From: Alex Ferguson (abf@cs.ucc.ie)
Date: Mon 04 Sep 2000 - 22:06:43 EEST
Donald R. Oddy, replying to me:
> >You're implying that a bloodline is both a extension and a formalisation
> >of some more basic notion of a 'family', here. I'd question this
> >assumption. To take the Gaels, for them the derbhfine in
> >essence _is_ the family. It's not some abstract or higher-order
> >construct. (Whether this is best translated as 'bloodline' is
> >another matter. I don't myself think it's especially like the
> >Heortling variety. If you asked a H. who his 'family' were, you'd
> >likely get a list of the people who lived in the same hearth as he
> >did.)
> I think you are placing undue weight on legal texts here. While the
> Gaels had a legal definition of family (the derbhfine), that includes
> some pretty distant relatives and I do not think that this equates
> to the immediate family.
But what do you mean by 'immediate' family? The familiar modern
focus on nuclear families isn't necessarily the most helpful starting
point.
> IMO the derbhfine is closer to the extended
> family but not necessarily synonymous with what ordinary people
> regarded as the extended family. Certainly rural Irish culture still
> has the attitude of immediate family first, then extended family
> with anything else after that. And a person may become part of the
> *immediate* family by marriage if they are accepted. If not there
> can be some very nasty strains in family relationships.
Modern rural Irish cultural tells us more about modern culture
> >> So given that the family is the primary bond, it follows that if
everywhere, than it does about ancient Celtic practice, much
less about the Orlanthi.
> >> a couple come from different clans they technically become members
> >> of both clans on marriage.
> >
> >Since this is a quite different conclusion than John H and I arrive at
> >from reading KoS, I'd disagree what this 'follows' at all.
>
> Alternatively they legally remain members of separate clans which would
> make clan loyalties very weak where inter-clan marriages were common
That's what I think happens, but I disagree with your conclusion.
Your husband and children are still your kin, clan membership
nothwithstanding.
> >It's not that simple, since another clan is involved (in the cases
> >we're especially concerned with at present). Though I suppose
> >the local chief or ring gets to make this sort of decision in the
> >first instance, and then wait and see if the other party's clan
> >kicks up a stink about it...
>
> Yes, if the clans are part of the same tribe it would escalate to
> the tribal chief/ring. If not there is a very good chance of it
> developing into an inter-clan feud.
Or certainly a cause for raiding, legal suit, whining to the High
> >To put it (I hope) concisely: we know that the Orlanthi organise
King, and whatever else they manage to think of...
> >themselves into hearths, and steads, We know that they have
> >bloodlines, and clans. How do these relate to each other? Are
> >there certain invariable patterns? What the the common ones?
>
> One of the trickiest issues is how a bloodline can be defined
> in a society that is neither matriarchial or patriarchal. All
> the real world examples we have are either one or the other,
> mostly patriarchal, so a person is only of one bloodline. If
> the bloodline is just taken back to grandparents that's four,
> assuming marriage within bloodlines is not allowed.
Orlanthi society is generally patrin_lineal_, so that's not a problem
per se. Given an accepted ancestor, the membership is pretty
clearly defined. What I'm not really seeing much addressed, is,
what does a bloodline _do_, if it's a corporate entity, but notably
distinct from members of a given hearth, and members of a given
stead. If a bloodline sometimes corresponds to one of these, and
sometimes not, then having a distinct corporate existence seems
to me somewhat unlikely.
Cheers,
Alex.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 22:44:47 EEST