Re: Orlanthi Property

From: John Hughes <nysalor_at_...>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 00:25:00 +1000


Kewl Ian! I wasn't aware of the original meaning of 'odal'. Yes, I've always taken it in the Heortling/KOS sense of 'communal'. No wonder there's been confusion.

> It has always seemed to me the with the emphasis on Freedom in
> Hoertling culture (and its very Icelandic routes) their culture would
> be one in which inheritance was protected.
> it
> feels to me that it is changing Herotling farmers from landowners to
> tenants, and thus undermining the 'free' peasant notion for a
> medievel peasant.

My model uses a celtic-style inheritance, where private property is shared equally among all eligible heirs. My reasons stem from ethnographic models, including the prevalence of dowry. I'm working on the assumption that the concepts of elder male inheritance *and* private ownership of land are both DH/Lunar norms, and therefore are just one more Lunar evil unleashed on the tribes. I'm sure that the Heortling system is beginning to assimilate these concepts, and is therefore undergoing modification and change in the face of Lunar views.

I personally don't think the mindset would be as 'tenants' as the clan ring is usually representative of all interests, and the king is bluntly, more a ritual official than a landowner. Again, DH/Lunar views of kingship are spreading ('wow, so as a Lunar-style king I'd own everything - I LIKE that'. Where do I carve my rune?' :) and the system is working towards a new synthesis. Culture wars.

Perhaps I'm being overly romantic, but I'd see the concept of tula as much sacred and ceremonial as legalistic. Ancestral spirits, omens and animal powers are involved in the establishment of tulas as much as human need and greed. (Not that I'd want to underemphasise the latter).
>
> John's model does recognise that the KoS proposition that cattle and
> steads are also communal would undermine the Orlanthi legal system
> (how do you settle disputes between bloodlines in a clan if no one
> owns anything of value) and restores these to the bloodline.
> I
> would have said that taking land from one bloodline and assigning it
> to another would be a measure that would only rarely be undertaken
> and might lead to kinstrife, and be the stuff of sagas.
>
> Emphasis the communal nature of property within a bloodline, not the
> clan (I think that John's model does seem to handle this

My view of a bloodline is that a fairly fluid unit of labour, typically running a single stead or a section of a large stead. I keep going back to the analogy of a business organisation in which members own shares. I believe that bloodline membership is by nature fairly fluid and flexible: people argue, get jealous, move closer to their cult teachers or are forced to move because of changing populations or the variability of field and pasture resources. While based on kinship, bloodline membership is normative within a clan; that is, people are accepted using whatever real or fictive kinship links are acceptable. (Again, ethnographic evidence from similar kinship models shows us that often a large minority or even a majority of adults live and work in the 'wrong' bloodline!) While I would expect the bloodline elders to remain fairly constant, kinship is much more flexible in reality than our conceptual models may suggest. Because of this I would not want to invest too many ownership rights at the bloodline level.

Cheers

John

Powered by hypermail