From: Ian Cooper (coops@dial.pipex.com)
Date: Thu 06 Jul 2000 - 01:39:23 EEST
David Dunham wrote
>> I disagree. If this were the case, then no killing within a clan
>> could be solved with wergild.
>Alex Ferguson wrote
With further research KoS seems to be in agreement with my earlier post on
KoS p.250
"The clan is the "overfamily" of several bloodlines..."
and
"The clan is responsible for overseeing marriages within its bloodlines,
Similarly
KoS p.260
"There can be no crimes against one's own kin of the bloodline".
On a seperate issue KoS however suggests contradictarily that it is
>Exactly my thinking.
Celtic/Saxon placement of responsibility for weregild within a bloodline.
justice among them and distributing the land commonly held by them all."
bloodlines and clans that are exogamous. Local prohibition probably varies
as we are told that the triarchy method of tribe alliance through
inter-marriage is now anachronistic (KoS p254).
Additionally I find it hard to reconcile the clan owning all of the cattle
on the tula, for cattle belonging to a bloodline would remain one of the
main resources used in the payment of fines. KoS p251 says that they are
the owners of herds but it does not state *all herds*, and suggests that
reallocation of grazing is used to reward bloodlines in favour; this would
imply that the bloodline had a use for that grazing. This would suggest
that in addition Orlanthi bloodlines own cattle as personal property (though
they maybe a cattle-loan from the clan to the bloodline). Perhaps the
problem has only recently arisen with the growth of Celtic influences on our
understanding of Orlanthi (although the 7 forms of marriage are directly
celtic). Note that KoS suggests that most bloodlines are agnatic p250 so
the patrilineal model for weregild distribution is probably most accurate
here.
Ian Cooper
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 21:55:01 EEST