From: Alex Ferguson (abf@cs.ucc.ie)
Date: Mon 04 Sep 2000 - 23:15:15 EEST
Ian Cooper:
> KoS is 'historical'
> document, if it gives us too many problems we could
> favour the bloodline exogamy (which does not exclude
> clan exogamy). Perhaps clan 'exogamy' is the most
> virtuous state to aspire to like a marriage of equals,
> but not always possible.
I'm not convinced it's even that. I suspect it just varies a great
deal locally. It would depend a lot on the founding myth: if they
have a key myth that says they're all descending from the same
key, then exagomy is likely 'normative'. If their founding myth
says that their clan was founded as an act of deliberate
organisational fusion, I think bloodline-exogamy would be the
rule.
> Alex Ferguson
>
> On 'corporate' applied to agnatic kin-group or stead.
> >John H. is though, when he uses 'bloodline' in this
> sort of manner,
> >or so it appears to me, at least.
>
> Not sure, perhaps John can clarify.
I hope so! I'm inferring partly from comments he made off-list,
but I don't want to try and put words in his mouth.
> Generally immediate kindred (i.e. a derhfine) are out
> to 2nd cousin ('the five men'), your agnatic kin-group
> (the fine, which I am equating with bloodline) out to
> 4th cousin ('the seventeen men'). Vertically to
> grandfather in both cases.
Vertically to four or six generations respectively (or however
many of them are still trundling around, more to the point).
> In small clans there probably is only one, or one
> dominant 'corporate fine', but the size of many
> Orlanthi clans seem to be about 500-1000 individuals.
> IMHO this implies a number of 'descending kindreds'
> within a clan (they may have a common ancestor, but
> beyond the edge of the 'corporate fine' that
> relationship is not significant in law).
I think it's misleading to compare it to a 'corporate fine', but there
generally _is_ a corporate character to the clan itself, The Celtic
analogy takes one only so far -- and indeed most RW do, since I
can't really think of a comparable case which such a large, and often
explicitly amorphous, group has a corporate character to it. But
nevertheless I think it does. (c.f. bunfights ibid, such as whether
weregild was payable by clan or by bloodline) I know many people
seem keen to get rid of or tone this down (either due to its alleged
unplayability, its un-RW-ness, its crypo-Communism (and/or an
excessively Republican voting record on the part of the speaker <g>)),
but KoS and the Orlanthi info in _Genertela_ seemed to me fairly
clear on this point, so I'm sticking with it...
> A household is an economically co-operative unit, a
> bloodline is a corporate unit, the two may be
> distinct, and membership of a household is dynamic a
> bloodline 'static' (well 'static' not counting
> newborns or Orlanthi 85% exceptions). However the
> capital used in the stead is the property of one or
> more bloodlines (agreed the land belongs to the clan),
> who thus have a 'corporate' interest in its welfare
> (not necessarily implying common ownership, but wealth
> that will be inherited my members of the fine).
By corporate I thought you _did_ mean a degree of common
ownership. We may largely be befuddling each other with
terminology... While I agree that kinship has important for
inheritance, I'm still not sure that's a function of bloodline
per se either. The de facto collective property of stead and
hearth de facto stays where it is; clearly personal property
is likely claimed on a degree of kinship basis, cognatically
about as much as agnatically I think.
I think recurring (I dare not say 'invariable') patterns are
common ownership of property and social, and hence political
organisation at the stead and hearth levels. (Which may in
some cases be the same, in any event.) Often these will
correspond to male kin groups, whether a bloodline per se,
or just a part thereof. But what I don't really see happening
is bloodlines having much in the way of common property,
agreed leaders, common legal responsibilities, etc, _distinct
from_ those steads and/or households.
> A household may not even be a derhfine, but I suspect
> in many cases it is (for example Njal in Njal' Saga
> steads with his sons and their wives).
I concur.
> A derhfine is
> not a family either, although families exist within
> one, it is a legal unit of responsibility, you most
> immediate guarantors or protectors or patrons or
> clients.
I can't find a precise etymology for it, but the word basically
does actually mean 'family', or indeed 'real family'. (I can
offer than in modern Irish, 'dearbh' means "Real, true; own,
blood-; absolute") Not family in the modern sense, no. (I
think the 'a' is just a glide vowel, but that's a game I'm
notoriously bad at playing... I'll ask a colleague tomorrow,
even at the risk of provoking open laughter. <g>)
> However for me the closest analogy to a
> bloodline is not a derhfine but a 'corporate fine'.
Still not sure about much of a corporate aspect to it, but this
is more in line with 'IMG' as regards size (G for Game, since to be
honest I don't _know_ what most of 'my Glorantha' is like on this
score, just one small corner).
Cheers,
Alex.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 22:46:00 EEST