Tribe size

[TeeDee]

Not sure where this should go but I will try here.

Are there any thoughts on the ( not sure I want to use the word 'ideal'.. ) most suitable size of tribe for a group of people leading/living an agrarian / hunter gatherer type society?

So I'm not sure if the 1 acre Homestead analogy is a good example to work with but how many people would be a good 'tribe' number to be able to work land , hunt gather etc whilst being a positive contributor ?
If it takes one person to start and constantly maintain a communal fire for a tribe - but that fire can contribute to be effective to cook for 'X' people that is a positive contributor. If its required for 5X people - its under resourced.

Not sure if I can express this any better and I feel I may be making this somewhat simplistic but from history do we see a common tribe number in terms of population ?

 

[Tengu]

I think it would be resource dependent.

 

[Toddy]

Robin Dunbar wrote,

Intimate Circle 12 -15.

Personal Social Group = 150 people (bands of common lineage — what he believed to be the biggest group of people one person can have close relationships with.

The “Clan” = 450-500 people (cohesive sub tribal unit).

The “Tribal Group” = 1500 — 2000 people, Tribe.

If you look up his name you'll come across a lot of discussion.

I think Tengu's point is well made too though; it depends.
It depends on resources, health issues, simple population dynamics as well.

If you're thinking of something like the old tv programme about the tribe surviving, well that was a mess. They didn't get any cohesive social structure or any common group mindset towards food, or the individual's place in hierarchy that we know exists in tribal structure.

 

[TeeDee]

I guess I was thinking more of required minimum.

One person by themselves CAN start a fire , keep a fire going , Go hunting , Lay a trap line , process game , build and tend a rudimentary veg patch , work and process skins into buckskin , fashion tools , Go fishing, improve their shelter , build a cabin , etc etc etc

But that is all upon one persons shoulders.

I was wondering if there was an efficiency of numbers to a point - and then after than a point of diminishing returns if the population grows too much for any reason even if the resources are available ( which I not sure is the mean or the exception according to history ? ) - I guess the point of being sustainable and then some.... but not to a point where more moves to feed creates a series of issues.

 

[Pattree]

What do you see as the average life expectation for group members?
When would you expect women to start having children?
What medical facilities are you imagining?

Is your tribe a step back in time or is it some sort of adaptation/adjustment from today’s society?
If the later than ambition would be accelerated because for several generations, tribe members would be aware of possibilities that the former could not imagine. As a result They would differentiate very differently and take a very different approach to reproduction. Once those memories of technology faded into folk lore then the differences would become blurred and Gods would appear once more.

 

[HorseGuy]

Interesting question (to which I have no idea of the answer).

My guess though is it would be highly situation dependent with the number varying considerably depending of a massive range of factors such as resources, geography, weather, member ages, member relationships, member health, member skills and knowledge to mention just a few.

Also what world is this theoretical tribe living in? Deep amazon jungle, somewhere far out in the Canadian countryside or somewhere more highly populated here in the UK? Is it in modern day peace time or some other fictional a post-apocalyptic future? There would be so many variables to consider before the question could be answered and no matter what these variables are the best solution would likely always be just to make to best of what ever situation your tribe find themselves in no matter how big or small it is.

 

[TeeDee]

Interesting question (to which I have no idea of the answer).

My guess though is it would be highly situation dependent with the number varying considerably depending of a massive range of factors such as resources, geography, weather, member ages, member relationships, member health, member skills and knowledge to mention just a few.

Also what world is this theoretical tribe living in? Deep amazon jungle, somewhere far out in the Canadian countryside or somewhere more highly populated here in the UK? Is it in modern day peace time or some other fictional a post-apocalyptic future? There would be so many variables to consider before the question could be answered and no matter what these variables are the best solution would likely always be just to make to best of what ever situation your tribe find themselves in no matter how big or small it is.

Its just a thought exercise - nothing ( too ) sinister.

I guess I was thinking of Modern people ( so fully equipped with all their current knowledge - Ha-Ha !! ) in a European theatre type environment.

I guess we have seen this sort of ting via Castaway on Taransay ( although quite a bleak place ) and also in Eden set in Scotland - more opportunities to hunt and fish I guess.


Lets say as for terms of Geography - in terms of expected climate - South West England - access to Rivers , Lakes , Coast , Forests and moors and a 'normal' amount of wild game that can be hunted or procured.

Members... good question - lets assume a demographic of 25 -35 ( No children currently ) mixed sex group - no prior knowledge or experience of this sort of living.

Access to rudimentary current tools and equipment but nothing with sophisticated moving parts or requiring fuel input.

 

[HorseGuy]

Lets say as for terms of Geography - in terms of expected climate - South West England - access to Rivers , Lakes , Coast , Forests and moors and a 'normal' amount of wild game that can be hunted or procured.

Members... good question - lets assume a demographic of 25 -35 ( No children currently ) mixed sex group - no prior knowledge or experience of this sort of living.

Access to rudimentary current tools and equipment but nothing with sophisticated moving parts or requiring fuel input.

I have no idea.
As an uneducated guess my gut tells me an ideal number might be a small group of between ten to twenty people. On the other hand my gut also tells me a small village or community of about hundred or so people could also have many advantages that a small group would not. Provided they could be well integrated and work together successfully.

I guess I was thinking of Modern people ( so fully equipped with all their current knowledge - Ha-Ha !! ) in a European theatre type environment.

Assuming that you (or at least one person in the group) has adequate knowledge of things like farming, hunting, water gathering/purification, medicine, building/making stuff and other bushcrafty/survival skills these could be taught to all the others. Hopefully quickly as the first few weeks/months of adapting would likely be quite a shock.

Something worrying to consider with modern, young, European people is just how useless many of them (but not all!) are at doing anything which doesn’t involve a using phones or technology. When presented with real world physical tasks that have no simple push button solution they are often unable to communicate properly, concentrate for more than a few seconds, easily get stressed, panic or depressed. I think there is a major weakness in the modern Western mindset which exists now which has the potential to cause a disaster in situations which wouldn’t have been a issue with people just twenty or thirty years ago.

I think this is not something to be underestimated either. In a survival situation with modern young people being able to manage their emotions and mental state would be just as important as being able sustain them physically with food/water/shelter.

 

[Broch]

I'm not sure studying pre-farming tribal history helps but Christopher Smith (formerly lecturer in pre-history at University of Newcastle), in his book "Late Stone Age Hunters of the British Isles", discusses this in terms of group size, the need to prevent interbreeding, the resource availability, and hunting and foraging strategies.

So, for example, if your main food source required a 'pack' hunting strategy, your 'task group' size needs to be bigger and therefor your 'band' size is bigger. In his analysis a tribe is made up of dispersed 'bands' with each band made up of multiple families. In his studies of North American native people, band size varied from less than 50 to over 2,000!

Interesting to note that he also states that an individual must have access to between 200 and 500 potential mates to prevent inbreeding.

 

[slaine_23]

It’s just a thought exercise - nothing ( too ) sinister.

I guess I was thinking of Modern people ( so fully equipped with all their current knowledge - Ha-Ha !! ) in a European theatre type environment.

I guess we have seen this sort of ting via Castaway on Taransay ( although quite a bleak place ) and also in Eden set in Scotland - more opportunities to hunt and fish I guess.


Lets say as for terms of Geography - in terms of expected climate - South West England - access to Rivers , Lakes , Coast , Forests and moors and a 'normal' amount of wild game that can be hunted or procured.

Members... good question - lets assume a demographic of 25 -35 ( No children currently ) mixed sex group - no prior knowledge or experience of this sort of living.

Access to rudimentary current tools and equipment but nothing with sophisticated moving parts or requiring fuel input.

Are there zombies?
Fast or slow moving kind?

 

[TeeDee]

Are there zombies?
Fast or slow moving kind?

None intended - but for entertainment purposes lets say there are both types , but someone has thoughtfully leg tied every Fast zombie to a slow zombie for ghit-n-shiggles.


So its like a really bad school sports day - with more brainnnnzzzzz.!!!

 

[Keith_Beef]

I'm not sure studying pre-farming tribal history helps but Christopher Smith (formerly lecturer in pre-history at University of Newcastle), in his book "Late Stone Age Hunters of the British Isles", discusses this in terms of group size, the need to prevent interbreeding, the resource availability, and hunting and foraging strategies.

So, for example, if your main food source required a 'pack' hunting strategy, your 'task group' size needs to be bigger and therefor your 'band' size is bigger. In his analysis a tribe is made up of dispersed 'bands' with each band made up of multiple families. In his studies of North American native people, band size varied from less than 50 to over 2,000!

Interesting to note that he also states that an individual must have access to between 200 and 500 potential mates to prevent inbreeding.

Groups often seem to have evolved complex social structures, traditions and taboos to manage the inbreeding risk.

At the most simple end of the spectrum, I think, is exogamy (an individual's mate must be from outside the immediate family or social group). Near the other end of the spectrum must be the kinship system widespread in Australian aboriginal cultures.

Australian Aboriginal kinship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TeeDee]

Tangent question

Do you think your own various tribe sizes have decreased or increased in the last 20/30/40 years?

By tribe - I mean inclusion into an environment with groups of regular people

Could be a pool team , darts team , football club , special interest group etc .

Just wondering if the advent of digital entertainment on demand age has lessened how much we interact with people in real life.
Leading to potentially more lonely , less integrated #individuals - in society.

# typo error - changed Groups to Individuals.

 

[Chris]

In person tribe size has decreased for sure, pretty significantly.

 

[TeeDee]

In person tribe size has decreased for sure, pretty significantly.

Just because of life style changes? I guess I was thinking in the days when entertainment wasn't as dedicated , personal and delivered upon demand people would go out and make/mix with others.

 

[Toddy]

Mine has shrunk.
My parents had 56 cousins between them, and family meet ups, visits and events were ...nearest I can find is modern Amish or Mennonite groups....without the religious aspect. A normal family party was fifty to sixty people.
They were both rich in friends too, life was very, very social.
I have six cousins....that's it.
I have contact with all six, but we rarely meet up. I don't know their children or grandchildren.
I have two sons, neither yet has children, but I see both very often.....my younger brother died a year and a half ago, and he had no children. My elder brother lives in Australia and though he has three children I have never met his grandchildren.....bonds are stretched so thin that they're strangers.

As for friends, even there things have changed. I know so many people, I worked and talked with thousands, but death claims us all, and these past few years have taken so many. It's not so much that bonds of friendship stop but they fray as we age too.

One of my great aunts said that the friends and cousins she grew up with (she was the youngest) had all died, her immediate family was all dead, the friends she had made at school, at kirk, at work, were all dead. The ones she'd made in retirement were mostly dead too. At 93 she struggled to make real connections that would become good friends.

Real tribalism is family. Our small family groups, while the prudent and only real choice for this planet, make life very lonely for so many.

 

[Chris]

Just because of life style changes? I guess I was thinking in the days when entertainment wasn't as dedicated , personal and delivered upon demand people would go out and make/mix with others.

Internet, people generally being more insular, pubs are expensive, people working more hours, I have a very small family anyway so mostly we had family friends, a lot of whom are no longer with us or have started their own families, old school friends having families and losing touch, plus I am not really one for joining clubs.

 

[Pattree]

My family tribe has increased as the grandchildren arrive but I don’t think that is where this thread is going.

My social, acquaintance group has diminished significantly but that is simply because one central interest of mine used to attract a large following. Now considerably less so.
This is as true of its on line presence every bit as much as our 3D meetings. Virtual or face to face there simply aren’t as many of us.

Outside that interest I am very much a contented loner, happy with my immediate family/dynasty.

 

[Stew]

Tangent question

Do you think your own various tribe sizes have decreased or increased in the last 20/30/40 years?

By tribe - I mean inclusion into an environment with groups of regular people

Could be a pool team , darts team , football club , special interest group etc .

Just wondering if the advent of digital entertainment on demand age has lessened how much we interact with people in real life.
Leading to potentially more lonely , less integrated #individuals - in society.

# typo error - changed Groups to Individuals.

Yes, but not sure if the internet is to blame though it does help (or not!)

 

[TeeDee]

Yes, but not sure if the internet is to blame though it does help (or not!)

I know - in a way it should in theory help. However we do hear of an epidemic of loneliness.

I was merely trying to think what may have created it and thought about what common social variables have changed over the last few decades.

Are we more connected to mod con services and utilities and less to each other.