>Definitely not. A bloodline, like a clan (if not
even more so), is
>a 'descent group', to borrow from the anthropology
books John H has
>swallowed <g>. (A patrilineal one, in 'all' of
Sartar.) Any
>correspondence between it and any 'corporate'
grouping is (in
>principle) co-incidental.
I'm not referring to the stead or household. John Locke once said most arguments are arguments about definitions so:
To paraphrase one of those "anthropology books John H has swallowed <g>" (Cattle Lords and Clansmen) there are three kinship groups of importance:
Cognatic or bilateral kinship groups - in which individual ties through both mother and father are important (you can inherit of mother's dowry and personal property but not her agnatic[patrilineal] kin-groups property)
Agnatic ties between individuals - patrilineal descent group (important for weregild and inheritance of property)
Both of the above are 'personal kindreds' i.e each person's circle is unique.
In addition there is the corporate agnatic kin-group also called 'the descending kindred'. The patrilineal descent group of which your bloodline forms a part. 'The purpose of the descending agnatic kin-group was to control the functions carried out in the personal agnatic kindred, acting as a watch-dog over individuals and branches of the whole corporate fine'.
When I refer to the 'corporate bloodline' it is to the corporate agnatic kin-group that I am trying to relate the pattern. I am not referring to the household or stead.
The three different forms of marriage can be seen as a clientship relationship and is certainly an economic one. In Brehon law the type of marriage affected the type of contracts that the partner could enter into. Only where both sides brough property into the relationship did both sides have repsonsibility for employment of capital in farming, taking and giving vattle loans etc. Because the usage of such capital would raise or lower the fortunes of the kin-group as a whole (the males will inherit this wealth) the women becomes part of the corporate aganitc kin-group (agreed she is not part of the personal agnatic kin group). Year marriages tende to be used to create a labour pool of temporary workers CL & Cm), under-marraiges were similiar but also legitmised the children as belonging to the father's patrilineal dscent-group i.e. they stood in line to inherit from the father, and as such would give the mother encouragement to see to the prosperity of that line for the sake of their children regardless of whether she was a member or not.
Her 'clan' is not the issue here. What is at issue it the ownerhip of capital. Her clan are her 'spiritual kin' (i.e. like god-parents in AS culture), and while she might be given new adoptive 'spiritual kin' it is probably not the norm.
One of the problems it using the Celtic model as KoS does is that the Celts were isogamous not exogamous. Although KoS is an inaccurate historical document :-)
Capital is everything. Look at the distribution of land in the Orlanthi system. Land is issued dependant on one's possession of the capital resources (oxen and plough) to work it. Farm steads would tend to form around carls or half-carls working in co-operation (stead sizes would obvioulsy vary, 30-40 individuals seems like an average number, but the economics of scale sugest that the larger the stead and more surplus the stead genberates the more likely you are to not have to sleep in the same building as the animals, have a seperate wash house etc). If a carl has more than one hide of land (enough for a family) he may well have cottars or thralls on his farm who work the other hides. If he has cattle/sheep/pigs he will need women and children to look after the animals, particulalry in the summer when transhumance will take the cattle to grazing lands in the mountains. If there are not enough on the stead year-marriages may provide them or adoption (Cl & Cm suggests that bilateral kin not in the agnatic kin-group were primary condidates for adoption so much so that the Welsh cennel ended up bilateral in effect though agnatic in law).
The capital you use and create will be redistributed throughout the corporate agantic kin-group. Your actions in law may cost the corporate agnatic kin-group capital, and they will recieve capital if you are killed. This focus on capital is what makes a 'corporate' group. The stead may be 'co-operative' but it is also 'corporate' because the household employs the capital that belongs to the kin-group.
Wives who bring capital participate in this 'corporate'relationship, those who don't don't.
Powered by hypermail