Pecari rex, Equus regina: American Domesticates 3.0

The rise of civilization in southeastern North Columbia is known as the Early Woodland period. During this time, the new cultivars of maize allowed the creation of dense population centers and the rise of political, religious, and social hierarchy. At the bottom of this hierarchy were slaves-foreigners captured during war and made to work for their captors. In the middle were free farmers and various craftsmen, who spent the year either planting or carving statues and creating jewelry. They sometimes joined slaves in big labor projects directed by the bureaucrats used by the chiefs (who could be of any sex) to create works of common good-fortifications for villages, or large earthwork monuments such as mounds and images of animals that served as monuments to the gods and sites of the religious rituals that helped hold the community together.
84499-004-017BFB9F.jpg


A serpent-shaped mound

Chiefs, of course, were excluded from this menial labor, as were the warrior elite that they ultimately relied on to keep them in power and wage war on rival chiefs. As in Dark Ages Europe, the basis of the warrior elite were horse warriors who swore military allegiance to the kings and queens of the woodlands in exchange for allotments of land worked by farmers.

Although those who did make it to the nobility often promoted their own children into the class the Woodland peoples were not nearly as socially stratified as medieval Europe. As the only beasts of burden were horses, even the lowliest peasant had access to pasture horses to ride to battle, and there had opportunities to steal finer horses for barter or to ride themselves, though without saddles and stirrups most actual fighting was done on foot, with the horses mainly carrying their riders into battle or giving scouts a little mobility. War was a matter of guerilla warfare during the Woodland period-warriors would conduct raids into enemy territory, sending outriders to scout out fields and then running in to capture hapless farmers or burn an enemy’s fields. Most fighting was done in self-defense against raiders, and protracted sieges were almost unheard of. Warfare was raid and counter-raid, the occasional pitched battle occurring only when one or both enemy commanders underestimated their enemy.

The kings of the southeast fought mostly for land, horses and labor. Although women were captured in raids between different populaces, the tribal practice of raiding for women was receding as government centralized. The use of horse milk (which came in smaller quantities than cow's milk and was used more sparingly) to wean babies meant a higher birthrate, and therefore less need to boost a community’s reproductive capacity. Although a warrior could gain prestige by capturing multiple wives, ultimately captives of both sexes served the polity more by producing extra food for the upper class to redistribute. This greased the wheels of the patronage system, and kept the commoners and sworn warriors from turning on the chiefs.

Further north, a more tribal way of life kept hold among the Awey, Katshunva and Hoceangh peoples due to the fact that the harsh weather kept harvests-and therefore populations-in check. War in the northeast was no less bloody, but at least for most of the Woodland period politics was based more on consent and collaboration than authoritarianism. Different villages had to form alliances, using bonds of family and religion to appeal to each other for military assistance. Chiefs represented their villages when negotiating alliances and lead during times of war, but they did not have much control over the internal affairs of their people. For this reason, the early northeastern Woodland people left much less in the way of the earthwork monuments than their southeastern contemporaries, focusing almost entirely on building defensive structures for their villages as populations settled down. The presence of the horse made the investment in defensive structures easier, as its contribution to agriculture meant that villages could be permanent [1]. Horse dung could keep fields fertile, and horses could help remove stones, trees and stumps from fields by pulling them using thick harnesses crossing their sternum [2]. Clearing and fertilizing fields made maize agriculture a much more sustainable enterprise.

seneca.gif

A fortified village, designed to corral unwanted visitors through a narrow entryway where they could receive the hospitality they deserved.

West of the Woodland peoples lay the Great Plains, still inhabited by pastoralist and hunter nomads. Their culture was continuing much as it always had, with bands roaming the plains looking for pasture. Sometimes they would meet and fight, raiding each-other for horses and captives. As in the Woodland culture warriors could make a great name for themselves by winning battles and capturing horses, always the main signifier of wealth for the Plains peoples-though captives, generally children old enough to not be a burden but young enough to be remolded into the tribe’s culture were also valuable. Older girls would also be taken as slaves, but outside of that narrow range warfare on the plains tended to end in the extermination of the losers, either through direct massacre or through the loss of their horses, without which surviving the harsh landscape was almost impossible.

Although their culture remained unchanged by the great breakthrough of North Columbian farmers, the Plains people were affected by the rise of civilization. They had a great interest in the handcrafted goods made by the sedentary peoples to the east of their homeland, particularly jewelry but also copper bits for their horses and copper knives for themselves. In exchange, they traded hide from wild horses and bison as well as live ferrets. They also acted as merchants, carrying goods from east to the west. It was probably through these nomads, who had no interest in growing food but a great interest in getting goods that their customers would appreciate. It was through these middlemen that corn would spread from the Woodland peoples to the western portion of North Columbia.


[1] IOTL, Iroquois villages had to move every few generations at least as fields either got overgrown or their soil became exhausted.

[2] This invention is developed in the Columbias about 500 years earlier than the same invention in OTL’s Eurasia due to the heavy dependence on horses.
 
Last edited:
And now, a question for my readers: How much of an impact do you think horses (or livestock in general) could have on the Native American population? I could use a little help in coming up with these figures.
 
Last edited:
I'm just curious how the state development is coming along in the North east/South east. The villages are coming along nicely, and it seems that thanks to only horse available, there will be more equality than europe, (but obviously not completely)
Also, interesting that the plains people will become as the mongols were. Will there be a silk road equivalent between the glorious powerful meso-colombia and the regions north east?
 
I'm just curious how the state development is coming along in the North east/South east. The villages are coming along nicely, and it seems that thanks to only horse available, there will be more equality than europe, (but obviously not completely)

Yeah, that was one of the less obvious effects that kind of hit me as I was putting on the final touches to the update. The use of a single animal for every kind of labor that also has military applications is a really big equalizer. The elites will want their peasants to have horses (though lower quality ones) to do their work, but the peasants can use these horses for social climbing in a way that European serfs couldn't with cows.

EDIT: As the population grows, though, the social classes will become more stratified. It's just an effect of division of labor.

Also, interesting that the plains people will become as the mongols were. Will there be a silk road equivalent between the glorious powerful meso-colombia and the regions north east?

There will definitely be trade, and a silk road equivalent. Though given the structure of the Americas, a mix of water trade and portage will probably ultimately win out as the main trading route.
 
Last edited:
In the southern edge of the Yut mountains known in this world as the Rockies and the nearby deserts, the Basketmaker culture was developing much as it had in our world. The Basketmakers were semi-nomadic, growing maize in gardens which they left untended while seeking pasture for their horses. The introduction of the new cultivars of maize changed that lifestyle by making permanent villages possible, at least on a basis of calories. There were other considerations that limited the creation of permanent villages in the area. The nomads that brought trade goods saw permanent villages as easy targets for raids. Large horse herds could exhaust pasture if kept in one area permanently.

For this reason, when the Basketmakers first began to settle down their villages were few and far between, with most people in the Basketmaker cultural complex continuing to live a semi-nomadic life. A few, however, began to build permanent dwellings out of stone and adobe near the more productive fields. In doing so, several abandoned herding when they built their villages on remote cliff tops and canyon walls, out of the reach of horses (and therefore raiders on horseback).

anasazi.gif


They did not abandon livestock completely, however. Trade from across the desert introduced domestic peccaries, which the Basketmakers would breed with captured wild sows from their local, more cold-resistant subspecies to create the winter-tolerant razorback breed. They also adopted the turkey, another Meso Columbian domesticate. Both animals were kept in pens and fed mostly on the village’s refuse, though sometimes peccaries were turned out to feed on cacti.

As time went on, the Basketmakers would expand their territory as more semi-nomads adopted village life, building stone corrals around their villages to defend themselves from raiders. With physical deterrents in place, raiding dropped as the nomads sought peace; they were as happy to trade peacefully as they were to conduct raids, swapping horse hide and bison skin for ceramics, baskets, and decorative items such as turkey feathers.

pueblo-pottery-esther-marie-versch.jpg


By the time the Woodland cultivars of corn were bred, corn had been grown on the Martial coast for millennia-as opposed to OTL’s Pacific coast, where maize was never grown before European contact. Trade across the deserts had brought the original strains of corn from the desert southwest, and the same trade brought the new, more productive versions. As in the desert southwest, most maize growers were semi-nomads who feared to settle permanently in any one place due to the threat of raids on sedentary villages.

The areas where the new forms of maize took off were the coastal fishing villages, hemmed in by pastoralists and cut off from the more productive gathering and hunting grounds. More eager to exploit new sources of food, these villages began to grow maize to supplement their seafood diet. Able to get all their food near their villages and freed from the need to spend time and energy inland away from the village, these people began to work on fortifications for their growing villages and improving their fishing and sailing technology.

Following the example of these first sedentary villages, the various semi-nomads of the Martial coast also began to settle into permanent villages, at least in the moister areas. Ironically, this would be the end stage of the coastal village’s absorption into the horse people’s culture: surrounded by fellow farmers, the coastal peoples would be absorbed into the greater Payic culture of the Martial Coast, their language and culture remaining only as loanwords related to the sea and sea animals in the Payic languages. More language diversity remained further north on the Martial coast, where the Yurok peoples (distant relatives of the Awey people) jostled with Payic and other language groups for control of pasture, hunting, and fishing grounds.
 
Hmmm let me think on it a bit. Several variables to consider.

Yes, it gets complicated especially with environmental constraints on growth. IOTL South America had a high population compared to America North of the Rio Grande-but seems to have a lot less room for expansion, given the jungles, mountains, and deserts that are extremely inhospitable even by desert standards. It's all rather complicated

Love the timeline by the way.

Thanks, that means a lot to me :D

Zireal said:
Love the timeline and the idea of vertical script. Subbed!

The vertical script should be appearing in the next couple of updates, after I post about the first Meso Columbian empires.

beserker said:
very much like this TL

subscribed

Thanks! I know we've talked about Native American POD's before. I think you've got some really interesting ideas in that area, and I hope this TL gives you food for thought.
 
Okay, let’s consider the impact of horses on population.

Now, first thing you have to realize is all these figures are basically statistical averages. Individuals can vary all over the map.

First, let’s take the concept of horsepower as a marker. In the 18th and 19th centuries, one of the primary labour animals was the horse. As people got into measuring things, and as steam engines began to emerge, people got very interested in trying to compare the respective labour accomplished by comparing horses to steam engines.

Now arguably, there’d been lots of situations where these comparisons might have come about before - horses vs cattle, horses vs cattle vs humans, horses vs windmills or watermills. But it was often apples and oranges and you usually didn’t get a lot of head to head competition in tasks performed, or even where tasks overlapped it was seldom a situation of choosing one to forego another. The choices tended to be intuitive and experience based. So humans picked fruit, and horses dragged plows.

But when you start getting into steam engines, then you’re looking at major investment. The prospective owner of a steam engine was going to be spending a lot of money as an investment in a commercial operation. It was important to know whether the steam engine would be a better investment than a team of horses. The work done by steam engines was repetitive and limited, but horses in those applications were doing the same thing. So it was becoming possible to measure, and measurement standards evolved.

So, essentially, one horsepower equals the amount of work that one horse can do over time. Machines are then measured as multiples of that kind of work. For the record, humans are generally capable of 0.1 horsepower, or one tenth the labour output of a horse. Somewhere in my endless boxes, I have a book titled "The Mechanics of Pre-Industrial Technology" which gives the horsepower output of various animals - camels, it turns out, come out on top of big domesticates hp.

I’ve also got another reference, you can find it online, "Animal Traction: Guidelines for Utilization" which gives more precise information and statistics on animal labour and comparative animal labour. I’ve referred to it several times elsewhere, if anyone wants to go looking for it. Generally, it shows a horse packing a load comfortably of about 15% of body weight. Generally, it can pull a plow at 10% of body weight, or drag a cart at 15 to 20%.

So much for the preliminaries.
 
 
Okay, so lets assume that an average new world horse can do ten times as much work as an average human. one hp for the horse, one tenth hp for the human.

Theoretically, we could then assert that every horse in a society is the labour equivalent of ten humans. So you could come up with an equation to determine the total amount of labour potential in a society, then divide that by the subsistence requirements produced by that labour, and come up with a population figure - representing how many extra human beings the labour of horses would provide you.

Doesn't quite work that way. Among other things, I'm just not that good a mathematician, so we'll just ballpark and flow a logic chain.

It doesn't work that way because a horse doesn't do exactly the same labour as a human being. They're good at dragging plows, pulling carts and travois, carrying packs. Things like pottery, not so good (Ghost would have been a completely different movie if it had horses instead of people).

Horse labour makes a huge difference, but only in specific areas. You can plow a lot more field with a horse than you can by hooking old dorothy or steve up.

On the other hand, there may be bottlenecks elsewhere in the process. Horses, what with the lack of opposable thumbs, are good at plowing cotton and corn, not so good at picking them come harvest time.

Another variable to consider is what kind of agriculture you have. The grain based agriculture of the old world was particularly suited to the sort of labour that horses could do. It's not necessarily always a good fit. A poor agricultural fit will leave a lot of the labour potential of horses unused.

On the other hand, horses are generally cheap to feed. So even a partially utilized labour potential can be a net benefit worth keeping them around.

Apart from pulling a plow, the other huge application for a horse is carrying or dragging weights around. Not inconsequential, but it does need to be considered carefully. Over long distances, water transport is the way to go for bulk, its the neolithic equivalent of anti-gravity.

But it's also occasionally inconvenient. If you don't have a convenient waterway, then its back to shlepping overland. So smaller volumes over long distances. Large volumes over short or medium distance.

Is this meaningful? Certainly. The ability to shift mass around has all sorts of applications for trade, for population densities in local areas, for construction and engineering. You can build more and bigger megalithic crap faster, and you can use that horsepower to build roads and canals or earthworks, just from a greater capacity to haul crap back and forth. A greater ability to perform local earthwork engineering can be used to translate into greater agricultural capacity.

So let's say we have a society that is very cunning, which has horse friendly agriculture, and effectively utilizes its horse-power in a maximum way, for agricultural draft and mass transportation. Human labour is then diverted to other more effective areas to maximize productivity.

Now, in subsistence economies, we've got a pretty strong bias towards agricultural productivity. Maybe 90% of the population is engaged in food production. Of that 90%, let's say that of their available labour, 20% is recreation/ceremonial, 40% is subsistence activities - cooking, sewing, chopping wood, building and maintaining dwellings, clothes, making tools, etc., and 40% is direct agricultural labour - planting, weeding, harvesting, plowing, etc.

If you're wondering, I'm just pulling these proportions out of my ass. If anyone has some good structural analysis of the breakdowns of labour in subsistence economies, be my guest. I'm always up for reading stuff like that.

But I've actually read a bit in this area, and have done some fieldwork on subsistence economies. I think that there's a lot of latitude for variance in this area, and that has to be recognized, so recognizing the arbitrariness of my estimates, lets call them educated guesses.

What's the impact of horses on a subsistence economy with a 20/40/40 ratio in terms of its disposition of labour? No effect on the 20. Minimal effect on the first 40.... horses don't sew or cook well, but not negigible, a lot of subsistence tasks directly or indirectly involve shlepping mass around - if you want to build a house, you need to drag the building materials around. So let's say generally, it contributes and extra 5 to 10. Significant effect on the last 40% - not overwhelming - there's a lot of stuff horses can't do, but on the other hand, their ability to drag a plow and shlep mass makes a big different. Let's say it contributes 20 to 30.

So in our subsistence culture, horses will contribute between 25% and 40% extra practical labour to the culture.

How that effect translates to the population can vary.

For instance, if you look at medieval europe, which utilized the horsepower of horses and watermills intensively, what you found was an astonishing amount of 'leisure'. It's been estimated that during this period, as much as 40 to 50% of peasants time was taken up not working but on various ceremonial days. People almost spent more time in church than in the field.

So conceivably, the labour surpluses that horses produce for a population might well simply be consumed in the form of more leisure, more recreation, or more 'ceremonial/religious' activity.

You could for instance see lots of mound building, ceremonial or religious earthwork or megalithic activity.

Or conceivably the labour surplus might go into more ambitious productive and practical engineering, canals, dams, earthworks, etc. Which would have its own multipliers.

Some caveats there - horses are grass eaters, hard to build huge urban densities of horses. Beyond a certain population density, you'd need to import lots of horse fodder to maintain them, and that's not necessarily an easy reach. So if your horse culture's labour surplus is diverted into religious or practical construction, its going to be distributed. Few pyramids, lots of local megaliths.

You might see a shift to more urbanisation, and more urban centers. Basically, the ability to shlep mass around, and an available labour surplus, might see more people showing in urban communities. More towns, more small cities.

You could see an increased population over time, as the population expands to consume the provided labour surplus. More people would mean more production and labour, more horses producing a further labour surplus to be consumed, and more practical engineering - canals, dams, irrigation systems, etc. which has its own contribution. Hard to guess the outer limits before it all flattens out. I'd say conservatively, in the long run you might double or triple your population. But that would take a while, think in terms of a 'old growth forest' culture.
 
As I've warned, let's keep in mind some variables.

You need basically good horse country - ie, some place that produces horse fodder/grass. That's actually pretty widespread. What you'll find is that a culture that embraces horses or cattle will devote a fair bit of effort to supporting horse or cattle - building barns, creating pasture, clearing forest.... basically, horse-terraforming.

There's a cultural learning curve to working with horses. Believe it or not, hooking up a horse to a cart is not a natural intuitive thing. Most likely, we analogize to things we do with humans. So the first use is to carry packs. Llama carried packs, but didn't do much else.

For things like hauling a cart, you'd have to generalize from a human activity - pulling a sleigh or travois. Horses don't push or dig, so if you have a push or dig style of agriculture.... it'll take a while to figure out how to use a horse to drag something. The sorts of plows that allow best use of a horse need to evolve.

One thing is that horses will provide such an advantage that meaningful innovations will spread rapidly, as people figure them out. It may take time to generalize and innovate, but once something works, it will spread. At times, this will seem revolutionary - the shift from human push to horse pull agriculture.

Harnesses, traces, tethers all need to evolve. The horse collar in the middle ages was revolutionary and doubled the labour capacity of horses. But that was a fairly late development. No telling where or if it will show up.

Magnifying horse power through teams of horses is also an innovation, not necessarily an automatic thing.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I've been talking about the effect of horses on an agricultural civilization.

What about nomads and hunter gatherers?

There are significant effects there. Let me outline them:

First, horseless hunter gatherers have much more limited mobility. Because they can't move around as much or as far their populations tend to be distributed more thinly. You might have a similar population density, but that population density translates to small family groups holding given small resource areas.

Family groups in small resource areas are vulnerable. If there's an exhaustion in their resource area, they're screwed. Their population is confined to the point of lowest production, they have bottlenecks.

Horses allow mobility, far more mobility, which means access to a larger resource area. This makes it easier to dodge local bottlenecks in resources. All the game hunted out in a local area? Leave. More mobility allows the population in a large resource area to congregate effectively. Instead of thinly distributed hunter/gatherer families, you've got tribes, bands, congregations, and from time to time as needed, larger assemblies.

The ability to concentrate population is a huge advantage in war. The horseless folk are screwed. The horse folk will spend a lot of time messing with each other, after the horseless have been wiped out or driven off.

Horses also provide stabillity of food supply - a lot of the bottlenecks of hunter/gatherers come from an unstable food supply. Your population is restricted to the lowest points of the unstable supply. With a stable food supply you're travelling with - horse meat, horse milk and horse blood, you can dodge the bottleneck. Your population is overall larger.

Finally, a hunter/gatherer population which is moving regularly is restricted to what it can carry on its back. This means that a lot of labour has to be repeated, because you can't carry the products of previous labour. Horses allow for more carrying capacity, more material culture, and therefore less wasted labour. Less wasted labour can be used for other productive things, or non-productive things.

So horse-advantaged non-farming cultures will have significant multipliers going for them, which will probably translate to population. There's going to be a lot more of them. And capacity, they'll have more tools, more weapons, more mobility and greater ability to concentrate its resources

At best, you'll have a culture which has the population to mount credible challenges to, and the speed, mobility and infrastructure to overwhelm agricultural societies.

Anyway, there you go. I hope that you find this helpful twovultures. I'm not sure if its exactly what you were looking for.
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much, DValdron! It's always good to have your advice, and to see you spell out the reasoning/research process. There's a lot of food for thought here, and I'll definitely be taking it into account.
 
Top