01-31-2022, 07:39 PM | #1 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
[Low-Tech] Human population sizes supportable by fishing
Low-Tech Companion 3: Daily Life and Economics has a fair amount of information for working out reasonable population sizes for hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, and farmers. And a number of Pyramid articles have further expanded on the farming rules. However, fishing seems like it's going to break a lot of patterns these other modes of subsistence follow. I have seen estimates of pre-contact aboriginal islander populations that seem incredibly high if you are just looking at land area—for example, 10,000 inhabitants in the Marshall Islands (70 square miles). Of course, land area shouldn't be relevant to fishing yields. So what kind of population sizes can fishing support?
One approach would be to assume that a square mile of fishable sea can produce about as much food as a square mile of land use for hunting and gathering. But that leaves unanswered the question, "how far can low-tech fishing communities stray from the coast?" Furthermore, aquatic ecosystems are very different than land-based ones—among other things, you see much lower rates of energy loss between trophic levels. I would not be surprised if a square mile of sea can actually support significantly more people than a square mile of hunting grounds.
__________________
Handle is a character from the Star*Drive setting (a.k.a. d20 Future), not my real name. |
01-31-2022, 08:16 PM | #2 |
Join Date: May 2007
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Human population sizes supportable by fishing
Regarding the primary question, I have no answer, except to say that I'm not confident "fishermen per square mile of ocean" is even an appropriate lens through which to be examining the question- fish, unlike crops, are mobile, so fishing in a given area will both depend on and have an effect on factors outside the direct area of operation of the fishing boats.
Regarding the second question, "how far can low-tech fishing communities stray from the coast," the answer seems to be "pretty far, if given cause". English cod fisherman were operating off the coast of Newfoundland soon after Columbus if not before, so crossing an ocean isn't out of the question.
__________________
I predicted GURPS:Dungeon Fantasy several hours before it came out and all I got was this lousy sig. |
01-31-2022, 08:18 PM | #3 | |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Human population sizes supportable by fishing
Quote:
__________________
Handle is a character from the Star*Drive setting (a.k.a. d20 Future), not my real name. |
|
01-31-2022, 08:21 PM | #4 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Shoreline, WA (north of Seattle)
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Human population sizes supportable by fishing
Quote:
You could also worry about aquaculture; I seem to recall an instance of TL0 eel farming in Australia, and I'd be pretty surprised if Polynesian folks hadn't altered their nearby waters to encourage the fish they wanted. |
|
01-31-2022, 09:06 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Nov 2004
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Human population sizes supportable by fishing
How far fishers can go is also dependent on the available shipbuilding materials. Easter Island had a major population crash when they cut down all the trees that could be used to build deep-sea canoes and were restricted to inshore fishing
|
01-31-2022, 09:23 PM | #6 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Human population sizes supportable by fishing
Oh wow. I looked up Easter Island and apparently it's thought that at its pre-contact peak, it had a population density of over 200 people per square mile, which is higher than anything I've heard for any pre-modern population, including extremely fertile floodplains.
__________________
Handle is a character from the Star*Drive setting (a.k.a. d20 Future), not my real name. |
02-01-2022, 02:13 PM | #7 |
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Human population sizes supportable by fishing
Didn't the Amerindians up around Seattle manage quite large populations on mostly fish? Mind you, I know they were supposed to be trading fish-oil inland so it may be more complicated...
|
02-01-2022, 03:30 PM | #8 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Shoreline, WA (north of Seattle)
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Human population sizes supportable by fishing
That'd be the salmon runs. (Also, the Puget Sound and Salish Sea make for good fishing grounds, not to mention plenty of shellfish.)
|
02-01-2022, 04:30 PM | #9 |
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Human population sizes supportable by fishing
No population is sustainable just by fishing because some nutrients we need can't be obtained from fish. You can live mostly on fish but not exclusively. Any calculations would need to take into account alternative food sources as well.
__________________
Compact Castles gives the gamer an instant portfolio of genuine, real-world castle floorplans to use in any historical, low-tech, or fantasy game setting. |
02-01-2022, 05:19 PM | #10 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Pioneer Valley
|
Re: [Low-Tech] Human population sizes supportable by fishing
Having actually (and foolishly) attempted to research the question, the answer is "It depends." The numbers vary vastly, and at low tech levels, are entirely dependent on how many hulls you have to put in the water. The only caveat is that cold water's more productive than warm water, and that inshore waters can get depleted quickly, but even there it's very difficult to deplete a fishery on any tech level much before TL 6.
One other point: a coastal town would have two-thirds of its population or more involved in the maritime trades, whether as sailors themselves or in the many support elements. Regardless of the population, this will seriously skew the numbers of businesses/people involved in anything else.
__________________
My gaming blog: Apotheosis of the Invisible City "Call me old-fashioned, but after you're dead, I don't think you should be entitled to a Dodge any more." - my wife It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I disagree with what you're saying. |
|
|