RE: Re: Tribal size

From: Jeff Richard <richj_at_...>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:10:07 -0700


Joerg and I go round and round -  

> I don't quite see why, given that the major climate deterioration
occurred
> only after the 11th century. Roman farming (perfected for
mediterranean
> conditions) can't have been superior to Germanic farming adapted to
> climate and soil inheriting Roman tools. I know of no major epidemies
> (like 14th century plague) or likewise major famines, floodings etc.
to
> cause a decrease in population, especially with the amount of
immigrants
> Britain experienced in the period.
 

I can think of several reasons for lower population figures in the 11th century - the Conquest and the subsequent squashing of various uprisings. And the wars of the Danish kings a generation before the Conquest. And so on.

> > The difficulty with all this is that it
> > is extremely difficult to come up with a reasonably accurate
> > population figure for anywhere in pre-17th century Europe.
> Burial fields in well-explored circumstances can give you a fair idea
of
> population per settlement and century. Unfortunately well-explored
> circumstances are limited to a few sites like Hedeby or Hjemsted.
 

Which makes estimates of rural population wildly inaccurate. Case in point - the population of 10th century Iceland ranges wildly. Or the Roman Empire.

> > The same
> > difficulty exists trying to come up with population figures for
pre-
> > introduction of small pox North America.
> Effects of the plague have been tracked archaeologically to some
> precision, especially where it came to abandoned land use.
 

I've had some peripheral involvement in some tribal litigation, and I can tell you that pre-Columbus North American population figures are little better than guess work. Often politically motivated guesswork (for both the high and low figures).

> > Nope. But 35 people per square mile isn't "packing them in". 25
> > per square mile certainly isn't. Additionally, although much of
> > Sartar is difficult to farm, the many valleys (like the Streamvale
> > or the Nymie) are probably quite rich and productive.
> I'm with Alex when saying that 25 people per square mile is packing
it.
> Your average fertile lowland village (as described in RQ 3rd ed.
"deLuxe"
> Book 3) has a radius of roughly two to three miles, say 8 square
miles,
> one of these under the plow or spade, 2 pasture and the rest rough
land
> for forest pasture, fishing, gathering and hunting, some of it shared
with
> neighboring villages. That's for roughly 100 people, not the 200 a
> population number of 25 per square mile would indicate.
 

Bonner County, Idaho (biggest city: Sandpoint population 6,835) has a population density of about 25 per square mile. Tons of hunting, skiing, farming, and pasture. With the exception of Sandpoint (Boldhome?), most of Bonner County's settlements (my favorite - Dover with a population of 325) are the size of Heortling villages. I realize that we are comparing apples and oranges - but my part of the world has lots of places that are a lot closer to Sartar than modern Europe (ok - Scandanavia still has plenty of largely empty space).  

> The Heortlings are
> pretty dependant on the wildland for their economy. In Esrolia,
pasture
> gets less important in the river valleys, and wildland will be
productive
> river wetland used for fowl and fishing, creating a Nile Delta
situation.
> The Heortland Plateau cuts heavily on the wildland, and it shows in
them
> being properly Andrinized. Hill-folk with 25 people per square mile
are
> crowded, almost urban.
 

The Colymar (the only tribe I've really pondered settlement patterns, grazing lands and hunting areas with any degree of detail) use their land pretty efficiently. Most of the valley lands are dedicated to farming, the hills are used for grazing - and the plenty of empty space is used for hunting. None of the Colymar clans (except the Anmangarn) rely on hunting for a significant portion of their food. Frex, the Orlmarth (who Greg once considered the "hunter" clan) are basically cattle and sheep herders (the main significance of the Starfire Ridge is for grazing - not hunting). The Ernaldori are farmers. The Arnoring are farmers and herders. The Konthasos are farmers. And so on. Hunting amongst the Colymar (at least) seems analogous to the role of hunting amongst the rural poor in places like Idaho - it supplements diet, but is not a mainstay. I'm sure it is much more important in Far Point.  

Btw, I've got relatives that live in places with 25 people per square mile and you'd say they are about as far away from urban as you can imagine. For what it is worth, I don't think that Esrolia is that much more densely populated than the Heortland river valleys - it just has a lot more land under cultivation.  

Jeff

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Powered by hypermail