Figure 1
Schematic representation of the dual-catchment model used to simulate the prehistoric economy of the Alps in this paper (modified from Carrer et al. 2020). The grey areas are not considered in the model.
Table 1
The outputs of the mathematical model for the four alternative economic scenarios.
| OUTPUT | SCENARIO 1 | SCENARIO 2 | SCENARIO 3 | SCENARIO 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Cereal area (ha) | 49.86 | 50.42 | 34.53 | 61.33 |
| 2. Fallow (ha) | 99.72 | 100.83 | 69.06 | 122.66 |
| 3. Village grazing area (ha) | 94.67 | 47.88 | 79.82 | 37.26 |
| 4. Intermediate grazing area (ha) | 37.87 | 19.15 | 31.93 | 14.9 |
| 5. Upland grazing area (ha) | 113.61 | 57.45 | 95.79 | 44.71 |
| 6. Fraction of fallow area grazed | 0.95 | 0.47 | 1.16 | 0.3 |
| 7. Lowland meadow area (ha) | 14.58 | 7.37 | 13.05 | 6.09 |
| 8. Intermediate meadow area (ha) | 21.87 | 11.06 | 19.57 | 9.13 |
| 9. Fraction of fallow area for fodder | 0.15 | 0.07 | 0.19 | 0.05 |
| 10. Fraction of grazing area for fodder | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.61 | 0.61 |
| 11. Cereal yield (kg/ha) | 766.92 | 758.46 | 771.86 | 755.75 |
| 12. Fraction of field manured | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.04 |
| 13. Cattle (head) | 142.01 | 71.82 | 127.06 | 59.31 |
| 14. Sheep/Goats (head) | 157.79 | 79.8 | 141.18 | 65.9 |
| 15. Pigs (head) | 15.78 | 7.98 | 14.12 | 6.59 |
| 16. Ploughing time (days/person) | 2.97 | 3 | 2.06 | 3.65 |
| 17. Cereal reaping time (days/person) | 20.77 | 21.01 | 14.39 | 25.55 |
| 18. Grass cutting time (days/person) | 15.19 | 7.68 | 13.59 | 6.34 |
| 19. Sheep shearing time (days/person) | 0.11 | 0.06 | 0.1 | 0.05 |
| 20. Milking time (days/person) | 0.17 | 0.12 | 0.22 | 0.07 |
| 21. Cheese making time (days/person) | 6.39 | 9.92 | 17.55 | 3.34 |
| 22. Wool production (kg) | 157.79 | 79.8 | 141.18 | 65.9 |
| 23. Cheese production (kg) | 1022.47 | 1587.18 | 2808.09 | 533.79 |
| 24. Labour return (days) | 9.07 | 10.83 | 10.86 | 10.07 |
Figure 2
Covariance of cattle and sheep/goat usable meat, milk yield and land required for fodder. The grey circles represent the randomly simulated milk yield values; the dashed line represents the fodder area values.
Figure 3
Influence of cattle and sheep/goat body mass (usable meat) variability on the size of the areas used for crop farming and summer grazing. The lines represent variable animal weight with milk yield held constant (solid line for cattle, dashed line for sheep/goats). The circles represent variable animal weight with randomly simulated milk yield values (black for cattle, grey for sheep/goats).
Figure 4
Influence of cattle and sheep/goat milk yield (with animal weight held constant) on the size of the areas used for crop farming and summer grazing. The solid line is for cattle, the dashed line for sheep/goats.
Figure 5
Influence of fodder productivity per hectare (solid line) and of cattle milk yield (dashed line) on the size of the areas used for summer grazing.
Figure 6
Left, influence of the proportion of the population engaged in pastoral tasks (solid line) and of the time required to produce 1 kg of cheese (dashed line) on labour return. Right, influence of the proportion of the population engaged in cheese making (solid line), milking (dashed line) and wool shearing (dotted line) on the number of working days per person.
Figure 7
Left, correlation between cereal and upland grazing areas in the four simulated scenarios. Right, correlation between time dedicated to farming and pastoral tasks in the four simulated scenarios (person days). The dotted lines represent the predictions from a linear regression fitted on the four scenarios.
Figure 8
Correlation between land use and labour return in the four simulated scenarios. The grey dotted line represents the conventional labour return threshold suggested by Shukurov et al. 2015.