Historically, how important is fish in feeding a population?

[Maniac]

With historically I mean before the start of the 19th century Industrial and Agricultural Revolution. Coastal areas are usually more populated than inland areas. Does the availability of fish play a role in that? Is it an extremely part of the diet? Or does grain remain the most important, fish being a rare sidedish, and does the importance of the sea mostly stem from easier access to trade routes (which can supply food of course)?

Now follow some civ ramblings which aren't necessarily relevant to the question above.

It's Civilization which leads me to ponder this topic. In Civ you can grow large cities simply by placing your citizens on coast tiles, as a lighthouse ensures each plot provides +2 food. As a consequence even a desert city could flourish as long as it is placed on the coast. I'm wondering how realistic this is. If fish was merely a sidedish for the common populace, it would make sense to lower the base food output of a water plot, and represent the food import from sea traders by for instance doubling the effect of Maritime city states for coastal and river cities.

I assume there is variety of course between ocean areas in how much fish they provide, and that some areas can actually decently feed a city. But if such areas are the exceptions, they can be represented by the Fish resource.

 

[Yeekim]

Very. At least in Europe.

1) Consider the Catholic tradition of lent. During this time, eating meat was forbidden and people sustained themselves mainly on fish.

2) Apart of that, hunting was often a privilege for nobility. Fishing rights were usually much less restricted.

2) An offhand anecdote: I recall having read that houseservants around these parts often insisted that they not be fed with salmon more than five times a week.

 

[Maniac]

2) An offhand anecdote: I recall having read that houseservants around these parts often insisted that they not be fed with salmon more than five times a week.

 

[Cutlass]

Very important. You may note that many ( not all certainly) old and ancient population centers were on or near sea coasts. And many others were on rivers and lakes. Fishing predates history. And may be among the oldest of human endeavors. Drying and salting fish so that it can be transported is also an ancient practice. So it's not only people in those locations that can fish directly that ate fish.

 

[civ_king]

With historically I mean before the start of the 19th century Industrial and Agricultural Revolution. Coastal areas are usually more populated than inland areas. Does the availability of fish play a role in that? Is it an extremely part of the diet? Or does grain remain the most important, fish being a rare sidedish, and does the importance of the sea mostly stem from easier access to trade routes (which can supply food of course)?

Now follow some civ ramblings which aren't necessarily relevant to the question above.

It's Civilization which leads me to ponder this topic. In Civ you can grow large cities simply by placing your citizens on coast tiles, as a lighthouse ensures each plot provides +2 food. As a consequence even a desert city could flourish as long as it is placed on the coast. I'm wondering how realistic this is. If fish was merely a sidedish for the common populace, it would make sense to lower the base food output of a water plot, and represent the food import from sea traders by for instance doubling the effect of Maritime city states for coastal and river cities.

I assume there is variety of course between ocean areas in how much fish they provide, and that some areas can actually decently feed a city. But if such areas are the exceptions, they can be represented by the Fish resource.

You can get bad harvests from drought and stuff, but fish aren't affected by that

Very. At least in Europe.

1) Consider the Catholic tradition of lent. During this time, eating meat was forbidden and people sustained themselves mainly on fish.

2) Apart of that, hunting was often a privilege for nobility. Fishing rights were usually much less restricted.

2) An offhand anecdote: I recall having read that houseservants around these parts often insisted that they not be fed with salmon more than five times a week.

Yeah

very much so

I read a 19th century cook book and it rather casually mentions adding 150 oysters, another recipe require lobsters at least five pounds. Also some contracts required servants to be served lobster no more than three times a week...

 

[Masada]

Yes, that's all well and good. Cookbooks do that all the time - wooooo I have one's that tell me tamarind paste is essential and should be in all well-stocked pantries (it isn't). The point being that Cookbooks are just that, Cookbooks or idealised representations of what one should be able or willing to cook. They seldom do much more than reflect what people could have eaten and probably did, albiet on a smaller, nastier less tasty scale.

But consider oysters, without refigeration they go off really freaking quick. And while most coasts have oysters - well shellfish really - few have them in commercial quantities - i.e. at concentrations sufficient to provide a livelihood for someone to harvest on teh regular. Same with lobsters. Only lobsters are worse, far worse. Furthermore, there's nothing exceptional about a popular regional dish being included in a contract - the area might have been notorious for harvesting lobsters and strange as it might seem those might have been a cheap option. Here, I could get away with doing the same with Prawns - big big juicy ones - because where I live smack bang in the middle of one of the largest prawn fisheries in teh world. The price differential between what I pay and what someone across the country pays isn't as significant as it was - travel cost as a percentage of total cost has decreased - but that isn't to say that I still can't get a bargain. Frankly, I'd prefer the wages - but whatever?

 

[warpus]

Very. At least in Europe.

1) Consider the Catholic tradition of lent. During this time, eating meat was forbidden and people sustained themselves mainly on fish.

Italians don't eat non-fish meat on any friday... or at least that's why my Italian friend claims.

 

[Maniac]

Very important. You may note that many ( not all certainly) old and ancient population centers were on or near sea coasts. And many others were on rivers and lakes. Fishing predates history. And may be among the oldest of human endeavors. Drying and salting fish so that it can be transported is also an ancient practice. So it's not only people in those locations that can fish directly that ate fish.

Yeah, but the proximity to rivers was because of freshwater irrigation, and the proximity to sea made trade easier. So I'm wondering if the higher coastal population density is mostly due to easier access to wide trade networks, or if fishing is actually a big part of it.

For instance, you don't see that many large population centers at the Sahara coast. Is it not rather the combination of sea access (for trade) and a good agricultural region that creates high population density?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Population_density_with_key.png

 

[LightSpectra]

Italians don't eat non-fish meat on any friday... or at least that's why my Italian friend claims.

The current policy about meat on Fridays outside of Lent is regional. Some national dioceses prohibit meat on all Fridays; in the U.S., a Catholic is supposed to make a sacrifice on Fridays of some sorts, which can be (but not necessarily) meat. I'd have to check what Italy's policy is.

However, on Fridays of Lent, all Catholics are to abstain from eating meat, except in the case of medical necessity. The exception is on feast days.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, but the proximity to rivers was because of freshwater irrigation, and the proximity to sea made trade easier. So I'm wondering if the higher coastal population density is mostly due to easier access to wide trade networks, or if fishing is actually a big part of it.

For instance, you don't see that many large population centers at the Sahara coast. Is it not rather the combination of sea access (for trade) and a good agricultural region that creates high population density?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Population_density_with_key.png

Well, history and current populations are too different things. And there are other sources of food besides fish. It just happens to be a fairly good one, particularly before modern times.

So is fishing the only important thing? Or the only places people live? Certainly not. But it is probably one of the most important of the early food sources. People have fished at least since Homo Erectus. But more things are needed to make fishing a source of living than just being on the coast. Not all coast land is created equal.

 

[bombshoo]

It isn't just fish/shellfish as a food source on the ocean either. Edible seaweed and algae has been an important food source in East Asia since prehistoric times and to a lesser extent in Northwest Europe and Scandinavia as well. Japanese people can even digest polysaccharides found in seaweed that people from other parts of the world generally cannot.

 

[Tee Kay]

There's a theory that the emergence of the Norte Chico civilization was sustained mostly by seafood.

 

[Lord Baal]

Also some contracts required servants to be served lobster no more than three times a week...

In the US there was legislation against feeding lobsters to prison inmates more than twice a week, on the ground that it was inhumane to feed them "ocean rats."

Fish was an incredibly important part of the diet for many cultures. For some Polynesian islands it may have been the only regular source of meat they had. Easter Island's only large indigenous animal was a type of dog - and yes, they did eat it - so fish and seasonal birds were the primary sources of food, outside of plant-life.

 

[Masada]

In the US there was legislation against feeding lobsters to prison inmates more than twice a week, on the ground that it was inhumane to feed them "ocean rats."

That's an ossim anecdote.

Fish was an incredibly important part of the diet for many cultures. For some Polynesian islands it may have been the only regular source of meat they had. Easter Island's only large indigenous animal was a type of dog - and yes, they did eat it - so fish and seasonal birds were the primary sources of food, outside of plant-life.

In Easter Island's case it would have been shell-fish. Those don't run away, don't need a pain in the ass to make net and are usually found on the coast. It was the same in most of Polynesia excluding those with reefs which might be closer to a 50/50 divide. The usual ratio was somewhere like 70/30: which owes more to the fact that fish tastes objectively better than the ease in catching the buggers. Also, Easter Island had the usual Polynesian farming complex, that alone would have accounted for a substantial amount of food.

Yeah, but the proximity to rivers was because of freshwater irrigation, and the proximity to sea made trade easier. So I'm wondering if the higher coastal population density is mostly due to easier access to wide trade networks, or if fishing is actually a big part of it.

You could point to some examples, I could point to some counter-examples. Simple answer, the fertility of the sea is usually inversely related to growth in population, while that of the land is the opposite. Why? Because farmers can add to the value of the land through capital improvements (irrigation for instance), by increasing the amount of labour (think more farmhands weeding) and through improvements to technology (fertiliser). While fisherman can't as a general rule improve the sea in all but the most limited fashion. (Granted the intersection between capital, labour and technology is somewhat more complex than that: for instance, irrigation can be technology and fertiliser can be capital and vice versa but w/e).

For instance, you don't see that many large population centers at the Sahara coast. Is it not rather the combination of sea access (for trade) and a good agricultural region that creates high population density?

As a general rule, trade does not stimulate population. Bulk trade in food - usually perishable - outside of say Mare Nostrum and other enclosed bodies of water the Malay Archipelago for instance - was usually impractical or the smaller impulse to population growth. The Sahara's population sucked mostly because the Sahara itself could not support all that many people. Even the gains from trade wouldn't have changed that all that much witness say the Sinai, which has a nice long coast and sits on a good trade route but has bugger all in the way of people even today.

 

[Lord Baal]

That's an ossim anecdote.

Ossim?

 

[Masada]

Dachist for awesome.

 

[Save_Ferris]

Only important around the mediterranean, as far as I'm concerned. Well, and the Polynesians and Vikings, for obvious reasons.

 

[Dachs]

Ossim?

Say it out loud.

 

[innonimatu]

You could point to some examples, I could point to some counter-examples. Simple answer, the fertility of the sea is usually inversely related to growth in population, while that of the land is the opposite. Why? Because farmers can add to the value of the land through capital improvements (irrigation for instance), by increasing the amount of labour (think more farmhands weeding) and through improvements to technology (fertiliser). While fisherman can't as a general rule improve the sea in all but the most limited fashion. (Granted the intersection between capital, labour and technology is somewhat more complex than that: for instance, irrigation can be technology and fertiliser can be capital and vice versa but w/e).

There was one thing which fishermen often did quite successfully, once shipbuilding improved enough: fish further away from their home port. The best example were the fleets which since (probably) the 15th century crossed the Atlantic to the cod banks near Newfoundland.

 

[Masada]

Yeah, but that was usually in response to a decline in closer fisheries, with the resulting need to get out still further to get maor fish.

Only important around the mediterranean, as far as I'm concerned. Well, and the Polynesians and Vikings, for obvious reasons.

That's rather brusque. It would have been important for just about anyone living on or around water. Sure, it might not have been the major source of calories, but one can hardly dismiss it on those grounds. I could equally dismiss herding in much the same terms, with much the same result.