others, and institutions.3 Clearly,
the documentation of change in the Native and Part-Hawaiian populations from 1900 to
the current time (and perhaps into the future) should be undertaken so that as complete a
record as possible exists back to the milestone year of 1778. This documentation should
include an examination of both demographic and non-demographic factors as well as the
development of estimates by age and sex.
Endnotes
1. Although there are arguments that the Spanish visited Hawai i in the 16ʻth century,
most evidence suggests that the English were the first Europeans to do so, with the arrival
of Cook in 1778 (Nordyke, 1989: 15-18). This paper follows the argument that the English
contact in 1778 was the first. Related to the first contact issue, Kirch (1985: 52-66, 87-88)
finds that the available evidence points to the Marquesas Islands as the origins of the
Hawaiians, with the initial settlements established during the fourth and fifth centuries,
although there are others who argue it was later (Dye 1994, Rallu 2007). Kirch (1985: 66)
also finds that while there may have contacts with other island groups, such as the Society
Islands, by the time of Cook’s arrival the contacts between Hawai’i and other island
11
groups, including the Marquesas, had long since ceased. There appears to be no argument
that the contact with other island groups had not ceased long before Cook’s arrival.
2. In principle, the estimates of Part-Hawaiians and Native Hawaiians are based on US
Census Bureau concepts, which, in turn, are based on the De Jure definition of a
population and self-identification in terms of demographic and other characteristics. On a
related note, the popular, bureaucratic, and “scientific” designations of racial and ethnic
identity change over time. For example, Adams (1937: 8) states that prior to 1896, Part-
Hawaiians were referred to as “half-caste” and he uses the term “hybrid.” Today, terms
like “multi-racial Native Hawaiian” or simply “multi-racial” are used, although in
Hawai i it is not uncommon to encounter the term “cosmopolitan” as a multi-racial ʻ
designation.
3. Because the initial population of Part-Hawaiians arose after Cook’s visit, it may be the
case, for example, that within Hawai’i they were initially identified as Native Hawaiian
by the Hawaiian people, but over time, with the arrival of more foreigners, especially
American Missionaries in the early 1820s, these same people may have been later
identified as Part-Hawaiian. While the “identification” issues are open questions that may
or may not be answered, it is certain that as modern capitalism lapped at Hawai’i’s shores
and then overwhelmed the islands, Marx’s observation that “all that is solid melts into
air,” (see, e.g., Berman 1988) came into play and ideas about ethnicity and race in
Hawai’i were subject to the same rapidity and levels of change as were ideas concerning
property, labor, the production and definition of wealth, social class, and socio-economic
status (see, e.g., Daws 1968).
4. Using a method described by Swanson and Tedrow (2012), a set of alternative RCCRs
was used to generate an alternative estimate of the Hawaiian population in 1778. In the
first step, the 1910-20 CCRs were used to develop an estimate of life expectancy at birth
(e0) for the Native Hawaiian population during this same period. The idea here was to
make a comparison with the e0 estimates developed by Park, Gardner and Nordyke (1979:
14), both for the Native Hawaiian population circa 1920 and at the time of first European
contact. The e0 estimate derived from the 1910-20 CCRs was 39.15 years, which is higher
than both of the e0 estimates for males (34.21) and females (32.90) in 1920, respectively.
It also is higher than the e0 estimate of 30 years developed by Park, Gardner, and Nordyke
(1979) for the Hawaiian population at the time of first European contact. In the second
step, an iterative process was used to find a constant scalar that would produce a set of
revised 1920-10 RCCRs that was consistent with the average (33.56) of the 1920 e0
estimates by sex developed by Park, Gardner, and Nordyke (1979). The revised RCCRs
were then used in third step, in which the backcasting process was employed to generate
an alternative estimate of 749,102 for the Hawaiian population at time of first European
contact. This alternative estimate is approximately 9.7 percent higher than the estimate of
683,200, which is based on the 1920-10 RCCRs consistent with e0 = 39.15. Given the
data and available evidence, it does not appear likely that e0 for the Hawaiian population
circa 1920 was higher than 40. This, in turn, suggests that the Hawaiian population in
1778 was not less than 683,200, but it could have been as high as 749,102. The data (and
methods) used to generate these results are available from the author in the form of excel
12
workbooks. The implied survivorship values by age group were used to survive the
estimated population of Part-Hawaiians forward from 1780 to 1860.
References
Adams, R. 1937. Interracial marriage in Hawaii. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Berman, M. 1988. All that is solid melts into air: The experience of modernity. New
York, NY: Penguin Press (Re-issue Edition).
Cordy, R. 2007. Reconstructing Hawaiian Population at European Contact. pp. 108-128
in P. Kirch and J. Rallu (eds.) The Growth and Collapse of Pacific Island Societies:
Archaeological and Demographic Perspectives. Honolulu: University of Hawai i Press.ʻ
Cornell, S. and D. Hartmann. 2007. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a changing
world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Daws, G. 1968. Shoal of time: A history of the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawai’i Press.
Dye, T. 1994. Population Trends in Hawai i before 1778. ʻHawaiian Journal of History
28: 1-20.
Goldstein J., and A. Morning. 2000. The multiple-race population of the United States:
Issues and estimates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 97 (11): 6230-6235.
Kana’iupuni, S. and N. Malone. 2006. This Land is my Land: The Role of Place in Native
Hawaiian Identity. pp. 291-305 in J. Frazier and E. Tetty-Fio (Eds.) Race, Ethnicity and
Place in a Changing America. New York: Global Press.
Kana’iupuni, S. and C. Liebler. 2005 .Pondering poi dog: Place and racial identification
of multi-racial Native Hawaiians. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (4) 687-721.
Kirch, P. 1985. Feathered gods and fishhooks: An introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology
and prehistory. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
Ledward, B. 2007. On Being Hawaiian Enough. Hūlili 4 (1): 107-143
Morning, A. 2012. Multiraciality and Census Classification in Global Perspective. pp. 10-
22 in Edwards, Rosalind, Suki Ali, Chamion Caballero, and Miri Song (eds.)
International Perspectives on Racial and Ethnic Mixedness and Mixing. London and
New York: Routledge.
Nagel, J. 1994. Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and
culture. Social Problems 41 (1): 152-176.
Nagel, J. 1995. American Indian Ethnic Renewal: Politics and Resurgence of Identity.
American Sociological Review 60 (6): 947-965.
Nordyke, E. 1989. The Peopling of Hawai i, 2ʻnd Edition. Honolulu: University of Hawai i ʻ
Press.
Omi, M. and H. Winant. 2015. Racial Formation in the United States, 3rd Edition. New
York, NY: Routledge.
13
Passel, J. 1996. The Growing American Indian Population, 1960-1990: Beyond
Demography. Pp. 79-102 in G. Sandedur, R. Rindfuss, and B. Cohen (Eds.) Changing
Numbers, Changing Needs: American Indian Demography and Public Health.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Perez, A. and C. Hirschman. 2009. The changing racial and ethnic composition of the US
population: emerging American identities. Population and Development Review 35 (1):
1-51.
Rallu, J. 2007. Pre- and Post-contact Population in Island Polynesia. pp. 15-34 in P. Kirch
and J. Rallu (eds.) The Growth and Collapse of Pacific Island Societies: Archaeological
and Demographic Perspectives. Honolulu: University of Hawai i Press.ʻ
Schmitt, R. 1968. Demographic Statistics of Hawaii, 1778-1965. Honolulu: University of
Hawai i Press. ʻ
Schmitt, 1970a. Famine Mortality in Hawaii. Journal of Pacific History, 5, 109-115.
Schmitt, R. 1970b. The Okuu – Hawaii’s Greatest Epidemic. Hawaii Medical Journal,
29, 359-362.
Schmitt, R., and E. Nordyke. 2001. Death in Hawai i: The Epidemics of 1848-1849. ʻ
Hawaiian Journal of History, 35, 1-13.
Smith, S. J. Tayman, and D. Swanson. 2013. A Practitioner’s Guide to State and Local
Population Projections. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Stannard, D. 1989. Before the Horror: The Population of Hawai i on the Eve of Western ʻ
Contact. Honolulu: University of Hawai i Press. ʻ
Stannard, D. 1990. Disease and infertility: A new look at the demographic collapse of
native populations in the wake of western contact. Journal of American Studies 24(3):
325-350.
Stephan, C. W. 1991. Ethnic Identity among mixed-heritage people in Hawaii. Symbolic
Interaction 14 (3) 261-277.
Swanson, D., and J. Tayman. 2012. Subnational Population Estimates. Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Springer.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Hawaii. Sex by Age, Native Hawaiian Only and Native
Hawaiian only in Combination with one or more other races. American Factfinder
Extract from the 2006-2010 American Community Survey
Yamashiro, J. 2011. Racialized national identity construction in the ancestral homeland:
Japanese American migrants in Japan. Ethnic and Racial Studies 34 (9): 1502-1521.
14
Exhibit 1. Example Range of Estimates of the Total Population of Hawai i in 1778.*ʻ
Number Source Citation
200,000 Captain Dixon, visit of
1787
Schmitt (1968: 20)
242,000 Bligh, with Cook, 1st Visit,
1778
Schmitt (1968: 20)
200,000-250,000 Schmitt, 1971 Schmitt (1971)
300,000 Schmitt & Zane 1977 Nordyke (1989: 173)
400,000 King, with Cook, 2nd Visit,
1779
Adams (1937: 1)
450,000 Hommon, 2008 Hommon (2008:53)
500,000 Officers with Cook, 1st
Visit, 1778
Schmitt (1968: 19)
800,000 – 1,000,000 Stannard, 1989 Stannard (1989: 50)
*There are more, often expressed as opinions concerning the initial estimates by Bligh, Dixon,
King, and other British Naval officers, but most are in the range shown above (see, e.g., Schmitt,
1968: 18-23.
15
YEAR NUMBER
1778 683,200
1780 644,383
1790 480,978
1800 359,010
1810 267,971
1820 200,018
1830 149,297
1840 110,948
1850 80,574
1860 61,931
1870 48,579
1880 39,711
1890 33,457
1900 29,336
TABLE 1. NUMBER OF
NATIVE HAWAIIANS IN
HAWAI'I: 1780-1900
Desccriptions of sources and
methods are found in the
text.
16
YEAR NUMBER
1778 0
1780 9
1790 17
1800 31
1810 58
1820 109
1830 203
1840 381
1850 714
1860 1,337
1870 2,785
1880 4,459
1890 6,186
1900 7,857
TABLE 2. NUMBER OF PART-
HAWAIIANS IN HAWAI'I: 1780-
1900
Desccriptions of sources and
methods are found in the text.
17
TABLE 3 TOTAL NATIVE HAWAIIAN POPULATION BY AGE IN HAWAI'I, 1780 TO 1900 (EXCLUDES PART-HAWAIIANS)
age 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900
0-4 38,229 28,535 21,299 15,898 11,866 8,857 6,122 4,321 5,065 4,004 3,502 3,120 2,945
5-9 39,476 29,466 21,994 16,416 12,254 9,146 6,827 3,525 4,522 3,746 3,782 3,333 3,043
10-14 43,967 32,818 24,496 18,284 13,648 10,187 7,604 5,255 3,709 4,348 3,438 3,007 2,678
15-19 46,184 34,473 25,731 19,206 14,336 10,700 7,987 5,962 3,078 3,949 3,271 3,303 2,911
20-24 49,864 37,219 27,781 20,736 15,478 11,553 8,623 6,437 4,449 3,140 3,680 2,910 2,545
25-29 47,041 35,112 26,208 19,562 14,602 10,899 8,135 6,072 4,532 2,340 3,002 2,487 2,511
30-34 46,825 34,951 26,088 19,472 14,535 10,849 8,098 6,044 4,512 3,118 2,201 2,580 2,040
35-39 51,432 38,389 28,654 21,388 15,964 11,916 8,894 6,639 4,955 3,699 1,910 2,450 2,030
40-44 45,151 33,701 25,155 18,776 14,015 10,461 7,808 5,828 4,350 3,247 2,244 1,584 1,857
45-49 53,469 39,910 29,790 22,236 16,597 12,388 9,247 6,902 5,152 3,845 2,870 1,482 1,901
50-54 40,464 30,203 22,544 16,827 12,560 9,375 6,998 5,223 3,899 2,910 2,172 1,501 1,060
55-59 39,524 29,501 22,020 16,436 12,268 9,157 6,835 5,102 3,808 2,842 2,122 1,584 818
60-64 33,304 24,858 18,555 13,850 10,338 7,716 5,759 4,299 3,209 2,395 1,788 1,334 922
65-69 29,530 22,042 16,452 12,280 9,166 6,842 5,107 3,812 2,845 2,124 1,585 1,183 883
70-74 16,449 12,278 9,164 6,840 5,106 3,811 2,845 2,123 1,585 1,183 883 659 492
75+ 23,473 17,521 13,078 9,762 7,286 5,439 4,059 3,030 2,262 1,688 1,260 941 702
TOTAL 644,383 480,978 359,010 267,971 200,018 149,297 110,948 80,574 61,931 48,579 39,711 33,457 29,336
18
TABLE 4. TOTAL PART-HAWAIIAN POPULATION BY AGE IN HAWAI'I, 1780 TO 1990 (EXCLUDES NATIVE HAWAIIANS)
age 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900
0-4 9 7 12 18 29 49 83 145 109 230 393 577 789
5-9 0 5 7 13 22 37 65 116 98 215 425 616 815
10-14 0 4 5 10 19 33 59 107 80 249 386 556 717
15-19 0 0 4 7 14 25 47 86 66 226 367 611 780
20-24 0 0 3 4 11 21 40 75 96 180 413 538 682
25-29 0 0 0 3 6 14 28 53 98 134 337 460 672
30-34 0 0 0 2 4 10 21 42 97 179 247 477 546
35-39 0 0 0 0 3 6 14 29 107 212 214 453 544
40-44 0 0 0 0 2 4 10 23 94 186 252 293 497
45-49 0 0 0 0 0 3 6 16 111 220 322 274 509
50-54 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 10 84 167 244 278 284
55-59 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 82 163 238 293 219
60-64 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 69 137 201 247 247
65-69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 61 122 178 219 237
70-74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 34 68 99 122 132
75+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 97 141 174 188
TOTAL 9 17 31 58 109 203 381 714 1,337 2,785 4,459 6,186 7,857
19
TABLE 5. TOTAL HAWAIIAN POPULATION BY AGE IN HAW AI'I, 1780 TO 1900 (INCLUDES BOTH NATIVE HAWAIIANS & PART-HAW AIIANS)
age 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900
0-4 38,238 28,542 21,310 15,916 11,896 8,906 6,205 4,466 5,174 4,234 3,896 3,696 3,734
5-9 39,476 29,471 22,001 16,429 12,275 9,184 6,892 3,641 4,620 3,961 4,206 3,950 3,858
10-14 43,967 32,822 24,501 18,295 13,666 10,220 7,663 5,362 3,790 4,597 3,823 3,563 3,395
15-19 46,184 34,473 25,735 19,213 14,349 10,726 8,034 6,047 3,145 4,175 3,639 3,913 3,690
20-24 49,864 37,219 27,784 20,741 15,488 11,574 8,664 6,512 4,545 3,320 4,094 3,448 3,227
25-29 47,041 35,112 26,208 19,565 14,608 10,913 8,163 6,125 4,630 2,474 3,339 2,947 3,183
30-34 46,825 34,951 26,088 19,475 14,538 10,859 8,119 6,087 4,609 3,297 2,448 3,057 2,586
35-39 51,432 38,389 28,654 21,388 15,967 11,922 8,908 6,668 5,062 3,911 2,124 2,903 2,573
40-44 45,151 33,701 25,155 18,776 14,017 10,465 7,818 5,851 4,444 3,433 2,496 1,877 2,354
45-49 53,469 39,910 29,790 22,236 16,597 12,391 9,253 6,918 5,263 4,066 3,192 1,756 2,410
50-54 40,464 30,203 22,544 16,827 12,560 9,377 7,001 5,233 3,983 3,077 2,416 1,779 1,343
55-59 39,524 29,501 22,020 16,436 12,268 9,157 6,837 5,107 3,890 3,005 2,360 1,876 1,037
60-64 33,304 24,858 18,555 13,850 10,338 7,716 5,761 4,302 3,278 2,532 1,988 1,581 1,169
65-69 29,530 22,042 16,452 12,280 9,166 6,842 5,107 3,813 2,907 2,245 1,763 1,402 1,120
70-74 16,449 12,278 9,164 6,840 5,106 3,811 2,845 2,124 1,619 1,251 982 781 624
75+ 23,473 17,521 13,078 9,762 7,286 5,439 4,059 3,030 2,310 1,785 1,402 1,114 890
TOTAL 644,391 480,994 359,041 268,029 200,126 149,500 111,329 81,288 63,268 51,364 44,169 39,643 37,193
20
TABLE 6. RCCRS USED IN THE BACKCAST
& THEIR CORRESPONDING CCRS.
1920 1920-10 1910-20 1910
REVERSE FORWARD
age CCR CCR age
10—14̅1.16487763 0.85845927 0-4
15—19 1.145139206 0.873256277 5-9
20—24 1.181308411 0.846518987 10-14
25—29 1.315346535 0.760255928 15-19
30—34 1.426683449 0.700926334 20-24
35—39 1.225359911 0.81608676 25-29
40—44 1.3894081 0.719730942 30-34
45—49 1.288679245 0.775988287 35-39
50—54 1.49490835 0.66893733 40-44
55—59 1.812428078 0.551746032 45-49
60—64 1.627785059 0.614331723 50-54
65—69 1.793162393 0.557673975 55-59
70—74 2.7125 0.368663594 60-64
0.345454545 N/A 65-69
0.257575758 N/A 70-74
0.396969697 N/A 75+
75+ 3.963963964 0.252272727 65+
21
