06-22-2019, 06:20 PM | #11 | |
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: New Zealand.
|
Re: Low-tech Nomadic Pastoralists
Quote:
Edit 1000 sheep (possibly total numbers, possibly just breeding numbers) is listed as the number of stock per bronze age Kazakh "Tent", but I'm unsure what the exact scale of a "tent" is but it seems to be 1-2 families.* These numbers are based on pastural analysis, so assuming standard consumption 10 sheep = about 2 cattle or 1 horse. Now assuming 2 families per 1000 sheep (equivalent to 200 cattle) thats 500 sheep per family. Adding a second assumption that the numbers represent total stock not just breeding stock and this number might be halved again. So 250 sheep equivalents per familiy, (however large the family is) represents a possible upper limit on flock size assuming you just count breeding stock. This is based on the area grazed by each "Family", if for example the "family" has 10 horses this leaves grazing for 150 sheep. *Source: Pastoralist Landscapes and Social Interaction in Bronze Age Eurasia By Michael David Frachetti
__________________
Waiting for inspiration to strike...... And spending too much time thinking about farming for RPGs Contributor to Citadel at Nordvörn Last edited by (E); 06-22-2019 at 07:12 PM. |
|
06-22-2019, 06:58 PM | #12 | ||
Join Date: Nov 2004
|
Re: Low-tech Nomadic Pastoralists
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
06-22-2019, 07:09 PM | #13 |
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: New Zealand.
|
Re: Low-tech Nomadic Pastoralists
I think we may defining herd differently, I was working off the total number of breeding animals "owned" by an individual of a particular status. Unless I am mistaken I think you are referring to the total number of animals in a single group.
Either way I added an edit to my previous post that to be honest doesn't clarify things much but might add a different perspective.
__________________
Waiting for inspiration to strike...... And spending too much time thinking about farming for RPGs Contributor to Citadel at Nordvörn |
06-22-2019, 07:13 PM | #14 | |
Join Date: Nov 2004
|
Re: Low-tech Nomadic Pastoralists
Quote:
|
|
06-22-2019, 07:59 PM | #15 |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Low-tech Nomadic Pastoralists
Oh, wow. I only got one email notification for this thread so I thought I only got one more. I would've replied on my phone if I had known. I think for my purposes it would be useful to revisit the numbers (E) gave for an Iranian nomad, since it's changed to 250 per family. I don't think that original x100 number would would work since it would give a status 4 person 25,000 sheep or equivalent. What number or scale would work better? What would an example herd for different statuses look like?
|
06-22-2019, 08:43 PM | #16 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte, North Caroline, United States of America, Earth?
|
Re: Low-tech Nomadic Pastoralists
Quote:
I certainly wouldn't be surprised of a Khagan claiming thousands of sheep as his property.
__________________
Hydration is key |
|
06-25-2019, 03:08 PM | #17 |
Join Date: Jun 2019
|
Re: Low-tech Nomadic Pastoralists
So, it seems that the conclusion is that the average herd would be somewhere between 50-250, maybe lower, for a status 0 family, which would mean a herd worth $21000 at least for most families. Assuming the 1000 sheep equivalent number given by Dalillama is for Status 4, that means the absolute wealthiest people in a tribe or possibly entire confederation would have about $420000 in just their herds. This means that the wealthiest only have a 20 times larger herd than the average family. I would assume a status -1 family would half the herd of a status 0 family, meaning they have 10500 in animals. I can't really figure out where status 1, 2, and 3 would fit between these, so if anyone has their own guesses I'd appreciate it. I'm not really married to these numbers, but they're just a estimation and my attempt to compile what people have been saying into one post. Feel free to correct or create your own numbers if you disagree with mine.
|
|
|